Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7066, the Russia and Belarus Financial Sanctions Act.

I thank Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, and my co-lead on this bill, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), for their work in bringing forward this legislation.

This bill passed unanimously in the Financial Services Committee in March. The Russia and Belarus Financial Sanctions Act represents a significant step forward in imposing sanctions on Russia and on Belarus for their historic aggression.

I have spent 26 years on the Foreign Affairs Committee and well over a decade on the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus. I understand the importance of financial sanctions in changing Russia's behavior in part through my discussions with President Zelenskyy and other Ukrainian leaders who have pointed out that that is their Achilles' heel.

Chairwoman Waters and I have for several years been pushing to prohibit Americans from purchasing all new Russian sovereign debt and have passed that through the House several times. But that was before the invasion.

As has been explained by my colleagues who have spoken, we now have effective sanctions prohibiting U.S. financial institutions from engaging in a wide range of transactions with Russian and Belarusian individuals and entities--particularly the Russian Central Bank--many of the state-owned enterprises and financial institutions, and oligarchs.

But what people have not focused on is that these sanctions apply only to U.S. persons and do not apply to the over 1,000 foreign subsidiaries of American financial institutions. As we meet here today, foreign subsidiaries owned by U.S. financial institutions are engaging in the very financial transactions that we have prohibited if engaged by a U.S. institution. It is time to deal with this gaping loophole. That is why this bill requires all U.S. financial institutions to prevent their foreign subsidiaries from engaging in transactions prohibited to U.S.-based financial institutions.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important that this bill has acquired bipartisan support and shows that Congress comes together to deal with this outrageous invasion, and I urge my colleagues to support this timely legislation.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the accompanying three letters from Americans for Financial Reform, the Consumer Federation of America, and Public Citizen, which express support for my amendment, No. 573, which was included in En Bloc amendment No. 1 to

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4616) to deem certain references to LIBOR as referring to a replacement benchmark rate upon the occurrence of certain events affecting LIBOR, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today we show that the House of Representatives can deal with a really big problem before it becomes a crisis and before almost anybody even knows that there is a problem. We can deal with such a problem without drama, without deadlock, without partisanship. We can do it a year and a half before it all explodes, so as to give the Senate, the regulatory agencies,

and the private sector the time that they need to do this job long before the impending uncertainty disrupts our economy.

As co-chair of the CPA Caucus, I am here to certify that this is the most important genuinely boring bill that will come before this House this year.

Mr. Speaker, there are trillions of outstanding loans that have adjustable interest rates. The adjustment of these loans is tied to the London Interbank Offered Rates, known as LIBOR. LIBOR has been referred to as the most important interest rate in the world.

We are dealing here with adjustable rate mortgages, business loans and securities, and even some student loans. For many years LIBOR was the index. When LIBOR went up, the interest rate on these instruments would go up. When LIBOR went down, the interest would go down. For many years it worked well.

LIBOR is based on a survey of British bankers. A few years ago some British bankers lied and some went to jail. Our friends across the pond said they would stop publishing the LIBOR index. We asked them to keep doing it. They are going to stop on June 30, 2023.

Some $16 trillion of loans and business instruments will still be outstanding. Those instruments will specify that you calculate the interest rate based on LIBOR, and LIBOR will not exist.

These $16 trillion of loans and other business instruments do not specify what is supposed to happen if you go to calculate the interest rate based on LIBOR and there is no LIBOR. That is why they are called tough legacy LIBOR instruments.

We could do what all too often happens in Washington--we could ignore the problem. We could then leave it up to tens of thousands of class action lawsuits, hundreds of thousands of regular lawsuits, as borrower and lender try to figure out what interest rate would apply. That would be terrible for our economy and our court system.

We have got a better idea. The legislation before us today, H.R. 4616, the Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act, which will provide borrowers, investors, and all those in the financial space certainty as to what happens when LIBOR is no longer published.

Before I continue, I want to thank Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry, and their staff for working closely with me to get this bill on the floor today. I particularly want to thank Rob Robilliard of my staff who has poured his heart and soul into this bill for the entire year.

I am pleased to say that H.R. 4616 has received the support of 21 business organizations, I would say every business organization with a stake in this matter, including the American Bankers Association, the Independent Bankers, and the Chamber of Commerce.

I want to particularly thank Kristi Leo, President of the Structured Finance Association, for working with us on this bill. The legislation has also won the support of so many public interest groups, including the National Consumer Law Center and Americans for Financial Reform.

I particularly want to thank Andrew Pizor of the National Consumer Law Center for his assistance.

Not only has this legislation received support from these important organizations, but every word--and I mean every word--has been carefully reviewed by the Federal Reserve Board, the U.S. Treasury Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of Controller of the Currency, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We have revised it again and again based on their comments.

Each of these agencies has cleared on every word of the bill before us today. Once again, I want to thank the staff, particularly of the Federal Reserve, for their excellent work for helping us draft this legislation: Mackenzie Gross, Evan Winerman, and Mark Van Der Weide.

This text before us is a consensus product and all the agencies have signed off. We have worked with over 100 different organizations and groups, and to my knowledge none oppose the text that is before us today.

I want to thank the Alternative Reference Rate Committee, which was convened by the New York Fed which created the structured overnight finance rates, which are based on the treasury markets. Those markets are public, transparent, and not subject to manipulation. It is a broad market. Unlike the LIBOR rate, it is not subject to manipulation.

This bill provides that as to that $16 trillion of tough legacy LIBOR, pursuant to regulations published by the Fed, the various SOFR rates that are applicable will stand in for the LIBOR rate once the LIBOR rate is no longer published. It sounds simple, but let me tell you it has been a hell of a year as you try to get consensus on a bill affecting $16 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about why this bill is necessary and why it is so important. Just 2 months ago, October 20, the Federal Reserve, the CFPB, the FDIC in conjunction with the State Bank and Credit Union Regulators issued a joint statement stating that failure to adequately prepare for LIBOR's discontinuance could undermine the financial stability and safety and soundness of the institutions they oversee.

The Financial Stability Oversight Council, which we created in response to the 2008 meltdown, said that a cessation of LIBOR has the potential to significantly disrupt our financial markets. The SEC similarly warned that LIBOR's discontinuance may pose a significant risk to our stock and bond markets.

Secretary Janet Yellen and Federal Reserve Board Chair Powell told us that we need legislation to deal with this matter at the Federal level, and it is bipartisan. Steve Mnuchin testified to the same thing when he was Secretary of the Treasury in the Trump administration.

Finally, I should point out that Federal Reserve Chair Powell has told us that failure to deal with this presents a big financial stability risk to our entire economy.

As to the scope of this bill, it deals only with tough legacy LIBOR. It does not deal with those instruments that expire while LIBOR is still published, nor does it deal with those instruments that are created in the future and do not reference LIBOR.

There was an earlier draft of this bill that set forth the obvious, and that is the substitution of SOFR for the LIBOR index does not constitute a sale or exchange for tax purposes. We took that out because we wanted to move the bill quickly and not cause a referral to the Ways and Means Committee. Mostly we took it out because it was absolutely unnecessary.

It is very clear under existing tax law, the change of one index to another index that is incredibly similar, in this case, designed to be as close as humanly possible does not constitute a sale or exchange, but especially where that change is through the operation of law and where the change is necessitated because the original index is no longer published. The tax outcome is obvious and does not need to be part of the statute.

The last change we made in this bill was to add the words ``for purposes of the governing law of such LIBOR contracts'' to section 5(d). We did that to make it clear that we weren't dealing with any tax issue and anybody could hold it up to a magnifying glass and try to find a tax word in it. By putting these words in it we satisfied the Committee on Ways and Means. There is no taxation in this statute.

This law does deal and preempts the field with regard to all non-tax law, that means contract, commercial, financial law at both the Federal, State, and local level.

Finally, this act does not prescribe what interest rates ought to be used in the future. That is up to the parties involved. Nothing in this bill is designed to encourage the use of SOFR or any other particular benchmark interest rate, nor does it encourage or authorize any Federal regulatory agency to push any bank or other institution to use any particular rate in the future. That is up to them.

This bill deals with $16 trillion of tough legacy LIBOR. It is a consensus product. It is the result of the work of regulators, industry, and the public interest community.

Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, December 7, 2021.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Chairwoman, Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Waters: In recognition of the desire to

expedite consideration of H.R. 4616, the ``Adjustable

Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act of 2021,'' the Committee on Ways

and Means agrees to waive formal consideration of the bill as

to provisions that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the

Committee on Ways and Means.

The Committee on Ways and Means takes this action with the

mutual understanding that we do not waive any jurisdiction

over the subject matter contained in this or similar

legislation, and the Committee will be appropriately

consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation

moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues

within our jurisdiction. The Committee also reserves the

right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of

conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or

similar legislation.

Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter

confirming this understanding and would ask that a copy of

our exchange of letter on this matter be included in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 4616.

Sincerely,

Richard E. Neal,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to this gentleman's remarks about the process. First, this bill is a good bill. Vote for the bill. There is no doubt this bill is a good bill.

I don't need to talk about the process, but I will for just a second. As to whether we had sufficient hearings and enough hearings that match the interest of this House, we had a full hearing of my subcommittee on this, and it is not as if 400 Members of the House showed up and said: We are not a member of the subcommittee, but can we participate?

It is not as if the balcony is filled. It is not as if we deprived our colleagues of information they were anxious to obtain.

But it is not just one hearing of the subcommittee. I regarded at least a dozen of the hearings of the Financial Services Committee over the last 2 years as hearings on LIBOR. In my opening remarks, I quoted what Secretary Mnuchin said. He said that in response to my questions when he came before us at hearings. The gentleman knows that at least probably a dozen hearings that we have had at Financial Services where we had the Secretary of the Treasury, where we had the Chair of the Federal Reserve, where we had other experts, I asked a question about LIBOR. And if my colleagues had found this subject near as interesting as I do, they would have asked questions about LIBOR as well. So we had one hearing dedicated to LIBOR and a dozen and more hearings where those dedicated to LIBOR could have asked questions.

As to whether people in this House should think that we are interfering with the rights of businesses to transact business, I include in the Record a letter in support of this bill signed by 21 business groups basically, every business group that deals with any instrument tied to the LIBOR index.

December 7, 2021.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Republican Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader McCarthy: We, the

undersigned organizations, support H.R. 4616, the

``Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act,'' to address ``tough

legacy'' contracts that currently reference LIBOR. We

respectfully request the House of Representatives

expeditiously pass this legislation.

In June 2023, all tenors of US dollar LIBOR, one of the

most important financial benchmarks that underpins nearly

$200 trillion in financial contracts, will cease to be

published. As a result, there are trillions of dollars of

hard to modify financial contracts, securities, and loans

that use LIBOR--known as ``tough legacy'' contracts--that are

unable, before this end date, to either convert to a non-

LIBOR rate or amend the contracts to add adequate fallback

language to another rate. Without federal legislation to

address these contracts, investors, consumers, and issuers of

securities may face years of uncertainty, litigation, and a

change in value. This would thereby create ambiguity that

would lead to a reduction in liquidity and an increase in

volatility.

H.R. 4616 provides a solution for these ``tough legacy''

contracts that have insufficient fallback language and cannot

otherwise be amended among the parties. The legislation is

narrowly crafted to allow parties to contracts that already

have effective fallback provisions to opt-out of the

legislation and to only apply to tough legacy contracts so

that new or future business will not be affected. In

addition, the legislation offers uniform, equitable treatment

for all U.S. contracts that fall under the federal

legislation. It creates a safe harbor from litigation for

parties that are covered by the legislation and prevents

otherwise inevitable litigation costs and gridlock. The need

for uniform federal legislation has been expressed by

consumer groups, investors, financial regulators, and

industry participants.

We thank the House Committee on Financial Services for

providing a bipartisan solution that offers fair, equitable

and consistent treatment for all ``tough legacy'' contracts

in support of the LIBOR transition by passing H.R. 4616 out

of the committee by voice vote. We wholeheartedly support the

Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act and ask that you and all

Members of the House of Representatives vote in favor of this

critical legislation.

Sincerely,

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association

(SIFMA); Structured Finance Association (SFA); Bank Policy

Institute; National Association of Corporate Treasurers;

Education Finance Council; The Loan Syndications and Trading

Association (LSTA); The International Swaps and Derivatives

Association (ISDA); The Real Estate Roundtable; The Financial

Services Forum; Institute of International Bankers;

Government Finance Officers Association.

Mortgage Bankers Association; Commercial Real Estate

Finance Council (CREFC); Consumer Bankers Association;

Investment Company Institute; Institute for Portfolio

Alternatives; Independent Community Bankers of America; U.S.

Chamber of Commerce, Center for Capital Markets

Competitiveness; Housing Policy Council; Student Loan

Servicing Alliance; American Bankers Association; The

American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI).

Finally, as to the issue, I agree with the gentleman that I would like to have had this bill come up 2\1/2\ years before LIBOR ceased to be published. We are bringing this to this House 1\1/2\ years before LIBOR ceases to be published. Compared to everything else in Washington, that is record time. I speak today on a fiscal year that began October 1 where we hope to pass the appropriations bills in February. Dealing with a problem 1\1/2\ years before it happens may not be 2\1/2\ years in advance, but it is good compared to everything else I have seen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to my Republican colleagues who may be watching: You don't have to trust the 21 business groups who have signed the letter that I just included in the Record, and you don't have to trust me. Listen to the words you just heard from our colleague, Mr. Hill: This bill does not increase government or regulatory power. You ought to vote for the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be thrilled.

Will the gentleman yield?

This bill reflects an awful lot of work by the regulators, particularly the Fed.

Absolutely.

I have long advocated for a unicameral legislature.

If I can comment on that further?

The Senate has addressed this issue, and they have discussed the bill. Most of the commentary has been positive. There was a recent hearing.

In particular, I believe that Mr. Toomey had a concern that somehow this bill would influence future instruments and that somehow regulators would be pushing banks, particularly smaller banks, to use SOFR in the instruments they draft in the future. That is why the report that accompanies this bill makes it excruciatingly clear that nothing in this bill authorizes, directs, encourages, or allows a regulator to point to this bill and say: Now, bank, you need to use SOFR in the instruments used in the future.

Nothing in this bill authorizes a regulator to push or give a preference to any other regulation. The report language was drafted with Senator Toomey in mind.

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

I will simply comment again, for the record. This bill deals with tough legacy LIBOR instruments drafted in the past, and nothing in it-- and you can look at every word of all 22 pages--nothing in it would allow anyone to say you have got to use SOFR, or you ought to use SOFR, or we give you a preference to use SOFR, or any other benchmark in any instrument you draft in the future. And just in case that wasn't excruciatingly clear, we put it in the report as well.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the right to close. I have no other speakers, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am prepared to close.

As to the process, we have had a dozen hearings with the top financial officials in the U.S. Government over a period of 2 or 3 years at the full committee, in which it was appropriate and, in my case, I used this opportunity to bring up the LIBOR issue. They have testified again and again that we need Federal legislation.

Then the six regulatory agencies involved each have reviewed this down to the comma, and we have had discussions, down to the comma. They have helped us draft legislation.

My hope is that we not only pass this legislation today, but that my Republican colleagues help me pass this bill through the Senate in the current form. You want a form that reflects the regulators? Every comma reflects what the regulators would like to see.

It is important that this bill not be held up in the Senate by those who want to change existing law and say, well, not only should this act not allow a regulator to push a bank toward this or that index, but if any other law gives the regulators the power to do that, we should strip that authority from them. That is not the purpose of this bill.

If somebody wants a bill titled, regulators shouldn't be pushed to telling banks what to do on indexes, I will work with the gentleman, if he wants to, on a freedom to pick your own index bill. This is a bill to just deal with LIBOR.

So my hope is that we will have Republican House Members who urge the Senate to move quickly because, yes, it would have been better to deal with this issue 2\1/2\ years in advance. We have dealt with it 1\1/2\ years in advance; a full hearing, a full markup, a full opportunity for anyone to submit amendments at that full markup, and a dozen hearings, at which it was appropriate to address questions--at least I did--of the top officials in our country dealing with financial matters about the importance of LIBOR.

This bill is important because it deals with $16 trillion of instruments where we will not be able to calculate how much the borrower must pay the lender after June 30 of 2023 unless we pass this bill.

This is a consensus product. The consumer and public interest groups, the business groups, the regulators, and we are passing it and need to pass it expeditiously so that we deal with this issue long before it disrupts our financial markets.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to offer and support the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Sherman-Waters amendment, No. 746.

Madam Speaker, for quite some time, Chairwoman Waters and I have been in favor of strong sanctions against Russia for interference in our elections.

Now, I don't want this to be partisan. There is this idea that only Democrats care about protecting our elections from Russian interference. That is not the case.

When the Senate was controlled by Republicans, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report stating: ``The Russian Government engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election.'' But there are those who think that perhaps President Trump did not believe that Russia tried to influence our elections.

Putting aside 2016, what did the Trump administration say about our 2018 election?

On September 30, 2019, the Trump Treasury Department announced sanctions in response to Russian interference in our 2018 election, and then the Trump administration imposed sanctions on a ``Russian agent'' for trying to influence our 2020 election. Partisanship stops at the water's edge.

We need to stop Russia from interfering in our elections. Both parties have imposed sanctions on Russia for doing so. The question is how we make those sanctions effective.

Existing sanctions apply to the purchase of sovereign debt--this is debt issued by the Russian Government--but only when you are acting as the underwriter, not purchases in the secondary market. That is ineffective.

In May of this year, the Russian Deputy Finance Minister told us that when he said sanctions-imposed restrictions don't cover the secondary market and so they are going to be ineffective or, in his words: ``So we don't expect the share of nonresidents to move far from the current levels.''

We need to listen to the Russian Deputy Finance Minister as to how to make the sanctions that both Democrats and Republicans agree on more effective. The sanctions imposed here will raise the cost of borrowing of the Russian Government by between half a

percent and three-quarters of a percent based on a rating by ACRA.

Further, it is good economic policy. We have a scarce amount of investment capital in the United States. I want to see it invested in American businesses, either in stock or as loans by our banks and others to our companies.

Can anybody make the argument that we are worse off if money is invested in American companies instead of being lent to Vladimir Putin?

There is no credible argument as to why American pension plans, asset managers, and households should be funding the Russian Government at a time when, in 2016, 2018, and 2020, both parties and former President Trump realized that Russia was interfering in our elections and deserves to be sanctioned. Let's make those sanctions effective by adopting this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I see no substantive reason why the ranking member is opposed to this amendment. Both parties agree Russia has interfered in our elections in 2016 but more recently in 2018 and 2020. Both parties and the Trump administration agree that Russia should be sanctioned. But the Deputy Finance Minister of Russia pointed out that our sanctions so far have not been effective, that they are not effective until they apply to the secondary market.

That is exactly what this amendment does. It is time to raise the cost of borrowing by the Russian Government and to see that money invested in American businesses, lent to American companies, instead of being lent to the Russian Government.

Madam Speaker, I hear no substantive argument against that proposition, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have noted ``YEA'' on rollcall No. 201.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. I want to thank my colleague and co-chair of the House Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, Mr. Chabot, for joining with me in introducing this resolution.

Mr. Chabot and I introduced this resolution recognizing the devastating impact that COVID-19 has had on India and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives about the need to provide the maximum possible assistance to India.

The House has a long, bipartisan record of supporting and strengthening the relationship between the United States, the world's oldest democracy, and India, the world's largest democracy.

I also want to thank Chairman Meeks and Ranking Member McCaul for working with us on this important resolution, and thank my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee for passing this resolution unanimously.

The COVID-19 outbreak in India requires a global response. We know that the COVID epidemic is not limited by international borders, and the pandemic will not end anywhere until it ends everywhere, as the chairman pointed out.

This is particularly true with regard to variants and we are aware of the delta variant that is now spreading.

Until we can vaccinate the world, there will be millions, billions of opportunities for this virus to infect; where it infects, it replicates; where it replicates, it mutates and poses the risk of developing a strain that, unlike the strains we have dealt with so far, evades the vaccines that we have developed.

We have been working in a bipartisan manner to address the devastating effects of this second COVID-19 wave in India. Official testing results indicate that India has seen more than 340,000 daily infections and over 4,000 daily deaths. But many public health officials believe these numbers understate the matter, and that perhaps upwards of 2 million people a day have been infected in India.

Of course, we have seen a slight abatement in those horrific numbers, but the problem remains.

I want to thank the Biden administration and commend them for organizing so many parts of the U.S. Government, the CDC, HHS, USAID, the State Department, in getting materials to India that will help vaccine production, provide rapid COVID testing and, most importantly, oxygen support, particularly, oxygen concentrators and, of course, PPE to help save lives.

This resolution is part of the ongoing effort of the India Caucus to help India at this time of need. Earlier this year, we sent a bipartisan request to the President requesting that we increase our assistance to India in battling COVID-19, particularly focusing on the raw materials necessary to manufacture vaccines and oxygen concentration equipment.

By early May, the United States had provided over $100 million worth of medical supplies, including that oxygen support, and PPE, rapid diagnostic tests, and therapeutics.

USAID also facilitated the delivery of 440 oxygen cylinders and concentrators to India, generously donated by the State of California.

We should recognize the substantial support of the American public. In response to India's crisis, the Indian-American community has contributed significantly to the effort; individuals, along with the private sector, continue to do so.

Indian-American companies, such as Prime Healthcare, are working to assist efforts, not only to deliver necessary medical supplies, but also ensure that they reach the people most in need. And the U.S.-India Business Council has worked to coordinate a coalition of corporations, nonprofits, and individuals to deliver thousands of ventilators and oxygen concentrators to India.

This resolution stands with the people of India as they collectively work to stem the spread of COVID-19, urges the administration to facilitate private and in-kind medical supply donations, and urges the delivery of urgently needed supplies to India.

This resolution recognizes the importance of work by the U.S. Government and of Indian Americans in the private sector.

There is no doubt that the U.S.-India relationship is growing closer, and that our assistance to India, to help overcome this terrible COVID wave, is a critical part of building that relationship.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 5 years, we have seen a 40 percent increase in anti-Semitic hate crimes. Most are lone wolf property crimes, late at night.

But last night in Los Angeles, we saw something new: organized violence. A small caravan of SUVs, waving Palestinian flags, drove to a significantly Jewish neighborhood. Dozens of men, wearing all black, with faces covered, disembarked at a restaurant, chanting ``death to the Jews.'' They demanded that diners either answer the question: ``Are you Jewish?'' And if they answered ``yes'' or they objected to the question, they were beaten, some sent to the hospital.

Nearby, an Orthodox Jew, dressed distinctively, was chased down by a caravan waving Palestinian flags. He ran for his life, and thank God, he found safety.

The Los Angeles Police Department will investigate these hate crimes. I also ask that those who criticize the Israeli Government to avoid rhetoric which will infuse these anti-Semites with the view that they are somehow part of the American mainstream.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank our colleague from Texas (Mr. Taylor) for working with me on this bill, the Homebuyer Assistance Act of 2021. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentleman from Missouri for doing an excellent job of explaining the importance of this bill to the House, so I will be brief.

There is no more important day in the economic life of a family than when they buy a home, particularly, their first home, and appraisers play an important role in that very important day. So this bill looks to bring into synchrony the rules of the FHA dealing with appraisers, the FHA being the third-largest Federal home loan finance agency, bring those standards into conformity or rough conformity with the two larger Federal home loan finance agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This will help deal with the shortage of appraisers that we are seeing in various parts of the country. Appraisers are an important part of the home-buying process for both lenders and borrowers to provide assurance that the amount of the mortgage is supported by the estimate property value.

Since 2010, all the State-licensed home appraisers have been required to meet minimum Federal education experience and examination requirements set by the Appraiser Qualifications Board.

So the standards set by the Appraiser Qualifications Board are fully sufficient for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and they should be for the FHA as well. Unfortunately, until this bill passes, appraisers for FHA mortgages must meet the higher standard. This creates a shortage of appraisers who can do FHA appraisals.

By helping address the shortage of appraisers that plague many areas, this legislation will provide much-needed assistance for first-time, low-and-moderate income and minority homebuyers who rely on FHA mortgages or rely on mortgages that may become FHA mortgages during the process.

Over 83 percent of the FHA home mortgages made in 2018 were to first- time homebuyers and over one-third of all FHA loans were obtained by minority households. I am pleased to say that with the support of this House, we passed the Homebuyer Assistance Act in 2019 with overwhelming bipartisan support, 419-5.

Today, I hope the House renews that wisdom, and I hope to see a similar level of wisdom in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, Hamas has fired 1,600 rockets into Israel. Each rocket is a war crime, for each was fired solely for the purpose of killing as many civilians as possible.

President Biden has declared, unwaveringly, our support for Israel's right to defend itself. We grieve every civilian death, Israeli and Palestinian. We cannot accept at face value reports of Palestinian deaths since they come from Hamas, a terrorist organization, recognized as such by both the U.S. and the EU.

Hamas has caused many Palestinian deaths since one-quarter of its rockets aimed at Israel actually explode in Gaza, and because Hamas locates its military operations in civilian neighborhoods, using human shields.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Israel for its efforts to avoid civilian casualties while striking successfully at terrorists. I want to commend this Congress for funding Iron Dome, which has successfully avoided so many Israeli civilian deaths.

Madam Speaker, it's appropriate for me to republish my statement of March 11, 2019 on the meaning of cosponsoring legislation. Much of that statement was a republication of my statement of September 29, 2010, as I've maintained a consistent policy on this issue. The following is a republication of my statement of March 11, 2019.

``Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, September 29, 2010, stated for the Record:

`Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify that when I cosponsor a bill, it does not necessarily mean that I agree with every part of it. At n minimum, my cosponsorship indicates that I support moving the bill forward through the legislative process, including being marked up in committee, and if sent to the floor by the relevant committee(s), then subject to consideration and amendment on the floor.'

Let me reiterate that 2010 statement and provide additional background. I believe in the legislative process. I believe bills are improved during committee mark-ups and by consideration of amendments on the floor. The effect of cosponsoring a bill is to signal to the relevant committee chair(s) that I believe the bill should be marked-up in committee, a process that may well improve the bill (and in some cases may make the bill worse). When I decide to cosponsor a bill after it has completed the committee process, I do signal to the Speaker and Rules Committee that I believe the bill should be considered on the floor, and almost always under an open rule.''

Madam Speaker, I stand in solidarity with the Armenian American community in commemorating the pogroms against Armenians in the cities of Sumgait (February 27-29, 1988), Kirovabad (November 21- 27, 1988) and Baku (January 13-19, 1990).

Thirty-three years ago, in the Azerbaijani town of Sumgait, peaceful Armenian residents were brutally targeted on the basis of their ethnicity and subjected to unspeakable crimes. The New York Times reported Armenians being ``hunted'' down and an account of a pregnant Armenian woman, who had been disemboweled. The U.S. Senate passed an amendment in July of 1989, noting that even the Soviet government had termed the murder of Armenians in Sumgait a ``pogrom.''

The Sumgait Pogroms were the beginning of an escalation of violence against the Armenian minority, with a wave of anti-Armenian violence spreading to Kirovabad in November 1988 and to Baku in January 1990, which culminated in the forcible expulsion of 390,000 Armenians from Azerbaijan and the 1991-94 war over Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh).

In response to the Sumgait and Kirovabad pogroms, over 100 leading academics and human rights advocates, including the Executive Director of the NAACP and Elie Wiesel, placed an advertisement in The New York Times titled: ``An Open Letter to International Public Opinion on Anti- Armenian Pogroms in the Soviet Union.'' The letter appealed to the international community to condemn the atrocities and prevent further violence by stating: ``The international community of states . . . must prove the authenticity of its commitment to human rights in order to ensure that, due to indifference and silence bordering on complicity, another genocide does not occur.'' (July 27, 1990, The New York Times)

Unfortunately, Azeri attacks against Armenian civilians have only continued. In its latest bout of aggression against Armenia and Artsakh in the fall of 2020, Azerbaijan carried out indiscriminate attacks against civilians. A report by Human Rights Watch found that Azeri forces used inherently indiscriminate cluster munitions and artillery rockets or other weapons that did not distinguish between military targets and civilian objects. Multiple strikes hit residential homes in less than a minute, suggesting bombardment of civilian areas.

Today, Armenians are still held captive in Azerbaijan, with no planned date to be returned to Armenia. Armenian prisoners of war have been subjected to physical beatings and other inhumane treatment at the hand of Azerbaijan. The government of Azerbaijan must be held accountable by the international community, and I will continue to work in Congress to shed light on and learn the lessons of such past and present atrocities.

Madam Speaker, at the direction of the Democratic Caucus, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, how ironic. An administration begins by building an unnecessary wall on our southern border, it ends by making necessary, a new wall around this Capitol.

Madam Speaker, I introduced Articles of Impeachment in July of 2017 with one cosponsor, Al Green, and again in January of 2019. And on Monday night, I joined with so many of us in introducing these articles. I have introduced Articles of Impeachment in the 115th, 116th, and 117th Congress because Donald Trump has continuously posed a danger to this republic.

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

Mr. Chair, one programming note: At this point in the schedule, we were scheduled to deal with three Sherman amendments, No. 20, No. 21, and No. 22.

No. 22, also in the Rules Committee numbering No. 83, was included in an en bloc adopted by this House last evening.

Amendment No. 20, Rules Committee No. 301, is not being considered at this time because it will be included in an en bloc that comes up later today.

So we are now focused on No. 21, Rules Committee No. 82, and I rise in support of that amendment.

Mr. Chair, on September 1, 1983, Korean Air Lines 007 was shot down-- 269 casualties, including a Member of this House, Congressman Larry McDonald.

On July 17, 2014, Malaysia Airlines number 17 was shot down--298 casualties.

If there is one thing this House can agree on, it is that we are opposed to shooting down--especially, deliberately shooting down-- civilian aircraft. And yet the Government of Azerbaijan has stated, with regard to flights going into Stepanakert Airport, that they envision the physical destruction of airplanes landing in that territory.

This threat has been repeated several times by Azeri officials, and in times past, Azerbaijan has actually shot at civil airliners going into Stepanakert Airport. That is why this amendment is necessary. It prohibits the transfer of Defense Department articles to Azerbaijan unless the President can certify that the weapons being transferred will not threaten civilian aviation.

It would be a tragedy if a civilian airliner were shot at or shot down as it landed or took off from Stepanakert Airport in the Republic of Artsakh. But if that, God forbid, ever happens, let it not be an American weapon.

We are on notice that antiaircraft weapons transferred to Azerbaijan may very well be used against civilian aircraft. That is why it is necessary for us to have this provision.

After 23 years of studying these issues on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am not convinced that we should transfer any weapons, under any circumstances, to the Government of Azerbaijan until it comes to the table and resolves the Artsakh dispute. But, certainly, we should not, having been put on notice, transfer weapons that we cannot be sure will not be used to shoot down civilian aircraft.

I am pleased to have the cosponsorship of this amendment by Representatives Speier, Schiff, and Pallone, and I believe that this is a necessary step. Because, as we provide weapons to countries around the world, we should not provide antiaircraft weapons that we believe might very well be used to shoot down our civilian aircraft.

I would point out that the Stepanakert airport is located in the Republic of Artsakh, previously known as the Republic of Nagorno- Karabakh, a historically Armenian territory that was lumped in with Azerbaijan by no less than Joseph Stalin in a deliberate effort to create ethnic tensions in the Caucasus to the benefit of the Soviet Union and in an effort to punish the Armenian people.

The people of Artsakh established their independence decades ago, and whatever your view as to the status of that territory, you should support this amendment unless you believe it is appropriate to shoot down civilian aircraft.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for including my amendment in the en bloc. This amendment is cosponsored by Chairwoman Waters.

Russia interfered in our election. To date, our sanctions have been illusory. A few individuals have been told they can't get visas to visit the United States. They will never see Disneyland.

This amendment provides real, serious sanctions on the Russian state by saying that no U.S. person can make additional purchases of Russian sovereign debt.

It provides a mechanism for removing these sanctions. If the administration concludes that Russia goes just one election cycle without interfering in our election, and if Congress agrees with that conclusion, then these sanctions are lifted.

Finally, the amendment narrowly defines interference in our elections. It makes it plain that if Russian television wants to editorialize or Putin wants to put out a press release, that is fine. Rather, it is interference in our election where Russia interferes with voter tabulation or voter registration processes, where Russia steals information for the purpose of influencing our election, or where Russian hackers use false flag communications pretending to be American spokesmen when they are not.

We need a serious mechanism to punish Russia for what they did in prior elections and to deter them from interfering in our future elections. This amendment does that, and I am pleased to include it in the en bloc.

Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, I want to draw attention to the ongoing problem of terrorism in Kashmir and the often-overlooked plight of the Kashmiri Hindu Pandits.

On February 14, 2019, a terrorist attack in Kashmir killed 40 Indian Central Reserve Police Force personnel. This attack was perpetrated by an operative of Jaish-e-Mohammed, a U.S. and UN-designated terrorist group. Then, on June 13, 2019, 5 Indian Central Reserve Police Force personnel were killed in another terrorist attack in Kashmir perpetrated by Al Umar Mujahideen, a different terrorist organization. These attacks are hardly unusual--over the years, thousands of civilians and security personnel have been killed in terrorist attacks in Kashmir.

The United States has been attacked by terrorist groups similar to the ones in Kashmir. It is therefore imperative that we stand with India in this time of need.

The Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has historically had a culture of religious tolerance and pluralism, where Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Christians practiced their faith freely in an atmosphere of mutual respect and peace. The violence the region has witnessed in recent decades has eroded this tradition. One group that has suffered as a result is the Kashmiri Pandits, who have lived in Kashmir for centuries. By some estimates, 300,000 Pandits once lived in Kashmir. Today, by some estimates, only 3,000-5,000 remain. This is a tragedy that is too often ignored. Sadly, the violence in Kashmir is likely to continue until different sects restore the tradition of religious tolerance and pluralism.

To conclude, I ask my colleagues to co-sponsor H. Res. 408, which Congressman Perry, Congressman Krishnamoorthi, and I introduced in May 2019. Besides condemning the February terrorist attacks, this resolution acknowledges that the House of Representatives supports the rights of religious and other minorities around the world, including the Kashmiri Pandits.