Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Monsignor Zenz, a staple in southeast Michigan and the pastor of Holy Name Catholic Church.

Ordained almost 40 years ago, Monsignor Zenz received a doctorate in spiritual theology in 1984 and has served the faculty at Sacred Heart for over 35 years.

Starting as a weekend associate at my hometown parish in Birmingham, Michigan, Monsignor Zenz became the pastor at Holy Name in 2008, where he has faithfully served our community since.

He also serves on the board at the Academy of the Sacred Heart and chaplain to the Detroit Chapter of the National Christ Child Society. He is currently a chaplain to the Detroit Cardinal Club and has extensive experience working with Catholic Network of Detroit, ensuring God's word reaches as many homes as possible.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to host Monsignor Zenz here today, and I want to thank him for his tireless service and dedication to southeast Michigan. We should all strive to serve our communities with the same rigor that Monsignor Zenz demonstrates on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of William Pulte, Sr. He passed away earlier this month at the age of 85.

In 1950, at the age of 18, Bill Pulte started building and selling homes in southeast Michigan. In 1956, he founded Pulte Homes, known today as the Pulte Group. Over the next 50 years, he grew the company into the largest homebuilder in the United States.

Bill Pulte was a legend in the business world, but his legacy is one of great devotion to his family and community. He was involved with the Angel Fund, a group which anonymously provides families in Detroit with shelter. His philanthropy helped Cornerstone Schools provide thousands of young people in Detroit with a great education, and his passion for homebuilding took him all the way to Central America to help its poorest communities.

So it is most appropriate that we pause today from our Nation's business to remember and celebrate the life of Bill Pulte. His hard work, devotion, and vision changed the world for the better, and for that, we thank him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act.

I thank my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) for his leadership on this bipartisan, commonsense bill.

This is a commonsense piece of legislation that is sponsored by two Republicans, two Democrats. It passed out of our committee with a vote of 42-17. It is the kind of bipartisan solution that the American people expect from their elected officials.

Yet, opponents of this bill want people to believe that it will hurt consumers. We heard similar rhetoric on the recent tax bill passed in Congress. In fact, we still hear it, even though millions of Americans are getting bonuses, taking new and better jobs, and seeing their savings account grow.

Now, let's be clear. This bill will allow banks and credit unions to sell certain loans to investors, thus diversifying their risk and freeing up capital that can be used to issue more loans in local communities. Imagine that.

Why is this commonsense legislation necessary?

A recent case out of the Second Circuit ruled that certain loans would be valid when held on the books of a bank, but would be invalid the minute they are sold to investors.

I fail to see how a loan becomes more dangerous, usurious, or otherwise problematic because the owner of the loan has changed. This is like saying a house's roof becomes leaky the minute you sell it to your neighbor. This is the sort of logic that can only thrive in Washington.

What happens when banks and credit unions can no longer sell loans on the public market?

They issue fewer loans. Fewer young parents can get a mortgage for their new home. Fewer single mothers can get a loan for a new car. Fewer students can get a critical loan to pay for their first year of college. Fewer businesses can get loans to bring innovative ideas to the market to create jobs.

This bill is not rent-a-bank. It will not result in usurious interest rates.

I recently was at a restaurant and I struck up a conversation with the waitress. She can't get a mortgage. She can't buy a home, even though she and her husband have good credit. That is the kind of problem we are trying to address.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the opponents of this bill to put aside politics and to join me in supporting legislation that will help young families, new businesses, and students. This bill will make credit accessible, and I urge all Members to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan, commonsense Mortgage Choice Act, sponsored by the Congressman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga). Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, which will make mortgages more affordable for low- and moderate-income families.

In the wake of the financial crisis, Congress directed the CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to create a definition for so- called qualified mortgages. Congress wanted to ensure that consumers were not sold predatory loans and that good faith investors were not buying mortgages designed to fail.

Unfortunately, the Bureau's rulemaking drove originators from the industry and made loans more expensive in the process. This burden will fall mostly on low- and middle-income families, the very people the CFPB was created to help.

The rule promulgated by the CFPB czar limits consumer options, causes consumers to pay more, and does nothing to make mortgages any safer. It is this sort of illogical rulemaking that makes Michiganders more and more frustrated by what they see in Washington. We need to ensure that our government prosecutes fraud, predatory lending, and unethical practices, but it should not be in the business of undermining an industry that plays such a critical role in the dream of homeownership.

You know, when mortgages become more expensive, it is America's low- and middle-income families that suffer the most. Homeownership is the cornerstone of the American Dream. It builds communities, provides families with stability, and, hopefully, creates equity for retirement. The government should be helping this dream, not creating silly, illogical obstacles.

Over the past several years, I have worked with my colleagues to refocus the Bureau on its core mission of protecting consumers. I am glad that Acting Director Mulvaney has begun to do so, and I am encouraged that Congress is doing its part to rein in this rogue bureaucracy.

This bill does nothing to threaten the underlying safety of the QM rule and does not erode vital consumer protections. It simply helps ensure that consumers have choices to reduce their mortgage costs along the way.

Now, the ranking member opposes this bill, as she believes it will usher in a new era of fraudulent subprime, dangerous loans riddled with kickbacks and inflated title fees. I am not sure how money held in escrow would ever be a kickback, and her description of the title industry is completely incorrect. It is a highly regulated industry in most States, and the State that she mentioned, Illinois, is extremely competitive and extremely regulated.

I am not sure what bill the ranking member believes we are debating today, but the Mortgage Choice Act will not result in any of the problems she describes--all great scare tactics, great theater, a great political sound bite, but, unfortunately, all fiction, all inaccurate. Her flip-flop on this bill is at least, at the minimum, very puzzling; but, if everything she says is correct, I certainly feel bad for all the Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I feel bad, if everything she says is true, for all the Democrats who unanimously passed this bill in the 113th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than a partisan discussion about something that is nothing more than a technical correction of an unintended consequence.

Again, I thank my friend, Mr. Huizenga, for his leadership, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join in supporting this bipartisan solution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2255, the Housing Opportunities Made Easier, or the HOME Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), for being the lead Democrat on this bill. I appreciate his bipartisan leadership and his efforts to bring this bill to the floor for a vote.

I also thank my colleague in the Senate, Senator Portman, for his leadership on this issue. It has been a pleasure working with him to ensure Habitat for Humanity and other nonprofits are able to continue their important mission.

Finally, I thank Chairman Hensarling for his support in the Financial Services Committee.

During my first term in Congress, I, along with my entire district office, had the opportunity to join Habitat for Humanity on one of their builds in Oakland County, Michigan. It was great fun helping them build a Michigan family's home, but I think we often forget that Habitat for Humanity and other nonprofit housing organizations do so much more than just build a home.

These nonprofits actually offer families who live in their homes, no- or low-interest homes, making the dream of homeownership affordable for so many. The home, of course, needs to be appraised before a loan may be approved. Many times, professional appraisers volunteer their services so that the nonprofit does not have to incur additional expense.

Early last year, I met with Habitat for Humanity leaders from Michigan and I heard about their struggle to ensure that homes remain affordable under the regulations promulgated by Dodd-Frank. Under the new law, all fee appraisers must be paid a customary and reasonable fee for their work.

So where does this leave Habitat for Humanity and other nonprofits?

This means they may no longer accept donated appraisals, forcing them to divert money from their core homebuilding activities.

In fact, Habitat for Humanity told me that these complex rules have tripled the cost of originating loans. This is particularly a problem in rural areas where, under Dodd-Frank, appraisers are also required to be compensated for mileage expenses. Some chapters have informed us they may need to stop or limit their work altogether, denying a valuable service to many communities.

My bill, the HOME Act, which passed out of committee with a unanimous bipartisan vote of 55-0, would exempt Habitat for Humanity and other nonprofits from this burdensome rule, allowing them to accept donated appraisals, which, in turn, will lower the cost for homes for Michigan families.

We in Congress should stand by their side, not in their way. This bill gets Washington out of the way by providing that a donated appraisal may be considered ``customary and reasonable'' when benefiting charities. All other consumer protections in the Truth in Lending Act remain in place. It is a simple, targeted fix that does nothing to harm the underlying law or Dodd-Frank.

When I came to Congress, I knew that I would be fighting for small businesses who are often ignored or hurt by Washington, but I never thought we would need to defend charitable organizations. I am glad that Congress is using some common sense to solve this obvious unintended consequence.

There is no need for debate or dissent on this bill. We cannot let Dodd-Frank undermine these fine organizations from their mission of providing homes to our neighbors in need.

Again, I thank all of the members of the Financial Services Committee for their unanimous bipartisan support. I urge all of my colleagues to support the work of worthy housing charities by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 2255.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the retirement of Wixom, Michigan resident, Senior Inspector Mark White of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection.

We honor Mark for his years of bravery and protection of our land, sea, and air borders.

During his time at the Detroit border, Mark committed himself to the interception of contraband. He apprehended numerous pieces of drug paraphernalia and in 1995; he seized nearly $2.7 million dollars' worth of munitions bound for illegal exportation in Operation Exodus.

His most notable act of bravery occurred in October of 1997 at the Detroit Windsor Tunnel. A gunman under the influence of drugs attempted to hijack cars at inspection lanes and shot a civilian. Mark fatally wounded the gunman and provided first aid to the injured civilian. This act of heroism earned him a number of awards, including the U.S. Customs Service Meritorious Service Award for Valor.

Since 2000, Mark has worked as the Senior Inspector at Oakland County International Airport and spends his free time as a lacrosse coach for the Walled Lake Gladiators.

After 31 years of service, Mark will retire this December, and will return to his home state of Pennsylvania with his wife and daughter.

I applaud Senior Inspector Mark White for his service to the State of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, for yielding me time and for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Clay, for his leadership on this bill. It has been a pleasure to work across the aisle on this commonsense measure with someone for whom I have such great respect.

This bill makes a simple technical correction to Federal law. Under the legislation, financial institutions are no longer required to mail duplicative and confusing privacy notifications every year when no changes have been made to the policy. Privacy information must be made available on the company website, and financial institutions must send paper copies to consumers upon request.

Under this legislation, companies are required to provide a toll-free number so customers can request the policy at any time.

Additionally, consumers will be reminded of their right to opt out of information-sharing when they receive their bills. If you are like me, you throw away these documents. They are confusing, dense, and full of fine-print legalese. I can never tell if anything has changed, and I am a lawyer.

This legislation will ensure that consumers are alerted of changes and will no longer be inundated with junk mail.

This measure will also help companies provide better service to their customers. Some companies spend over $2 million annually on these mailings--money that could be put to better use making more car loans or perhaps even lowering the cost of their product.

During a recent hearing on this bill, a community banker told us about a similar provision that had passed for banks last year. He spoke about how positive it had been for his community and his customers. He took the money he would have spent on postage and paper and gave it back to the community in the form of more loans. This, in turn, helped people start new businesses, create more jobs, and even resulted in a few mortgages being made to purchase new homes.

I believe every Member should support getting rid of outdated, unnecessary regulations. This bill will allow those who lend money when we buy a new car to realize the same savings and efficiencies as banks. Not only will this legislation reduce unnecessary costs, it will improve transparency and accountability, and ensure individuals better understand when a company has actually changed its privacy policy.

A few minutes ago, the ranking member spoke in opposition to this bill. I am not sure what bill she read, but it was not H.R. 2396. The bill in no way puts consumers' privacy information at risk. It in no way denies consumers important privacy protections. It in no way has anything to do with Equifax. It has nothing to do with Wells Fargo. It has nothing to do with servicemembers having their cars improperly repossessed. It has nothing to do with consumer profiling. It has nothing to do with fraud. And--she didn't bring it up--it has nothing to do with the President's tax returns.

This bill should have been on the suspension calendar. There are only two groups that can oppose this bill: the United States Postal Service, because it is going to mean less business for them; and, as the chairman mentioned, paper mills.

The ranking member did, in fact, offer an amendment. The amendment was so convoluted that if I was a bank, a financial institution, or a car lender, I would prefer to do the mailings, because the amendment, at the end of the day, was really just a haven for class action lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits when someone didn't put something on their website exactly as outlined in the amendment.

This is a pro-consumer piece of legislation. I have letters from the American Financial Services Association, the National Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association, and the National Association of Minority Automobile Dealers. I also have a letter signed by the Ford Motor Credit Company, General Motors Financial Company, Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, Toyota Financial Services, and VW Credit in support of H.R. 2396.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these letters.

American Financial

Services Association,

Washington, DC, April 20, 2017.

Hon. Dave Trott,

Washington, DC.

Dear Rep. Trott: The American Financial Services

Association (AFSA) supports the ``Privacy Notification

Technical Clarification Act,'' which amends the Gramm-Leach-

Bliley Act (GLBA) to update the exception for certain annual

notices provided by financial institutions.

The GLBA requires financial institutions (FIs) to issue

privacy notices to consumers if the FIs share consumers' non-

public personal information with affiliates or third parties.

Such disclosures are required to occur when a relationship is

first established between the FI and the consumer, as well as

annually in written form as long as the relationship

continues, even if no changes to the disclosure policies have

occurred.

Annual privacy notices without policy changes are

redundant, unnecessary, and confusing. They contain several

pages of small-print legalese, which have little value for

consumers. In fact, they are largely discarded--unread--

immediately upon receipt. However, producing and mailing

these notices costs millions of dollars.

In the fall of 2014, the CFPB finalized a rule allowing FIs

to post their annual privacy notices online instead of

delivering them individually if they meet a series of

conditions, including not sharing the consumers' nonpublic

personal information with unaffiliated third parties. In

December 2015, Congress went further by enacting an outright

exemption from the mailing requirement for FIs that: (1) do

not share non-public personal information about consumers to

unaffiliated third parties, and (2) have not changed its

disclosure policies and practices since the most recent

disclosure was sent to consumers.

Unfortunately, certain FIs cannot take advantage of the

exemption. We ask Congress to pass the Privacy Notification

Technical Clarification Act to level the playing field for

all FIs. If a financial institution's privacy policy has not

materially changed, the institution should be permitted to

satisfy the intent of GLBA by delivering its privacy notice

through an electronic medium, or by mail upon request.

Sincerely,

Bill Himpler,

Executive Vice President.

Mr. Speaker, it will lower the costs for these companies, which will help consumers obtain more loans. This is a bipartisan, commonsense piece of legislation with true community benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 2396.

Mr. Speaker, we are having an argument here about a bill that has strong bipartisan support. When you boil it all down, the argument is pretty simple, and the question for us to consider this morning, and I would submit we have more important things to work on than that question, but that is what we are debating this morning, so let's consider it.

The question we are arguing about is: Do consumers, when they get their mail and they find an envelope filled with 30 pages of small- print legalese, boilerplate language, do they open up that envelope and pour themselves a cup of coffee and settle in--we have 9 inches of snow today back in Michigan, so they settle in next to a fire and spend the next 2 hours reading that privacy notice? That is the question.

The ranking member has been quite critical of the speeches that have been given this morning, submitting that people do read these notices, and who are we to judge whether people read these notices.

We are not making judgment, we are just submitting, on a commonsense basis, an argument that people don't read these notices; people throw these notices away. And that logic and common sense would dictate that if the privacy notice changes, and a new notice arrives, and the consumer realizes, gosh, I got a new privacy notice because the policy changed; I don't get it when the policy doesn't change; I'd better read this. If they are ever going to read it, that is the time they are going to read it.

But if the ranking member is correct in her analysis, and that millions of consumers are waiting by the mailbox each and every day so that they can study, dissect, compare, and contrast these privacy notices, then she is correct. This bill would add an extra step because, instead of going to the mailbox, they would have to click on the website or perhaps call a toll-free number and have the document mailed to them. So if that burden is more important, because people are reading these notices, then her arguments are compelling.

Now, let's examine all those groups that she spent so much time telling us about this morning, all those proconsumer watchdog groups. All those groups are interested in one thing. They are interested in making sure the laws are as complicated and convoluted as possible because all those groups, including the ranking member, believe, incorrectly, all business is bad; all banks are bad; we have to make it as convoluted and as complicated as possible so that class action lawyers can find a reason to file frivolous lawsuits to sue them, because that is what consumers need.

That is illogical because when these class action lawsuits and all these convoluted regulations get placed on the books and the banks have to hire hundreds of lawyers to deal with compliance, who do you think pays for that? The consumer pays for it.

So this bill saves a little money, saves a few trees. Maybe we will have a few more forests for our grandchildren. It is a simple bill, and I feel bad for some of the Democrats, the 20 in our committee----

I feel bad for all those Democrats who support this bill because, apparently, they are against consumers, too. This bill has got nothing to do with any of the arguments that the ranking member has proffered this morning. I ask for strong support for H.R. 2396.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding and for his hard work on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule today, which allows for consideration of H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act.

I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Hensarling for guiding this bill through committee, and Chairman Sessions for his work on bringing this rule to the floor. I also want to thank Mr. Clay for his very helpful amendment.

One of the reasons I came to Congress was to reduce the regulatory burden in our country so that businesses could have the freedom to grow, thrive, and create jobs for hardworking Americans. This bill is about modernizing one of those outdated regulations that has been a burden to businesses and consumers alike, the privacy notification rules.

Now, a couple of minutes ago, my friend from Colorado gave a very nice speech about DACA, about tax reform, about the public opinion of this institution; but the speech had nothing to do with consideration of this rule today. When he finally got around to talking about the rule, he said we should not allow the rule to move forward because the underlying bill, H.R. 2396, in light of the Equifax scandal, we should not be eliminating privacy notices and allow banks to circumvent those rules because it is going to hurt consumers.

None of this is correct. This bill is a very simple bill. It deals with auto finance companies and it relieves them from the burden of having to send out privacy notices to consumers year after year when the policy hasn't changed. If the auto finance companies change the policy, they have to send out new privacy notices. If a consumer calls up and says, ``I know the policy hasn't change, but I would like to see the rule,'' they can go on the website or they can ask that the policy be mailed to them. This bill in no way harms consumers.

Now, just last year, we passed the bipartisan bill that allowed banks to stop sending privacy notices to consumers if nothing in the policy had changed. This noncontroversial measure passed by voice vote, with Members on both sides of aisle realizing that companies were wasting enormous amounts of paper and money sending out duplicative and unnecessary privacy notices year after year.

The bill achieved its goal. Millions of dollars that would have been spent on paper and postage were instead put back into our local communities. My bill builds on this success and extends the provision to companies lending money to people buying vehicles.

This means that those who extend credit to consumers who buy vehicles from Ford, GM, Harley-Davidson, and other iconic American companies would receive the same benefit as banks, and, more importantly, consumers would no longer be bombarded with a never-ending stream of little print privacy notices and policies that haven't changed.

This is a bipartisan, commonsense measure. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and allow debate to begin on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida for managing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3317, the SAFE Act, legislation that will increase the Federal penalty for female genital mutilation from 5 years to 15 years.

This past April, just north of Detroit, reports of this appalling and brutal practice surfaced in my district. As a lifelong resident of southeast Michigan, I was horrified to learn that three local residents, including two physicians, professionals we trust with our children, were charged for allegedly performing and participating in this barbaric practice.

The subsequent Federal prosecution has shed light on an evil practice that has no place in southeast Michigan or the United States. This person who claims to be a physician is a monster and has reportedly committed this heinous act hundreds of times.

This despicable practice has no place in our society, and we must ensure our Federal laws reflect this principle. We must make it clear to Americans and the rest of the world that this practice will not be tolerated.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that over 500,000 girls in the United States have undergone or are at risk of FGM. That is 500,000 girls too many. We must set a zero tolerance against this practice. This is gender violence and oppression, and it is time for the government to punish such egregious behavior accordingly.

My bipartisan SAFE Act will increase the Federal penalty from 5 to 15 years, putting it more in line with other developed countries. We need to protect our girls right here at home, and increasing the penalty will go a long way toward accomplishing this goal.

I want to thank the coauthor of this bill, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), my friend and colleague, for her work. I also want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for his effort and leadership in moving this bill through the committee process.

Mr. Speaker, today we can step toward eradicating this barbaric practice, and I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 3317.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the career of Novi resident Robert David. For over 38 years, Mr. David has built a distinguished broadcasting career hallmarked by his passion for broadcasting excellence, dedication to community service, and political activism.

After an extensive radio broadcasting sales and management career, Mr. David founded Handyman Productions, where as President and General Manager, he produces the award-winning, nationally-syndicated ``Handyman Show with Glenn Haege'' to help homeowners maintain and improve their homes and neighborhoods.

Both in the control room and outside the studio, Mr. David is a pillar of our community. Raising over $1 million in scholarships for broadcasting students, Mr. David has helped cultivate the next generation of broadcasters. Furthermore, he is someone dedicated to protecting and preserving our neighborhoods, graduating from the FBI Citizen's Academy, Lakes Area Citizen's Police Academy, and Novi Ambassador Academy.

This year, Mr. David's career is bestowed a distinction fitting of his lifetime of accomplishments--induction into the Michigan Association of Broadcasters (MAB) Hall of Fame. Joining the broadcasting icons of our great State of Michigan, he is sure to fit right in with the best of the best.

My heartfelt congratulations to Mr. David on this well-deserved recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Livonia, Michigan resident, Tom Camp on achieving 55 years of safe driving for the United Parcel Service (UPS).

Tom Camp is the first driver ever in UPS history to achieve 55 years of safe driving with no Department of Transportation reportable accidents during this period.

Having driven over a million miles and transported over 5 million packages, 77-year-old Marine Corps veteran Tom Camp is always on the lookout. He attributes his safe driving record to his keen sense of caution and awareness of the other drivers on the road.

We should all take note from Mr. Camp's advice, ``You just have to pay attention out there. You can't get distracted. Safety is No. 1.''

His dedication to safety is perhaps only rivaled by his passion for customer service. ``Anyone can deliver a package,'' he says. ``It's the person delivering the package that makes all the difference,'' and, since 1962, Mr. Camp has taken this to heart, brightening the days of so many of his neighbors.

I congratulate Mr. Camp on this record-breaking achievement and applaud him for serving as a role model of conscientious driving and safety. Here's to many more years of safe driving.

Madam Speaker, over the weekend, I spent a little time watching football. I am happy to say that my Michigan Wolverines won their game; sad to say that the Detroit Lions lost to the Falcons, but, hopefully, they will have a good season.

There was also quite a bit of controversy this weekend about who was standing and sitting for our National Anthem at sporting events. We do not need to concern ourselves with this issue, and the reason is because the First Amendment works.

Here is how the First Amendment works: A little over a year ago, a quarterback in the NFL chose not to stand for the National Anthem. I personally disagree with that statement, but it was his choice under the First Amendment. The fans booed. The fans could have clapped; they could have booed. Many fans booed. The owners listened, and now that quarterback is not employed in the NFL.

That is how the First Amendment works. What we should concern ourselves with is how soon 3 million people in Puerto Rico are going to get water and electricity, why millions of Americans are uncertain regarding their healthcare, and what we are going to do about North Korea.

Madam Speaker, that is what we need to focus on in this House. That is what we were sent to do.

Mr. Speaker, today, I, along with Macedonian Caucus co- chairs Representatives Dingell and Boyle, rise to recognize the 26th anniversary of Macedonia's independence. On September 8, 1991, the people of the Republic of Macedonia voted to end their centuries-long struggle for a free, independent and sovereign Macedonian Republic in Southeast Europe. Macedonian Independence Day provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the Macedonian-American community's substantial contributions within the United States. This month will also mark the 22nd year of full diplomatic relations between the United States and Macedonia. We extend our congratulations to all of Macedonian heritage for their accomplishments as we commemorate this anniversary of Macedonia's independence. As a critical ally, we underscored the importance of supporting this young democracy. Therefore, we include in the Record the following letter to Secretary of State Tillerson:

Dear Secretary Tillerson:

As members of the Macedonia Caucus and friends of

Macedonia, together with our partners in NATO and the EU, we

have been closely watching the developing political situation

in Macedonia. As Macedonia continues on a path toward a

stronger future, we see a tremendous opportunity to further

promote a strong relationship with this key Balkan ally.

Since the establishment of full diplomatic relations in

1995, the United States of America has readily supported

Macedonia's aspirations for full integration into Euro-

Atlantic institutions, and remains committed to helping

Macedonia strengthen its democratic foundations. A vibrant,

multi-cultural country, Macedonia has a positive future

ahead, and we look forward to engaging with Macedonia to

ensure that it realizes this potential.

Despite common interests and a growing security and

economic partnership, the last time a Secretary of Defense

visited Macedonia was a decade ago, and it's been almost 15

years since a Secretary of State visited Skopje. With

Macedonia beginning a crucial portion of its contemporary

history, and non-state and state actors like Russia looking

to exploit and influence vulnerable countries in the region,

the dynamics in the Balkans present an exceptional

opportunity to show Macedonia that the United States of

America recognizes the value of strengthening this

relationship.

As you work to develop the European policy of the

administration, we hope that you will see it is in the best

interests of the United States to further our relationship

with Macedonia, as we strive for a safer and freer world. We

stand ready to assist you in your efforts to actively promote

this bilateral relationship.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this important

matter and we look forward to your leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 111, which will block the CFPB's harmful arbitration rule.

I want to start with a little story. Last year, I opened up the mail, and I got a wonderful surprise. I got a check for $3.92. Apparently, I was part of some class action lawsuit, didn't know it, dug into the facts, didn't feel I had been harmed, didn't know who the attorneys were, but I got $3.92, almost enough to buy a latte. I did a little digging around and turns out the lawyers representing the plaintiff class made millions of dollars.

Now, we have heard a lot of conflicting stories here today about this bill being harmful to consumers. Here are the facts.

In a class action lawsuit, a typical consumer gets $32; in arbitration, a typical consumer gets $5,400; in a class action lawsuit, it takes 12 times longer for the consumer to get the money.

But how can this be? Well, in my prior life, I represented a lot of clients who were involved in class action lawsuits. Here is your typical class action lawsuit.

It involves a highly technical violation, not the Wells Fargo example, where there is little or no harm to the consumer, goes on for years, costs millions of dollars in legal fees, and at the end of the day, there is a settlement for $3.92.

I will make a deal with my friends on the other side of the aisle. I will buy anyone a latte who comes clean with the American people and tells them why they are opposing this bill.

The reason why they are opposing this bill is the Trial Lawyers Association makes millions of dollars, and that money lines the pockets of their campaign coffers. It is not about consumers. It is about lawyers protecting lawyers, and it is about protecting the bureaucrats in the swamp.

I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting this joint resolution.