Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chief Heath Helton of the Little Rock Police Department for his three decades of public service to our capital city, and to

congratulate him on his recent appointment as the director of Arkansas' Division on Law Enforcement Standards and Training.

As chief, Helton implemented the city's comprehensive crime reduction strategy, leading to 4 consecutive years of falling crime. Violent crime has declined by 15 percent under his tenure.

Chief Helton is an inspired choice to help shape the law enforcement training standards for Arkansas. His proven leadership will serve Arkansas well as he trains that next generation of officers.

Mr. Speaker, I join all central Arkansans in thanking Chief Helton for his service, and I wish him continued success as he works to make Arkansas a safe place to live, work, and raise a family.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Amendment No. 158.

Amendment No. 158 is extremely important to the Arkansas National Guard. That is why I am grateful to have the support of my Arkansas colleagues, Rep. Steve Womack and Rep. Rick Crawford.

This amendment supports the Arkansas National Guard by seeking to codify the proposed land exchange between the Arkansas National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve on Camp Robinson in North Little Rock.

Currently, there is a strategic mismatch in facility use for the Arkansas National Guard and the USAR on Camp Robinson.

The land exchange will include a two-star division headquarters at Camp Pike, currently occupied by a drilling unit with minimal full-time staff, a unit whose needs would be far better served by an armory.

The second is the Chappell Armory in Arkansas, which was built for traditional drilling units but currently operates as a full-time headquarters.

Amendment No. 158 seeks a no-cost land exchange between the Arkansas National Guard and USAR. This would result in a mutually beneficial outcome and ensure better stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

The Arkansas National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve support the conveyance.

I am pleased that there has been a signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Brigadier General Bridges of the Arkansas Guard and Brigadier General Cook of the Army Reserves.

Amendment No. 158 directly relates to the signed MOA, and it ensures the necessary continuity and stability for the proposed land exchange.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of Amendment No. 156.

My amendment directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a review of the quality and effectiveness of the Department of Defense's cyber intelligence sharing with state, local, Tribal, territorial, and private-sector partners.

I drafted this amendment with the Arkansas National Guard to ensure we analyze cyber information sharing to learn how to stop and mitigate cyber threats for homeland defense.

As you may know, the National Guard is uniquely positioned by its capabilities, geography, and manpower to add resilience to integrated critical infrastructure dependencies.

That is why it is critical for the GAO to conduct this review, as it can inform and better unify efforts among federal partners, state-level defenders, and other critical stakeholders to ensure faster warning, mitigation, incident response, and better defense of our critical infrastructure.

This amendment is extremely important to central Arkansas and the Arkansas National Guard. It is also extremely important to our national security and cyber health.

I urge my colleagues to support Amendment No. 156.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Rep. Steve Womack's Amendment No. 311, that I am proud to cosponsor.

Amendment No. 311 seeks to maximize taxpayer value by directing the Department of Defense to conduct and publish a cost comparison study for future F-35 basing locations for aircraft receiving first delivery between Fiscal Year 2030 and Fiscal Year 2035.

As you may know, the next round of F-35 basing decisions is expected in the next 24 months.

This study is critical to arm military decision-makers with objective, data-driven analysis before that decision is made.

The Arkansas National Guard believes that this study is critical to ensuring a complete understanding of the current mission and personnel before future F-35 basing decisions are made.

I agree with the Arkansas National Guard and that is why I urge my colleagues to support Amendment No. 311.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1438, I call up the bill (H.R. 6955) and ask for its immediate consideration by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days 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, I rise today in strong support of the Main Street Capital Access Act.

As a former community bank founder and CEO in my hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas, I have seen firsthand the important role that our community banks and credit unions play to drive the economic engine of America and help Main Street grow and thrive.

During the financial crisis, they were there. During the COVID pandemic, they were there, staying up all night to close emergency paycheck protection loans.

Every Member of this body knows this and knows it well. They have their own story from their own town about how that local financial institution was there for a customer, for a family, to help a startup, to help a business or restaurant cope with the pandemic.

Community banks and hometown credit unions know their customers. They understand the needs of their communities, and they keep capital flowing where it is needed most.

When a family is trying to buy their first home, they often walk into the offices of a community bank where that lender knows them, recognizes their goals, and is invested in their success.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said on this House floor many times this year, our banks under $10 billion make 6 out of 10 home construction loans.

When a local farmer or entrepreneur needs the capital to expand or initiate their crop for the year, they need someone who understands their particular business and is committed to seeing them succeed and, thereby, their communities succeed.

I loved my role as a hometown Main Street community banker and investor. Even to this day, almost three decades later, I smile driving by that restaurant location that I helped grow or driving by a building or a shopping center or a doctor's practice that our small bank helped finance--finance its construction, finance its future, finance its home for those employees.

Community banks make that possible, and this bipartisan Main Street Capital Access Act gives them the tools they need to keep capital flowing where it is needed most up and down our main streets in our beautiful country.

For decades, Washington has made it harder for community banks to thrive and operate efficiently. The Dodd-Frank Act, passed in the heat and horror of the global financial crisis, took the approach that many community and midsize banks across our Nation were faced with the same rules and the same level of scrutiny of the largest, most systemically important institutions. It was just too much, Mr. Speaker.

That approach, that overkill, has stifled local lending, constrained economic growth, accelerated industry consolidation--something I hear about from Members on both sides of the aisle all the time--and pushed important financing activity for both families and businesses out of the regulated financial sector. Again, I don't believe that was a goal by the proponents of Dodd-Frank after the financial crisis.

Our local lenders, Mr. Speaker, too often now spend more time on check-the-box compliance requirements rather than serving their communities.

When I made my presentation to our party here in the House to chair our Committee on Financial Services, I said that the impact of Dodd- Frank and other rules had focused Main Street bank presidents staying up all night worrying, not about their loan pipeline, not about where to get their next lending officer. Instead, they are up all night wondering how they can afford another compliance officer to try to meet this standard that is, in my judgment, unreasonable for a small, straightforward, local bank.

Our committee Republicans, with their great leadership from our subcommittee chair, Andy Barr of Kentucky, have worked mightily over the years to find a bipartisan set of solutions to exactly the problem I outline today.

Recently, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which became law, contained nine community banking provisions that provided this sort of thematic, clear, needed relief to America's local lenders and expanded financing for both residential mortgages and housing construction and development. These measures that we are debating today in the Main Street Capital Access Act were in that same philosophy of what we just overwhelmingly passed in both Chambers just a few days ago.

Mr. Speaker, I say today that we are building on the success of our 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act with Main Street Capital Access Act. We are expanding access to capital, supporting American businesses, and ensuring our financial system remains the most dynamic and diverse in the world.

This bill delivers on those goals. It spurs formation of new banks. It brings this commonsense tailoring back to regulation. It restores fairness and transparency in bank supervision. It helps banks attract, retain, and diversify important funding sources from sources of deposits, and it removes unnecessary barriers that have limited lending in communities across this country.

Mr. Speaker, with all of this effort, we have seen solid bipartisan support, input, and leadership in developing this bill. Expanding access to capital strengthens our local economies. It gives entrepreneurs the confidence to invest, businesses the ability to grow, and families the opportunity to build long-term wealth through that most abundant of American dreams: owning their own home.

When Main Street banks succeed, our communities thrive. I thank my colleague again, my friend, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), for his tireless efforts in developing this bill and his commitment to strengthening community banking, not only in Kentucky but across our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank his hardworking colleague who has spent hours tirelessly thinking through the best approach to these provisions, and that is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) of Chicago.

Their collaboration will benefit our country, and I hope that we see a strong, bipartisan vote on this bill in this Chamber today.

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

Mr. Speaker, our next speaker has worked tirelessly to assemble this package of bills that will help our Main Street banks and credit unions thrive, grow, better serve their customers, and, in turn, be able to see their local economies benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions.

Mr. Speaker, our next speaker has worked in this House for over a decade, speaking on behalf of Main Street Michigan. From that real estate community, from his own background, his own business entrepreneurship and that of his family, he knows the value of how our local financial institutions help grow an economy and have more opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the vice chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me address that comment that the ranking member has articulated, which is that somehow this bill reduces the power of community banks to compete with the big, globally systemic banks that she described.

I would really argue just the contrast. This bill tailors the regulatory compliance so that a bank with a straightforward, simple business plan that is well managed, that is well capitalized can have a lower tailored compliance cost compared to the one-size-fits-all approach that was a part of Dodd-Frank aimed at those big, Wall Street globally systemic banks.

Secondly, if you don't want them to grow, then you want community banks to have access to more capital. That is offered in this bill. You want them to be more successful. That is offered in this bill.

You want them to be able to buy a failing bank on their own or with partners to compete with the biggest banks in the country who are just simply given banks that need resolution at the FDIC. If a small bank fails in some State, they just let the big banks bid on them.

This bill creates competition. Chairman Barr walked through that. This actually increases the chance for entrepreneurs to acquire, unfortunately at the demise of a local bank, so that it is not sold to some big Wall Street lender.

I could go on with all the benefits of this bill that is tailored and focused on the growth and success of our Main Street institutions, but I can think of no better person to help me make that case than the next speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), the vice chairman of our Financial Institutions Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Loudermilk who spoke a moment ago. The vice chairman of our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions made a very good point also about how this bill strengthens competition.

Chairman Andy Barr of Kentucky, Ranking Member Waters of California, and Mr. Loudermilk all mentioned the importance of encouraging de novo banks, meaning start-up banks, particularly in our fast-growing communities that have seen disproportionate business and population growth, like south Florida or other places across the Nation.

All three of those Members have something in common, which is they support greater de novo provisions. We had Ms. Waters in the housing bill, and we have two in this bill that encourage start-up banks and encourage the regulators to work and have a better strategy for start- up financial institutions because that means that they can meet the growth.

What does that do, Mr. Speaker?

It increases competition for the biggest companies because they are close to customers, they have a business strategy, and they are unique to the marketplace. That is another example of how this bill is, in fact, counter to the assertion that it is only geared towards Wall Street institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), who understands finance from both the point of view of one of our biggest and most industrial States, Pennsylvania, having been a statewide officer as well as a highly successful manufacturer and entrepreneur. Mr. Meuser is the chair of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the beautiful territory of Guam (Mr. Moylan). He has a strong background in financial services, healthcare, business, and insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Knott).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, before I start, I thank the ranking member and the committee members on her side of the aisle for their work with us on developing this bill over many months.

Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of the bills in this package that we are voting on, the Main Street Capital Access Act, are supported by Members on the Democratic side of the aisle. This is a truly bipartisan package of bills.

We have significant work and support from individual Members on the Democratic side of the aisle in partnership with House Republicans.

I also thank Maura Woosley, who is the majority staff director, Jae Jang, and their entire team in the majority working with the minority staff, and the minority staff to craft this package. In Congress, you can't put together the kinds of successful legislative packages that the House Financial Services Committee has done in this Congress without a very hardworking and competent staff. I thank them on both sides of the aisle.

I thanked Andy Barr, our majority subcommittee chair, a few minutes ago, but I will also thank Dr. Bill Foster of Illinois, who serves as the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions for his collaboration with Mr. Barr on this succesful bill.

Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot of charges about this bill, that somehow this bill benefits Wall Street versus Main Street, and I just couldn't disagree more. I noted that two-thirds of these bills have strong Democratic support, along with our Republicans.

Secondly, there is nothing in this bill that weakens consumer compliance. The fair lending laws, the fair housing laws, and the equal credit opportunity laws, all those consumer statutes are upheld in this text. They are not really affected by this text.

Banks have to comply with those laws. They had to comply with those

laws before Dodd-Frank, and they comply with them since Dodd-Frank. I reject the idea that somehow we are limiting or curtailing or blocking or making ineffective consumer compliance.

Secondly, it is our hometown banks, both rural banks and urban banks in our towns and cities, that benefit from this banking set of provisions. As the ranking member noted, in our housing bill that we collaborated on successfully--that we got passed and it became law on July 10--banks had some provisions there that helped them.

This is the same theme continuing in this bill. If you are a small, well-managed bank under $6 billion, you get some relief, Mr. Speaker. If you are well-managed, have good capital, you can help schedule your exams.

I was with a community banker in North Carolina this week. The bank is smaller than $500 million, and I said, how are things going? He said, it is going great except when I have five exams in a row and then the loan pipeline goes to zero. Because, guess what, I am the chief loan officer and the chief compliance officer in this small bank, and when my community bank is filled with bank examiners for an IT exam, a trust exam, an investment exam, an AML, anti-money laundering, and Bank Secrecy Act exam, a loan quality exam, a consumer compliance exam, I can't make loans.

If you are well-managed and have high capital, you get some relief in this bill. That is who this bill, Mr. Speaker, is aimed at. If you have a concern that your exam was unfair, we return some fairness in the exam process. You can go and actually question, was my exam fair or not? Whose idea was that, Mr. Speaker? Democrat from Michigan Don Riegle, U.S. Senator, 1995. Was it ever implemented? No, but it will be implemented when this bill becomes law.

This bill is focused on more capital, more deposits, more business, more success for our community banks, which in turn helps every one of our towns in this country.

Who is for it? Community development financial institutions, our CDFIs, have bipartisan support. They are for this bill. Our community development officials across the Nation are for this bill, as they were for the housing bill. The National Bankers Association, our national association for African-American bankers, wrote a letter for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has overwhelming support to increase competition and help our community banks thrive and succeed, which means our towns will thrive and succeed.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. Echo Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury, when he said that our banks in this early founding of our Nation are the nurseries of our national wealth.

Mr. Speaker, today, 250 years later, long after the adoption of our government, our community banks, our credit unions, they are the nurseries of the national wealth that help our families and our businesses succeed.

I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the

bill (H.R. 3074) to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to stop minting the penny, to require cash transactions to be rounded up or down to the nearest five cents, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO estimate for this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the House floor in support of Republican Conference Chairwoman McClain's bill, the Common Cents Act.

This is a simple, common ``cents'' bill aimed at saving taxpayer dollars and modernizing a part of our currency system that no longer makes economic sense.

The numbers speak for themselves. According to an audit of the United States Mint, it costs $3.69 to make one penny.

That is the 19th year in a row, Mr. Speaker, the government has spent more to make a penny than a penny is worth.

Last year alone, taxpayers lost more than $85 million producing pennies.

Chairwoman McClain's bill simply codifies President Trump's directive to the Mint to stop producing pennies.

Of course, we have to be practical. If we are going to no longer make pennies, people are likely to use more nickels. The problem is that nickels aren't exactly a bargain either and the gentleman from Massachusetts knows it.

They cost nearly 14 cents to produce, so we need to make sure we don't solve one problem by creating another one. That is why Mrs. McClain's bill also gives the U.S. Treasury Secretary the authority to move to a lower cost, zinc-based nickel to ensure that increased nickel demand is not mitigating the savings due to the elimination of the penny.

The bill also addresses something retailers and consumers are already experiencing. With fewer pennies available, many cash transactions are rounded to the nearest nickel.

H.R. 3074 provides a clear, uniform standard for how these transactions can be rounded, giving businesses certainty and ensuring everyone is playing by the same rules.

This bill is about good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. It is about recognizing when government can do things more efficiently, making smart updates where they are needed, and saving money in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3074, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain), our Republican Conference chair and the author of this bill. I really just ask her for a penny for her thoughts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), our chairman of the Task Force on Monetary Policy, Treasury Market Resilience, and Economic Prosperity. In my experience of being chairman of the committee on which he serves, he is a man who always comes to the committee and plans on throwing his 2 cents into every debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and the minority for helping to make this a strong bipartisan bill to do something that is common sense, with no pun intended. In fact, for all of the good reasons that Mr. Lucas and Mrs. McClain outlined, this is the right decision at the right time for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I remind both the bankers across the country, the retailers, and all of the consumers out there that, as noted by Mr. Garcia, there are well over 100 billion pennies floating around out there in jars and drawers and cash registers across the country. You may still use those pennies until your heart is content.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6556) to prohibit the use of certain concentration limit exceptions with respect to mergers involving a failed bank unless the applicable agency determines such use is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or significant adverse effects on financial stability, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days 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, I include in the Record the Congressional Budget Office score for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6556, the Failing Bank Acquisition Fairness Act, offered by my friend from Massachusetts.

When a bank fails, regulators need to move fast to protect depositors, preserve confidence in our financial system, consider potential buyers, and minimize disruption to families, businesses, and communities. All of that often takes place in a very short period of time, between Friday at close of business and Monday morning at opening for business. At that same time, those decisions should be made by a process that is fair, transparent, and promotes competition.

Under current law, Federal regulators are generally prohibited from approving a merger or acquisition of a failed or failing bank if the resulting institution would control more than 10 percent or more of deposits nationwide.

However, regulators are allowed to waive these concentration limits under certain circumstances. H.R. 6556 restricts when those concentration limits can be waived to situations in which there are no other qualified bidders for that failed bank and the transaction is necessary to prevent significant economic disruption or adverse effects on U.S. financial stability.

This legislation helps address concentration in the U.S. banking sector and promote a more transparent, competitive, and accountable approach to resolving failing banks. This legislation includes critical guardrails, such as requiring regulators to report to Congress within 30 days of a waiver on why the waiver was granted, why other qualified alternatives were not selected, and any recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to improve competition for future bank resolutions.

That transparency helps to ensure that these decisions are made in the best interests of depositors; our financial system at large; and, of course, the American people. This is a practical, bipartisan reform that strengthens oversight, promotes competition, and reinforces confidence in the bank resolution process, while preserving regulators' ability to respond to bank failures.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for his leadership on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 6556.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I join my friend from Massachusetts in speaking to the importance of this bill and provide just a couple of minutes of perspective.

If you go back to the 1980s, it was a period of Third World debt crisis, the oil and gas lending crisis, and the real estate lending crisis culminating in the late 1980s with really the collapse of

the savings and loan industry across the country from too lax supervision and too lax management of these institutions. In both large banks like the famous Continental Illinois failure in Chicago to some of the large thrifts, the government chose to keep banks open rather than closing them by essentially taking a note back called open bank assistance. It essentially increased the losses to the taxpayers.

After the resolution of the savings and loan bank crisis and all the other related bank failures of the 1980s and very early 1990s, the government said, look, this is out of hand, and we want to enforce a least cost resolution process when a bank fails, meaning we don't want to lose more money after the closing by trying to keep these banks open.

So they offered this ability that whoever paid the highest price, thus the least cost to the taxpayers, was the winner, which is good policy. However, now it is 30 years later, and the largest banks in the country, as outlined by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), have a disproportionate ability to bid $1 more and thus be the least cost to the taxpayer--or maybe after the last debate one penny more-- and be the least cost to the taxpayer. That means that it is very hard to compete with them.

What the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) has proposed is let us have more bidding for those failed banks by crafting a process that is transparent that Congress oversees, Congress outlines the guardrails, where smaller banks could team up with other capital sources and bid for one of those failed banks and end up being in a much more competitive process. What the government gets is a more diversified, more competitive banking system instead of the default winner being one of the big five existing financial institutions.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for his work on this legislation. I thank Chairman Barr of our Financial Institutions Subcommittee and Ranking Member Waters for bringing our bipartisan team together on the committee in advancing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on this measure. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill. I appreciate the work on both sides of the aisle, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1423, I call up the bill (H.R. 1181) to prohibit payment card networks and covered entities from requiring the use of or assigning merchant category codes that distinguish a firearms retailer from general- merchandise retailer or sporting-goods retailer, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Mr. Moore's Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act.

Financial privacy is fundamental to consumer trust and confidence in our financial system. As technology continues to transform financial services, protecting Americans' financial privacy remains an essential part of Congress' oversight role.

Merchant category codes were designed to help process transactions, not create mechanisms for tracking or categorizing lawful purchases. Maintaining trust in the payment system requires clear safeguards to ensure that these tools are used for commerce, not consumer surveillance.

H.R. 1181 establishes those safeguards by preventing payment card networks and processors from using merchant category codes to target firearms retailers and their customers. The Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act provides important protections for consumers by preventing the misuse of payment systems to monitor lawful purchasing activity.

Consumers should not have to sacrifice their financial privacy in order to participate in our modern economy. Protecting financial privacy helps reinforce confidence in the institutions and infrastructure that our payment systems operate around.

Americans should be able to participate in the economy with confidence that their lawful transactions are simply being processed, not tracked or categorized or scrutinized beyond what is never necessary to essentially facilitate the payment. This bill helps preserve the integrity of that payment system by keeping it focused on facilitating commerce and efficient movement of funds.

Importantly, this bill does not interfere with any existing law enforcement authorities, anti-money laundering requirements, fraud prevention efforts, or other obligations designed to protect consumers and safeguard our financial system.

H.R. 1181 is a commonsense measure that simply safeguards financial privacy while maintaining the integrity of our Nation's payment network.

I urge all my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Moore), who is the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who chairs the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the distinguished chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lee).

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

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

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this debate. I thank Mr. Moore for writing this bill, drafting it, persuading the support that he has. I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to support this bill in the name of privacy in the United States.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank Chairman Flood and Ranking Member Cleaver of the subcommittee and certainly our full committee ranking member, Ms. Waters, for their work with the majority to craft this extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.

The reauthorization of this program is important. I thank, on a bipartisan basis, those who have worked to bring it to fruition.

Every Member of this body, Mr. Speaker, including you, my friend, knows where they were on September 11, 2001. That day changed everything, including how America thought about risk. Before those attacks, the private insurance market handled terrorism risk like any other. After 9/11, no insurer could price it or absorb it alone.

Congress subsequently created TRIA in 2002. The purpose of TRIA is spelled out in the original law. Section 101(b) states that TRIA is designed to provide for ``a transparent system of shared public and private compensation for insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism in order to protect consumers.''

That is the goal here, to give policyholders access to the financial protection and confidence they need to build skyscrapers, sports venues, and malls, and employ workers that drive our economy.

Each reauthorization is an opportunity to look at what is working and what is not and to look at what adjustments are needed to keep delivering market certainty and stability.

As time has passed, quirks in TRIA have appeared that make it harder for those policyholders to get their claims paid quickly and fully and left insurers adrift in the lurch of a clunky will-they/won't-they certification process.

Mr. Flood's bill today proposes a modest set of improvements that will add clarity to the certification process and make it easier for insurers to pay their claims in a timely manner and easier for policyholders to recover financially when they need those payments the most.

Throughout this process, we have sought feedback from Members on both sides of the aisle and others as we have moved to get out in front of this program's scheduled expiration in December 2027 so that everyone would have an opportunity to review and debate the modest improvements contained in this measure.

The reality is that terrorism is now, unfortunately, a permanent fixture of American life. Whether you are in Los Angeles, the Big Apple, or Little Rock, this risk does not respect geography, and it does not go away.

I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Flood's bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I agree with his assessment.

It is true that TRIA was designed to create certainty, not doubt, for our businesses, indeed our economy at large after something unthinkable takes place.

It requires insurance companies to make stand-alone terrorism coverage available to their clients, who can choose to purchase it or not in addition to their traditional business insurance coverage.

That was the system we devised more than two decades ago to provide continuity after a large-scale terrorism event, as well as to provide businesses the fastest path to economic recovery.

It simply would not work within the spirit of the law or the confines of this reauthorization to pursue pathways that interrupted that system and flow of that important post-event recovery capital.

I am very pleased, as my friend from Missouri knows, that Ranking Member Waters and I have worked to include some small but important reforms to the post-event process to make sure that policyholders can get their claims paid more fully and quickly, the way that TRIA intended.

Simply put, TRIA should always be about putting affected policyholders first, and that is represented in the bill text that we are voting on today.

I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I echo agreement with Ranking Member Cleaver's words today as well as the chairman of our subcommittee, Mike Flood, and his hard work on both sides of the aisle to bring forward this 7-year reauthorization of this critically important program well in advance of its expiration.

Mr. Speaker, what I love about this is the majority and the minority, working together for the benefit of the American economy, are getting this done well in advance of any loss or gap in coverage.

We know it is important. We treasure the fact that we are in the semiquincentennial year of our country's life, 250 years after the Declaration of Independence, but everybody in the back of their mind on this House floor in the coming weeks will be thinking about another anniversary, one that we are not celebrating with fireworks or bands or parades, and that is, sadly, the 25th anniversary of the terror attacks on Washington, New York, and our country at large. It makes us sad, and we reflect on those who we lost, the claims that we are still paying, the families that are still mourning.

This bill is an important reminder that we have an obligation to our country to do things right, to be thinking about the future, to be thinking about our Nation's economic growth, prosperity, and the safety of the American people.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to answer this call today and support this 7-year reauthorization of our Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, 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. 2478) to amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to postpone the date of payment or satisfaction upon redemption of certain securities in the case of the financial exploitation of specified adults, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Congressional Budget Office estimate for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of our distinguished chair of our Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Mrs. Wagner from Missouri, and her bill that she presents today, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025.

Every day, bad actors use fraud, scams, and deception to target the most vulnerable in our society who may be less able to recognize or respond immediately and timely to some form of financial abuse.

Literally, over the last few years, I have been inundated every time I am in my district and community, like my hometown of Little Rock. I hear directly from citizens, the elderly, customers, bankers, small business owners, and all consumers who are grappling with check fraud, wire fraud, and increasingly sophisticated digital scams.

My own family has been victim of check fraud more than one time. I am grateful to the bank that helped identify that with their system.

Mr. Speaker, our financial institutions, our broker-dealers, and our investment companies are all saddled with being in the first line of defense against these schemes that are coming in every shape and form, electronically, by paper, and over the telephone, that are targeting the customers and clients of our financial services companies.

These banks, broker-dealers, and investment companies are uniquely positioned to identify suspicious transactions and unusual account activity. That is the whole mission. We have given those authorities, and they have invested billions in surveillance technology to try to do that.

When warning signs emerge, firms should have the ability to take reasonable steps to put their customers first and to protect those customers from potential harm.

Chair Wagner's bill, H.R. 2478, which has strong bipartisan support and cosponsorship, strengthens those exact protections by providing financial institutions and other financial professionals and investment companies with the legal certainty needed to temporarily delay transactions when financial exploitation or abuse is suspected.

This legislation is part of the Financial Services Committee's broader effort to combat financial fraud and scams plaguing our citizens, our neighbors, particularly seniors, and other vulnerable Americans.

By creating a safe harbor for delaying suspicious transactions and reporting concerns to the appropriate authorities, this bill helps prevent devastating financial losses before they occur.

Protecting Americans from financial exploitation requires strong coordination among families, financial institutions, brokers, financial advisers, and, of course, law enforcement. This bill would help strengthen those partnerships and provide additional tools to safeguard the most vulnerable among us from an avalanche of fraud and abuse.

Importantly, too, this bill is tailored to address suspected exploitation while preserving the rights of customers and maintaining appropriate oversight.

No American should lose their hard-earned money because an investment firm or financial institution lacks the authority or certainty to intervene where there are clear signs of exploitation that were present.

H.R. 2478 is a commonsense, bipartisan measure that helps protect our most vulnerable citizens from the growing number of financial predators.

I thank Chair Wagner and Mr. Gottheimer of New Jersey for their leadership on this important issue. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who is the chair of the Capital Markets Subcommittee. She has worked on this and has been a leader in every way she can in the House to protect our friends and our neighbors from financial fraud.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and Mr. Gottheimer for working with the majority on this bill. I will add that this is a very complex subject across the board trying to protect our seniors and our consumers across the country, particularly in financial services.

I think this bill is a step in the right direction, but we have many other things that the committee has been working on on a bipartisan basis. The Postal Service, the Secret Service, the Federal communications oversight, Federal Trade Commission, all these Federal agencies have influence on whether we are going to beat the criminals at their game. As they get artificial intelligence and new technologies to try to get in the pocketbooks, in the investment statements, into the credit cards of American consumers and households, know that people like Ann Wagner, Josh Gottheimer, Maxine Waters, and French Hill are saying no.

We want to give the tools to our financial institutions and enforcement to do something about it, but it also takes an education of our families. You can't turn your password over to people. You can't trust people when they call you on the phone and tell you to bring $5,000 down to the courthouse or put money in a bitcoin ATM. We also have that obligation every day on this House floor to educate our families to trust but verify when somebody approaches them about their very, very valuable financial information.

A Member of Congress from North Carolina called me and said: Is there any way you would be willing to talk to this lawyer, this family in North Carolina? Husband and wife retired, the spouse, the wife, said: I have been called. I need to send $250,000 for this investment opportunity. The husband said: I don't know that we should do that. She said: Well, I have done my homework. She called the bank, Mr. Speaker, and said: Would you wire

$250,000 to this investment opportunity. And the banker said: Ms. Jones, I mean, are you sure? You have never done this before. You don't have that kind of money.

Mr. Speaker, I use that as a small example. It didn't turn out well, but it is about educating. Again, the work that Chairwoman Wagner and Representative Gottheimer are doing is what we need to be doing. We are going to continue to bring bills to this House floor that protect our households from the fraudsters that are now going parabolic in their talent to steal our money through artificial intelligence, cell phones, text messages, emails, romance schemes, whatever that is, but she pointed it out, and I am with her. We are going to do this together.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing it to the floor today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6644) a bill to increase the supply of housing in America, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days 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, I rise today in strong support of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.

America is facing a housing supply shortage that has been years in the making. For too many of our families, the consequences are felt every day through higher home prices, rising rents, and fewer opportunities to achieve homeownership.

Over the last several months, I have worked with our colleagues in both the House and Senate and on both sides of the political aisle to advance practical legislation that addresses this pressing challenge for our American families.

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act represents one of the most significant bipartisan housing reforms in recent memory, bringing together commonsense policies to expand housing opportunities and improve affordability for our families.

Mr. Speaker, it cuts unnecessary barriers to new home construction. It modernizes Federal housing programs. It streamlines development processes. It helps create the conditions necessary to build more homes and increase housing supply.

The bill also strengthens the roles of our Main Street community lenders by modernizing outdated banking regulations and allowing banks to more effectively deploy capital in the communities that they serve. These reforms will help community banks focus on what they do best: providing loans to families seeking to purchase a home and financing the construction of new housing.

Importantly, the Senate adopted several key House priorities, including House language that limits institutional investors from outcompeting with American families looking to buy a home. At a time when too many of our families are struggling to purchase a home, this provision helps to ensure that American families have a fair opportunity to achieve that American Dream of homeownership.

Importantly, the House worked with the Senate to ensure that feedback was incorporated to other provisions added in the Senate amendment.

These provisions were the VALID Act, introduced by my great friend in the Senate across the Capitol, Arkansas Senior Senator John Boozman; edits from Ranking Member Waters on the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program; Senator Kennedy's groundbreaking initiative on the Build Now Act; and, importantly, sunsets to the programs offered by the Senate: CDBG-DR, Community Development Block Grant Program for Disaster Recovery, and the PRICE Act.

We focused on improving HUD accountability to benefit both our residents in our districts and taxpayers. This final product advances practical bipartisan and bicameral solutions to modernize Federal housing programs, reduce regulatory burdens, streamline the development process, and help build more homes to meet that growing demand and keep the American Dream within reach.

This bicameral, bipartisan bill before us today reflects ideas from both Chambers and demonstrates what can be accomplished when Congress focuses on solving problems for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this is Congress working at its best, tackling the challenges of the American people, offering solutions, and having those enacted into law. I am proud to support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood), who is the chair of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee and has been the leader on building consensus on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the vice chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos), who is our vice chairman and whip of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore), who is a distinguished member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the work has been extraordinary between the majority and the minority in this House in answering the call for solutions from the American people. I think Mr. Cleaver said it best talking about his own experience within his own family in east Texas: We always had a home, but we just didn't always have a house to put it in.

Let that hang in this room, Mr. Speaker, because that is the spirit in which both sides of the aisle have worked to find solutions today.

We couldn't do it without our staff. I thank the majority and the minority staff from both sides of the aisle who helped us get to where we are today.

Mr. Speaker, as referenced in the previous colloquy that I had with the ranking member when we were on the floor a few weeks ago, we believe there are several points the Treasury should consider as it evaluates the congressional intent in implementing section 1001 of this bill, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.

Entities organized as nonprofits under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that are exempt from taxation under section 501(a), as well as community land trusts, as defined in the Cranston- Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act and amended by our bill today, should not be included in the definition of a large institutional investor.

It is also Congress' intent that nothing in the act should be construed to require a large institutional investor to divest or sell any home purchased before or after enactment.

The term, Madam Speaker, ``single-family home'' was also not intended to include property that when occupied is rented to a member of the Armed Forces or a member of the National Guard as defined in section 101 of title 10 of the U.S. Code.

Similarly, section 1001 should not reduce the supply of essential rental housing in our communities and should exclude student housing leased by bedroom to unrelated individuals under separate agreements.

Similarly, homes purchased by mortgage servicers for loss mitigation reasons following a foreclosure, not as long-term investments, should remain permissible when the mortgage is federally backed, as defined in section 4022(a) of the CARES Act, and the servicer first offers a first-look period to the owner-occupant or a nonprofit approved by the relevant Federal agency.

However, the bill prohibits large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes by participating in homeownership programs that do not meet the criteria under the act.

For build-to-rent programs, this exemption should apply when an investor purchases, constructs, or constructs and retains a single- family home for rental use, whether in a community comprised entirely of renter-occupied single-family homes or in a mixed community of owner- and renter-occupied homes. Clarifying this distinction is essential to carrying out the intent of the House and Senate in this bill.

Additionally, purchases of homes used to provide residential care for individuals with disabilities or developmental disabilities or in senior living communities should be exempt as these are unrelated to the problem being addressed by the act.

The same is true for the exemption of homes purchased with support from programs described in section 42 of the IRS code or participating in Federal or other affordable housing programs where rents are restricted.

Congress also intended exemptions for homes acquired as a part of a community of five or more contiguous rental units, and homes planned, permitted, financed, and constructed as a part of a unified rental community on a single platted parcel that are not intended for individual sale, as well as properties that are made up of multiple rental homes or units constructed on a single parcel of property that cannot be legally sold as individual homes or the units without further subdividing the property.

The ranking member and I recognize that these regulations issued by the Treasury will be necessary to implement various aspects of the act that we debate today.

The overall reaching goal of section 1001 is to expand the number of single-family homes available for purchase by individual households.

Regulations that do not meet that objective will fall short of congressional intent and risk reducing, not increasing, the availability and affordability of housing across our great country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for her partnership on this housing bill that is groundbreaking, historic, and that is the first time in decades that the two Chambers have come together to make measurable, accountable changes that will benefit the American people in both accessibility, the construction of more units, and the affordability that our families so richly need and deserve over these past years of recently high inflation, particularly. I thank her for her partnership.

Madam Speaker, I will also say that I have talked to community development and housing refinancing people in Little Rock, and they all tell me that this is so overdue. I thank the gentlewoman for her passion in getting this done. Whether it is in Cotton Plant, Arkansas, or Helena, Arkansas, or St.

Louis, Missouri, or Los Angeles, California, or Little Rock, Arkansas, we are also, in this bill, holding HUD accountable.

HUD has a responsibility for safe, clean, and effective housing for the tenants dependent on their programs. Not only are we building supply and improving affordability, we are also in a bipartisan, bicameral basis holding the Department of Housing and Urban Development accountable.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle because there are not people on the floor of the House that support Putin. There are not people on the floor of the House tonight that support Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I rise to speak, however, in opposition to H.R. 2913, the Ukraine Support Act, and explain, in my judgment, the flaws in this bill. I stand here concerned and somewhat sad that I am here because no one has been a more steadfast supporter of Ukraine than I have, in my judgment.

I thank my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle and the Republican side of the aisle who have been so passionate.

I have consistently advocated and voted in support of Ukraine. I have consistently advocated for increased sanctions on Russia. My record of supporting Ukraine is strong. I have made two trips to Kyiv and two other trips to the region, all to rally support in rejection of Putin's stand in Ukraine and call for his defeat.

I led the design and successful passage of the REPO Act in this House and in this Congress to convert billions of dollars of Russian foreign assets for use in Ukraine.

Unfortunately, today, we are confronted, as my good friend from New York noted, with a flawed measure.

First, this bill is 14 months old, and therefore, it doesn't recognize all the changes that have happened over the past year. It actually cuts $100 million in authorized funding for Ukraine annually. The funding cuts do not reflect what the House agreed to in our bipartisan NDAA.

It does not reflect the commitment that our NATO allies have made and only calls for a 2 percent pledge of their GDP in support of NATO when, in fact, President Trump has gotten our NATO allies to pledge 5 percent of their GDP in defense spending. We would be walking back from our own spending plans here, and we would be walking back from the commitment we have gotten from our European allies.

But the bill has other issues that I am concerned with. It lists ``Iran provisions'' in the document rather than refer to Russia.

The bill includes poorly written sanctions policy, including duplicative sanctions that are already in place.

It mandates certain sanctions without any link to a strategic goal of what those sanctions would achieve or meaningful behavioral change in Moscow.

It includes sanctions on financial messaging services like SWIFT, which I think are exaggerated, and in my judgment, could cause countries to move to a Chinese messaging system rather than a Western- based system.

So there are others, and that is why I have disappointment today that I am on this House floor in opposition to it.

I agree with my friend from New York, too, that this House should take up a bill that can pass and have bipartisan support to counter Putin and send a message from both Chambers in this Capitol that we reject Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the murderous regime that he leads.

My better alternative is the Financial Services bill passed almost unanimously by Zach Nunn called the PEACE Act. It would cut off Russian energy revenues, channel billions from Moscow's sovereign assets to Ukraine to defend itself, and it is past time for that bill to be on this House floor. I have urged House leadership to bring the PEACE Act to the floor. I again ask House leadership to bring the PEACE Act to the floor.

This is a well-crafted bill that will hold Putin accountable, hold Russia accountable, and will demonstrate that on a bipartisan, bicameral basis this Congress is for Putin leaving Ukraine, Ukraine having a sovereign nation, and this country having a great new friend on the Continent of Europe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act.

Central Arkansas is home to many of our brave veterans and Active- Duty servicemembers stationed at Little Rock Air Force Base and the Arkansas National Guard headquarters at Camp Robinson.

It is also home to Sharri Briley, the devoted surviving spouse of Donovan Lee ``Bull'' Briley, an Army Special Operations Black Hawk helicopter pilot tragically lost in Operation Gothic Serpent, known to all Americans as ``Black Hawk Down.''

Sharri is our Gold Star family voice for the people of Arkansas.

Central Arkansas and our Nation have benefited significantly from Sharri Briley's work, which helps families of deceased servicemembers. This bill is partially named after her because of that leadership.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill, which increases benefits for catastrophically injured veterans, their families, their survivors; raises survivor benefits by an extra 1.5 percent over 2 years; and expands VA home loan program eligibility requirements, importantly, Mr. Speaker, for the Guard and Reserves from 90 days of Active-Duty service to 14 days of Active-Duty service.

This bill is fiscally sensible and supported by over 20 veterans groups across this land, including the VFW and The American Legion.

This bill honors our Nation's promise to care for our veterans, their survivors, and their families. I urge support on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1993) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States and to support programs at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days 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, I include in the Record the Congressional Budget Office estimate on this bill.

Legislation Considered Under Suspension of the Rules

The Majority Leader of the House of Representatives

announces bills that will be considered under suspension of

the rules in that chamber. Under suspension, floor debate is

limited, all floor amendments are prohibited, points of order

against the bill are waived, and final passage requires a

two-thirds majority vote.

At the request of the Majority Leader and the House

Committee on the Budget, CBO estimates the effects of those

bills on direct spending and revenues. CBO has limited time

to review the legislation before consideration. Although it

is possible in most cases to determine whether the

legislation would affect direct spending or revenues, time

may be insufficient to estimate the magnitude of those

effects. If CBO has prepared estimates for similar or

identical legislation, a more detailed assessment of

budgetary effects, including effects on spending subject to

appropriation, may be included.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1993, the 25th Anniversary of 9/11 Commemorative Coin Act.

I thank my colleagues, Representatives Garbarino, Lawler, and Goldman, along with every other Member who supported this effort, for introducing this important legislation honoring a pivotal moment in our Nation's history and remembering the lives so tragically lost on that horrific day.

Mr. Speaker, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, transformed our country. Nearly 3,000 innocent Americans lost their lives in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in the field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

In the face of unimaginable tragedy, the American people demonstrated extraordinary courage, resilience, and unity. This bill recognizes the importance of preserving the memory of that horrible day and honoring those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

H.R. 1993 authorizes the creation of a commemorative coin program marking the 25th anniversary of 9/11, giving Americans a meaningful way to participate in remembrance and reflection.

Mr. Speaker, the proceeds from this program will support the National 9/11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center in New York City, honoring the memory of the victims and the heroic first responders who ran up those stairwells to try to save their fellow Americans.

I especially want to recognize the firefighters, law enforcement officers and emergency personnel, and servicemembers, whose bravery and selflessness embodied the very best of our Nation in one of our most dark hours.

The United States Mint has a long history of producing commemorative coins that recognize moments of profound national significance, and this legislation, Mr. Speaker, continues that tradition.

As we approach this momentous 25th anniversary of September 11, it is fitting that this House considers legislation that reflects our shared history and reaffirms our commitment to never forget the lessons of that day.

I am proud to support this effort. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), who represents that State so ably and who witnessed firsthand the destruction on 9/11. I am grateful for Mr. Lawler's work in promoting this bill on the Republican side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino), the chairman of our Homeland Security Committee who is also a distinguished member of our House Financial Services Committee.

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

Let me say how heartwarming it is to see Members on both sides of the aisle recall the service and sacrifice of 9/11 as we prepare for the 25th anniversary. I think it is a fitting way to demonstrate America's belief in its future and remembrance of a day that deserves to never be forgotten, like we experienced on 9/11.

I thank the ranking member of the full committee for working with me to present this bill to the House today. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3234) to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to modify the amount of reciprocal deposits of an insured depository institution that are not considered to be funds obtained by or through a deposit broker, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO estimate for this bill.

Legislation Considered Under Suspension of the Rules

The Majority Leader of the House of Representatives

announces bills that will be considered under suspension of

the rules in that chamber. Under suspension, floor debate is

limited, all floor amendments are prohibited, points of order

against the bill are waived, and final passage requires a

two-thirds majority vote.

At the request of the Majority Leader and the House

Committee on the Budget, CBO estimates the effects of those

bills on direct spending and revenues. CBO has limited time

to review the legislation before consideration. Although it

is possible in most cases to determine whether the

legislation would affect direct spending or revenues, time

may be insufficient to estimate the magnitude of those

effects. If CBO has prepared estimates for similar or

identical legislation, a more detailed assessment of

budgetary effects, including effects on spending subject to

appropriation, may be included.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3234, the Keeping Deposits Local Act, and I thank my longtime friend and our majority whip, Tom Emmer of Minnesota, and Congresswoman Joyce Beatty for their tremendous bipartisan leadership on this particular matter.

I also thank the ranking member of our full committee, the House Financial Services Committee, for her continued willingness to work across the aisle on cornerstone reforms that benefit our Nation's community banks.

Community banks are one of the most important economic drivers behind Main Street. They deserve a regulatory framework that encourages them to compete, grow, and better serve their customers.

Reciprocal deposits are a proven tool that helps banks attract, retain, and diversify their funding sources while simultaneously giving depositors greater FDIC insurance coverage.

As a former community bank CEO, I personally used this service to help provide better service for important customers.

Right now, overly burdensome broker deposit regulations are standing in the way. Community banks, many of which operate with a limited branch network, are being penalized for using a funding tool that poses no meaningful risk to financial stability.

Majority Whip Emmer and Congresswoman Beatty's bill addresses this issue. It allows community banks to accept a greater volume of reciprocal deposits before triggering the overly stringent broker deposit rules. This, in turn, frees up more capital to make loans in the communities they serve.

Additionally, as a bank's size increases, the threshold for reciprocal deposits that it may accept decreases, ensuring that oversight scales with risk.

The bill also directs the FDIC to study reciprocal deposits and report back to Congress, ensuring that we have the data to inform direction on deposit insurance policy.

This is the kind of smart, targeted reform that has been at the heart of my efforts to make community banking great again in our legislative agenda in this 119th Congress.

I am proud to support this bill by Mr. Emmer, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the author of this important bill from the Republican side that helps our community banks better serve their customers through a diverse approach to deposit insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), who is the majority whip of the Republican-led House.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, Whip Emmer and Mrs. Beatty for their tireless work on this. It has taken a lot of years of collaboration between both parties on both sides of the aisle to find a path to move this bill forward, and we couldn't have done it without the hard work of the gentleman from Minnesota and the gentlewoman from Ohio. I am grateful for their work.

I recommend everybody on both sides of the aisle support this bill, 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. 4544) to direct certain Federal banking and credit union agencies to promote the formation of de novo regulated institutions through the review of application processes, the review of capital raising by de novo regulated institutions, and the establishment of various outreach programs, 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 include extraneous material on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO estimate for this bill.

Legislation Considered Under Suspension of the Rules

The Majority Leader of the House of Representatives

announces bills that will be considered under suspension of

the rules in that chamber. Under suspension, floor debate is

limited, all floor amendments are prohibited, points of order

against the bill are waived, and final passage requires a

two-thirds majority vote.

At the request of the Majority Leader and the House

Committee on the Budget, CBO estimates the effects of those

bills on direct spending and revenues. CBO has limited time

to review the legislation before consideration. Although it

is possible in most cases to determine whether the

legislation would affect direct spending or revenues, time

may be insufficient to estimate the magnitude of those

effects. If CBO has prepared estimates for similar or

identical legislation, a more detailed assessment of

budgetary effects, including effects on spending subject to

appropriation, may be included.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ranking member's bill, H.R. 4544, the American Access to Banking Act. I thank Ms. Waters for her diligent work on this important bipartisan legislation.

Over the past decade, Mr. Speaker, the United States has lost nearly 2,000 community banks, while only 62 de novo banks have opened during that same period.

These essential institutions have disappeared from Main Streets across America due to mergers, acquisitions, and bank failures. In one out of every three counties in our country, a community bank is the only on-the-ground banking option--one out of every three counties. That is why it is important to consider this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was the CEO of a community bank in the Mississippi Delta where there were very few banking offices available for small businesses and agricultural communities spread out across the rural heartland. I have to say it is very troubling when a local farmer tries to finance his equipment or where a small business owner wants to expand their restaurant or get their first loan to start a business if there is not a community bank. That is where families go to build relationships with lenders who know their names, understand their communities, and recognize their circumstances.

Why aren't new banks forming? It is because we have made it extraordinarily difficult to start one. The application process is often complex, duplicative, and overly burdensome. Some of the requirements aren't even in statute that are held out for that young business development team, those young officers who want to go out on their own to serve a community by creating a new depository institution.

That is why I am pleased to support the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Waters of California's, American Access to Banking Act.

This bill directs the Federal bank regulators to make it easier to start a new bank or credit union by streamlining the application process, improving the capital-raising options, establishing mentorship programs, and strengthening coordination between Federal and State regulators.

Banking is not a partisan issue, and every American deserves access to a financial institution that can meet their needs.

This bill is very complementary of efforts made by our Financial Institutions Subcommittee Chair, Andy Barr of Kentucky, to try to remove barriers to improving the ability to start a bank in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud supporter of this bipartisan legislation. I thank the ranking member for her leadership on it. I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, again, thank the gentlewoman for her work on this bill. Over this Congress, we have had some really inspirational people come and testify.

In fact, all three that I am picturing in my mind are women and all three came to the committee to talk about the burdens of trying to start a new bank or build a small community bank.

I remember BankMiami was a case, and there have been quite a number of start-up banks in south Florida that are Minority Depository Institutions.

We had inspirational speakers in our committee, and they said we need to do better here on this. This is at the heart of what the ranking member is talking about. How can we improve this process so that more people can take that decision, if their market and the characteristics of their economics and their geography would be rewarded by new bank startups?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for her leadership. I invite her to close, and I urge all of our colleagues to support her effort.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the ranking member for her work on this bill. I urge all my colleagues to support it, 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. 5317) to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to ensure that certain custodial deposits of well capitalized insured depository institutions are not considered to be funds obtained by or through deposit brokers, 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 include extraneous material on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Congressional Budget Office estimate for the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will speak in support of H.R. 5317, the Community Bank Deposit Access Act.

This is a bill that over my time in Congress I have introduced several times and worked with colleagues to extend the ability to attract deposits to local community banks to make them more competitive.

This bill works to essentially give community banks greater flexibility to access stable and reliable funding sources so that they can continue to meet the financial needs of the communities they serve.

Community banks, as we have talked about today, play a vital role in our local economies by supporting small businesses, farmers, and consumers who depend on them for access to credit and other essential financial services.

That is why it is important that our community institutions have access to a diverse and dependable set of funding sources so that they can continue to meet these demands.

One source of funding comes through custodial deposits, which are the funds placed at a bank by a third party on behalf of underlying customers or beneficiaries who own the funds but may not have a direct banking relationship with that institution.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, we talked about reciprocal deposits. Let's say I am a small business, and I have $500,000 as a typical average collected balance in my business, but I only have deposit insurance of $250,000. The reciprocal deposit bill that Mrs. Beatty offered a few minutes ago with Tom Emmer of Minnesota allows that other $250,000 for that small business to be covered for deposit insurance. That is very important and very useful to have that customer-bank service relationship.

Custodial deposits are similar, but what if it is a much larger amount of money, a much bigger business? Custodial deposits allow banks to serve their customer that way with one statement by seeing the money spread across more banks.

This is a cash management product that allows a local community bank to play a lead role in Treasury management for a larger commercial customer.

Let's say, for example, a landlord might place tenant security deposits in a custodial account at a local bank, even though the tenants remain the ultimate owner of those funds and, hence, the ability to be benefited by that.

These arrangements provide benefits to all of the parties involved. Banks gain access to stable, low-cost deposits, while customers and third parties benefit from the convenience of a more centralized account management function, along with the protections provided by deposit insurance.

The FDIC has long recognized this deposit insurance process and how it can apply on a pass-through basis, meaning that underlying funds remain insured so long as each beneficiary's share stays within the applicable deposit insurance limit.

My bill would expand access to these arrangements for banks under $10 billion in assets that maintain strong capital levels and sound supervisory ratings or otherwise receive a waiver from their primary bank regulator.

Custodial deposits are a stable relationship-based funding source that allows a community bank to support small businesses, families, and local economies.

These deposits can provide smaller institutions with access to depositors and funding relationships that might otherwise be out of reach and help diversify their funding base and improve their financial stability.

Yet, under current law, many of these deposits are treated the same as if they were brokered deposits and subject to rules that were never intended for these type of relationship accounts.

This outdated treatment creates unnecessary burdens for community banks and limits their ability to responsibly utilize custodial deposits to support lending in their communities.

By clarifying that custodial deposits are not brokered deposits, if they do not exceed 20 percent of the total liabilities of the community bank, my bill gives lenders the certainty they need to accept these funds and put that money to work in their communities.

This is a commonsense, bipartisan solution that strengthens community banks, supports local lending, and preserves the safety and soundness of the financial system without increasing the risk to our Deposit Insurance Fund.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close and reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say I appreciate the gentlewoman's engagement on deposit insurance policy at large. I think it is an important topic. She and I both share the importance of reviewing our deposit insurance system, make sure it is competitive, make sure it encourages safe and sound banking, make sure it doesn't expand in any way the moral hazard associated with too much reliance on a government safety net in any way that might encourage too great risk-taking.

She is right. We should do that in a data-dependent way and do that collectively, and we have had assistance in that regard from the FDIC and others.

I am grateful for her cooperation on moving the reciprocal deposit bill earlier today, Mrs. Beatty and Mr. Emmer's bill, this custodial deposit effort. Both of these bills help our community banks be more competitive across the country as they try to grow their business in the face of a lot of competition.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her support. I urge a ``yes'' vote on both sides of the aisle, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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