Floor Statements

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. HENSARLING: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 4557.

A bill to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban

Development to provide disaster assistance to States and

units of general government under a community development

block grant disaster recovery program, and for other

purposes; with an amendment; Rept. 115-1107, Part 1; referred

to the Committee on Transportation for a period ending not

later than December 28, 2018, for consideration of such

provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the

jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(r) of

rule X.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7388) to extend the National Flood Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the National Flood Insurance Program is a program that has a number of challenges, but it is also a vital program for Americans who live in flood-prone areas.

The challenges in the program are well-known. Regrettably, it is going bankrupt. Regrettably, it incents people to live in areas that are repeatedly flooded. Regrettably, it is a program that protects a government monopoly; that is why the House, earlier this year, acted with a comprehensive reform bill. Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the Capitol have yet to act.

We do not wish to have the current program lapse; thus, we are on the floor at this very moment.

This is a very simple bill. It would provide a temporary, short-term authorization through the end of May of 2019, regrettably, I believe now, the ninth extension since the House has acted.

And it also ensures that we provide certainty, certainty to the market of what the policies of the National Flood Insurance Program are.

I was there in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. And one of the great tragedies--there were many tragedies, but one of the great tragedies was how few people actually had flood insurance. So what we want is a system that, hopefully, will see more people have flood coverage written into their homeowners' insurance policy.

So the NFIP wisely had moved in the direction of what they call allowing insurance companies to not have to have a non-compete. This is a current policy of the program, but too many insurance companies don't believe that policy will stay. So we will ensure that that policy stays through this bill, so that more people in a tragic situation will be covered by flood insurance.

So, again, this ensures that current policy is at least extended through May of 2019. It adds certainty to current policy.

I know in discussions with the ranking member--who has a lot of expertise in the subject of flood--we negotiated in good faith. We didn't quite get there on the comprehensive bill, but she agrees that we need this bill, right now, to ensure that current policy is extended, at least through May of 2019.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out again, all this bill does is extend for 6 months the current policies of the NFIP. Not one single policy of the NFIP is changed in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority whip for his kind words and our ability to work together to put together a product that we are both proud of and that the House passed. Again, we regret that those on the other side of the Capitol have not seen the wisdom to put forth any plan.

What we have before us is something that is quite simple. If you believe that you want to create at least 6 months of certainty for the market, for the real estate market, residential market, particularly in flood-prone areas, then you will pass this bill, because this is the one that creates certainty that every single current policy of the NFIP is extended for 6 months. That is what it does.

It codifies one particular policy of the NFIP, and this creates more certainty. This is what people have come to the floor to say they want.

Again, I lament the fact we are not doing a 5-year reauthorization. I lament the fact we are not dealing with many of the challenges that I mentioned earlier, but at least, today, we can create certainty for 6 months as negotiations continue in the next Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, tonight it is a privilege that I have to yield to somebody who has become a good friend and an excellent colleague, who has served with me, at my side, at the House Financial Services Committee, who will be leaving us at the end of this Congress. Her voice of common sense and her voice to really promote economic growth among all Americans will be missed; but in her short tenure, she has made her mark in our committee and made her mark in Congress, and I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her very, very kind words. And, again, she will be very much missed from this institution, but I will treasure our service together. I will treasure our friendship forever as well, and I thank her for coming to the floor tonight.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I will issue the remainder of my remarks from the House well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for what I expect to be my final speech on the House floor. After 8 terms, I have chosen to go home to Texas, the land of my forefathers, with the hope of being a better father and a better husband myself.

I am also going home because I believe America is best served by the Jeffersonian model of American democracy, and that is a citizen legislature. I fear too many wish to become members of the permanent ruling class. I am not among them.

I also know that this congressional seat, Mr. Speaker, never belonged to me. It belonged to the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. It has always belonged to them. They allowed me--they allowed me to hold it in trust. It was a sacred trust, Mr. Speaker, a sacred trust to be the guardian of their freedoms and their opportunities, and I will always, always be grateful for that privilege.

So, come January 3, I reverently return their seat back to them, and I wish my successor, Lance Gooden of Kaufman County, Texas, all the best--all the best.

Mr. Speaker, 16 years ago, I went to these very same people in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas and I told them: I believe I know what the genius of America is. It is faith; it is family; it is free enterprise; and, yes, it is freedom.

And it does indeed all start with faith because, Mr. Speaker, over your chair right there is emblazoned our national motto, ``In God We Trust.'' And it is my firm prayer that, for our Nation, may it always be so. And I firmly believe we cannot be a virtuous nation unless we are first a godly nation.

People come to America for many reasons. They come here for political freedom, economic freedom, but, also, most profoundly, for religious freedom. May we never forget Jefferson's prophetic words enshrined: ``Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are the gift of God?''

Mr. Speaker, as vital as faith is, so are our families. And the family that made me in College Station, Texas, all those years ago was blessed with two wonderful parents, Chase and Ann. My father was a poultry farmer; my mother was a stay-at-home mom; but together, they taught me and my siblings invaluable lessons about hard work, fairness, faith, discipline, and honesty--in a word, Mr. Speaker, values. They lovingly led by example, which is what my wife and I attempt to do today with our two children.

We now have, over so many different years of history, showing that it is our families--it is our families--that can best perpetuate our values, raise our children, and care for our elderly.

Now, let me turn to free enterprise.

1776 wasn't just a revolutionary year for America. It was a revolutionary year for free enterprise, for American capitalism, free market capitalism, as well, because it was in that year that Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith penned its intellectual foundation in his opus magnum, ``The Wealth of Nations.'' Prosperity would never, never be the same.

We now have over 200 years of history in this country proving that free market capitalism produces the greatest wealth for the greatest number of people. Yes, free enterprise is about wealth creation, but this is not to be confused with materialism.

Yes, free enterprise does produce Porsches, it produces Jacuzzis, and it produces vacations to Paris; but, more importantly, it empowers a factory worker in my district in Mesquite, Texas, to start her own business. It helps a family in Jacksonville, Texas, send their first kid to college. It puts ample, nutritious food on the kitchen table. And that kitchen table is found in a home that some hardworking family in Forney, Texas, never dreamed they could own but they have because of American free enterprise.

But even perhaps more profound than wealth creation, free market capitalism is really about the pursuit of happiness. It is about the freedom to use your God-given talents to create, to innovate, and to produce, to take pride and joy that can only arise from what American Enterprise Institute scholar Arthur Brooks terms ``earned success.'' As is written in the book of Isaiah, chapter 65, verse 22: My chosen ones will long enjoy the work of their hands.

And finally, freedom, Mr. Speaker, the inalienable right to liberty endowed by our creator. Never in the vast expanse of time, history, and space have the blessings of liberty been enjoyed in greater abundance than they have here in the United States of America. Only in America are you only limited by the size of your dreams. As my friend and mentor, former Senator Phil Gramm, is fond of saying: Only in America can ordinary people achieve extraordinary results.

Mr. Speaker, generations--generations--of our forefathers have taken up arms in defense of liberty and found it worthy of the very sacrifice of their lives. There is no greater foundational principle to the American people than liberty: personal liberty, political liberty, religious liberty, and economic liberty. May we, in this body, always fight to preserve it.

Now, in the Federal city, political calculus changes by the moment. Policies come and go, but principles endure, and there are no more enduring or foundational principles in America than faith, family, free enterprise, and freedom. I believed it 16 years ago when I came to this body. I believe it even more fervently today, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have learned a couple of things in my 16 years of service in Congress. One thing I learned is that, when one announces their retirement, two things happen:

One, people begin to say nice things about you. Had I known about this phenomena earlier, perhaps I would have retired years ago.

Second of all, reporters ask you about your so-called legacy. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to laugh because I am not sure there is anything as soon forgotten in the Federal city as a former Member of Congress. So I don't really think in terms of legacy. I, frankly, don't know if I have changed Washington. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know Washington didn't change me.

I do take solace, though, and I take a measure of pride knowing that, along with a handful of other conservatives in this body, I fought steadfastly against the forces of what I view crony capitalism, and that be either by earmark set-asides, subsidies, tax preferences, or trade protectionism, particularly now as the specter of socialism once again rears its ugly head in our Nation.

We can never let our fellow countrymen somehow confuse free market capitalism with crony capitalism. In the one, your success depends upon how hard and how smart you work on Main Street. In the other, it depends on who you know in Washington.

The latter is a threat to the former, and the Republican Party will lose its moral authority to prevent a social welfare state if we ever acquiesce in a corporate welfare state. This we cannot allow to happen.

Mr. Speaker, you know personally, as does the previous speaker, the gentlewoman from New York, how much pride I take in the work of the great men and women of the House Financial Services Committee.

Most Americans today are seeing the best economy they have ever seen in their lifetimes, and that is in no small measure to the work of the men and women of the House Financial Services committee.

Now, I am not going to argue that our work was on the same order of magnitude as tax reform. It wasn't. But the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act signed by President Trump was the most pro-growth banking bill in a generation, and has certainly done more to grow our economy than any other legislation passed by the House besides tax reform.

Now, Mr. Speaker, economic growth cannot solve all of America's problems, but it lifts the downtrodden from poverty; it empowers middle-income America; and it enables tens of millions to achieve their version of the American Dream. It has, indeed, for 16 years of my service, been worth fighting for.

As I prepare to leave office, Mr. Speaker, I leave with many, many hopes. But, Mr. Speaker, I leave with a few fears as well that I believe my fellow countrymen should pay close attention to.

First, I am concerned about the state of America's entrepreneurial spirit. I wonder how long we will have robust economic growth if the government continues a regulatory onslaught against American business to attempt to render all risk out of our financial system.

From its earliest beginnings, America has always been the land of the entrepreneur, the land of the dreamer, and the risk-taker and, yes, that includes the risk of failure.

Several of the colonies, such as Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, and Virginia, were founded, not by the Crown of England but, rather, by profit-seeking corporations that were willing to take risk.

You know, someone who clearly understood something about risk was Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple; I believe still the largest company in the world today. In an interview, Jobs was once asked how he thought about himself. He said: ``I look at myself as sort of a trapeze artist.''

And then the reporter asked: ``With or without a net?'' He didn't bat an eyelash, he said: ``Without.'' Steve Jobs was a risk-taker and because he took a risk, Apple again became the most valuable company in the world whose innovations have revolutionized our lives.

And what is important is not the amount of money that Steve Jobs made, but what he was able to do with it, and that is create a successful company, to employ and serve millions who collectively have exercised their God-given rights at the pursuit of happiness.

Fewer entrepreneurs taking fewer risks means fewer jobs, Mr. Speaker. It is that simple. And so one day, if we lose our ability to fail in America, we will soon lose our ability to succeed. There are simply too many burdensome regulations that crush the entrepreneurial spirit. This must cease.

Another fear I have, Mr. Speaker, is that I fear we are drifting away from our constitutional moorings as I witness the rise of the administrative state, because we need to appreciate our birthright, the sheer genius of the Constitution which, unfortunately, today is threatened. Our Constitution's framework of checks and balances, limited government, co-equal branches of government, that has secured our fundamental rights and given us the freest, most prosperous society the world has ever known.

But we are witnessing now a century-long liberal expansion of unconstitutional government that has unleashed the modern regulatory state as we know it, extremely powerful, exceedingly intrusive, imperiously opaque, bafflingly bureaucratic, and alarmingly unaccountable.

Instead of being governed by the rule of law, increasingly, citizens are being ruled by the rule of rulers; specifically, the rules promulgated by legions of unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats.

The result? It is OSHA now, not Congress, that governs over workplace safety. It is the EPA now, not Congress, that governs over our air quality. It is HHS, not Congress, that now governs over our healthcare.

Today, the citizen's right to carefully deliberate proposed legislation through their chosen elected representatives in Congress is now reduced to nothing more than a little ``notice and comment'' period where the citizens are permitted to lodge complaints and suggestions, all of which the unelected bureaucrats are free to ignore, and which they may actually use to retaliate against the citizen.

Madison, in Federalist 47, warned us of this phenomena when he wrote,

The combination of all power, legislative, executive, and

judiciary in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced

the very definition of tyranny.

It is time for Congress, Mr. Speaker, to reclaim its constitutional powers of the purse, to no longer allow these economically significant rules to pass without congressional approval, and to outlaw the Chevron Doctrine that has tilted the scales of justice toward the state. This must change.

The next fear I have as I get ready to leave Congress, Mr. Speaker, is one that has really come about fairly recently in our State of the Union, and that is the tenor and tone of the national debate; in other words, what is happening in our public square.

Now, on the one hand, for those who believe that we are on the precipice of something truly catastrophic, I remind them, we have survived a bloody Civil War. We survived the turbulent 60s of my youth.

Politics has rhetorically always been a full contact sport. And if you read biographies of the founders like Jefferson, and Adams, and Hamilton, you will discover just how coarse and vile ad hominem attacks could be at the dawn of American politics.

But with the exception of the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts, I don't recall ever there being a greater effort in our Nation's history to actually silence dissent.

The cry for civility in political discourse, welcome as it is, is somewhat misplaced. The threat to democracy does not come from incivility but, instead, from those who are committed to preventing; preventing the debate, as opposed to winning the debate. That is where the true threat comes.

Democratic self-governance relies upon a free flow of differing ideas within the public square to fully inform all opinions and challenge all accepted orthodoxies and ideologies.

There was a time in America's history that the American ethos was encapsulated by the words that have been attributed to Patrick Henry: ``I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.''

Regrettably, I can hear all over the Nation today people saying something along the lines of: ``I disapprove of what you say, and I am going to harass and intimidate you and your family, defame your character, and attempt to take away your livelihood until you simply shut up and withdraw.''

Those who do not respect the rights of others to be heard in the public square may be little better than book burners and represent a clear and present danger to American democracy.

It is time for every citizen who cares about the destiny of their Nation, it is time for courage, but it is a time also for goodwill and mutual respect among our citizens. It is time to re-secure our democratic values in the public square.

Mr. Speaker, my greatest fear for my Nation, though, is our national debt. When I first came to Congress the national debt was $6.7 trillion. Today it has tripled. Tripled.

My greatest regret in public office is my inability to convince more of my colleagues and more of my fellow citizens of the peril of this national debt. We are experiencing debt-to-GDP ratios that haven't been seen since World War II, but in World War II they were episodic and temporary. Today's debt is structural and permanent.

As a veteran of the so-called super committee, the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Committee, and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, my iPad is awash in reports saying that our national debt is simply unsustainable. Yet, denial, justification, and obstruction continue to rule the day.

We should all be troubled and sobered by the fact that if one carefully reviews history, you will find few examples of republics that have existed beyond 200 years, and most of those republics met their demise through some type of fiscal crisis. There is so much at stake.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in my heart, and in my head, I don't really believe America one day will wake up and become Greece, but I do believe that we are on the path, within a generation, to

being a second-rate economic power, a second-rate military power and, frankly, a second-rate moral authority as we become the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.

It is beyond time for both a spending limit amendment to the United States Constitution and fundamental reforms of our current entitlement programs for future generations. It is not too late to take America off the road to national bankruptcy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have spent the last few minutes speaking about my fears, but please know I have far, far more hope than I have fear as I come to the House floor for the last time to give a speech.

Most Americans, as I observe, are enjoying the greatest economy in their lifetimes. Oh, what a difference that has made in the lives of millions of Americans and, indeed, to borrow a phrase from the past: ``It is morning in America again.''

Opportunity abounds like few periods in our Nation's history. And our military might that had been hollowed out in the last presidential administration is being rebuilt and it is respected and feared around the globe again.

As we look at our Nation's history, we cannot but conclude that we live in a time of relative peace, relative security, and we should always, always be grateful.

But the main reason I come to this floor tonight, so hopeful, so hopeful for the future, is because of the people I have met in the Fifth District of Texas that I have had this privilege to represent. I have met great entrepreneurs, like Sam Bistrian of Lake Highlands. He immigrated to this country as a 12-year-old boy from Romania. He didn't even speak the language.

A few years later, he managed to get a job at one of the local retailers, Neiman Marcus. He got a job starting at the bottom; I think it was stocking shelves. And with hard work and vision, he ended up one day launching his own line of designer rain boots called Roma, and now he heads up a multi-million dollar enterprise. And oh, by the way, he gives his boots away to poor people all over the world.

Another entrepreneur I met is Rick Carmona from Terrell, Texas. As a kid, he used to visit a local Tex-Mex restaurant and, after going there a few times he said, you know what? My mom cooks better food than this.

So after saving his money from a number of jobs, he finally took the great leap. He invested his money; took out a small loan; started his own restaurant.

He seated the customers; he bussed the tables. His mom did the cooking. His office consisted of a back table and a pencil behind his ear. And a couple of decades later, he runs one the most successful restaurants in the entire county because of his entrepreneurial vision.

I also have hope because I met great patriots, patriots like Doc Collins from Van Zandt County, who is a real conservative leader from that county.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he has bone cancer that he continues to battle. But during a recent election, he got chemotherapy in the morning for his bone cancer, and he was working the polling places in the afternoon because he felt that strongly about his cause and his country.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there is Howard Banks of Kaufman, Texas. I wish everybody could meet this wonderful patriot. He is legally blind. He is a World War II veteran. He flies Old Glory every day. Every day.

One day, some no-account vandal decided he would take Mr. Banks' flag, and Mr. Banks fought him. He fought him. He is age 92 and he still decided that he would fight for and he was willing to die for his American flag and the country it represents.

These patriots inspire me, Mr. Speaker.

And then there are the social entrepreneurs that I have met in the Fifth District of Texas; people like Morgan Jones of Athens, Texas, who owns a pawnshop. Every single year, what he will do is he will take himself and all of his managers on mercy ships to Africa in order to deliver care and gifts. This is something he does at his expense.

There are so many people, I wish I had time to mention, in the Fifth District of Texas who represent the best of America. I don't have all that time, Mr. Speaker, so let me mention one more.

Kenn Waterston of Terrell, Texas. I mean, he is a bulldog of a Marine veteran.

He opened the Veterans Resource Center not a block, maybe two blocks away from the Dallas VA hospital. And now if homeless veterans will go to the VA Hospital to get their healthcare, as soon as they come out, they can get clean clothes; they can get showers; they can get counseling; they can get access to computers and people to help them find a job in society.

So, Mr. Speaker, when I see patriots and entrepreneurs and Good Samaritans who are stepping up every day in the Fifth District of Texas, I know America has a very bright future, a very bright future ahead.

So let me simply conclude where I began.

For me, it is time for me to go home. It is time to go home to my family. It is time to go home to Texas. All things must pass, including our congressional service.

I continue to have so many blessings in my life, but, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe I will ever have a greater privilege than fighting for freedom and opportunity in the people's House, the House of Representatives.

My heart is just full of gratitude, full of gratitude to my staff, whose work empowered me; full of gratitude to my constituents, whose encouragement and prayers supported me; and most of all to my family, so much gratitude to Melissa, Claire, and Travis, whose support, love, and grace have sustained me all those 16 years. They are my rock.

So here is what I know after 16 years, Mr. Speaker:

I know if we will continue to trust in God, I know if we will continue to revere freedom, I know if we will keep faith with our Founders' vision, our children will have brighter futures and our Republic will be forever preserved.

May God continue to shed his grace on this great country.

And, Mr. Speaker, for the final time on the House floor, I yield back the balance of my time.

I came here this morning, Mr. Speaker, and I picked up a copy of this morning's edition of The Wall Street Journal. Many Americans would consider it to be the most influential newspaper in America, but certainly, at least on economic matters, I think most would agree.

I just happened to read the lead editorial today, Mr. Speaker, and it says the House, this body, has ``done yeoman's work shepherding a compendium of bipartisan bills to expand access to capital.''

This is in the most influential newspaper in America.

There is a lot in between, but let me go to the last sentence, where it says: ``Senate Republicans shouldn't scuttle what could be one of this Congress's better achievements.''

That is in today's Wall Street Journal, Mr. Speaker.

The Journal is talking about JOBS 3.0. It is a bill that came out of this body, 406-4. Its purpose, Mr. Speaker, is to promote small business, to promote entrepreneurial capitalism, and to promote venture capital.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it came out of this body, 406-4--we couldn't get a 406-4 vote on a Mother's Day resolution--and yet it languishes on that side of the Capitol.

So I have been in this body for 16 years, Mr. Speaker, and I have learned a few things. One of the things I have learned is never underestimate the Senate's capacity to do nothing. Unfortunately, so far, the United States Senate has done nothing on a bill that passed, 406-4.

Now, Mr. Speaker, thanks to the leadership of President Donald Trump, thanks to the leadership of Speaker

Paul Ryan, and thanks to the leadership of Chairman Kevin Brady, we have what, for most Americans--not all, but for most Americans--is simply the greatest economy they have had in their entire lifetimes:

Unemployment is at a 50-year low, cutting across all socioeconomic groups;

Small business optimism and consumer optimism is off the charts;

We are seeing more people come back into the labor force.

This is all great news, but we cannot be blinded by the fact that, as good as the economy is today, we still have to concentrate on the economy of tomorrow. We need to know:

Can we ensure that the seed capital is there?

Can we make sure that our public policy nourishes the drivers of tomorrow's economy?

The next Amazons, the next Googles, and the next Ubers, where are they going to come from?

So, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what we have seen is that, as recently as 2016, startups in America have been cut in half.

And, oh, incidentally, the regulatory burden--more securities regulatory burden--has increased by over 50 percent in the last 10 years, and by over 80 percent. It now costs, Mr. Speaker, twice as much to go public today as it did 10 years ago.

What do we see? We see half the number of companies going public.

They don't seem to have that problem in China, Mr. Speaker, because China has over one-third of the world's IPOs, or initial public offerings; yet, in the United States, our IPOs have been cut in half.

That is why it is so important that every Congress go back and we ensure that our securities laws are written in such a way that we make sure that entrepreneurial capitalism can't just survive in America but absolutely thrive.

So I come to this floor again to ask that our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol--and I have many friends in that body, but I am often confused why they cannot act on something that has received incredible support in the House.

Mr. Speaker, November is National Entrepreneurship Month. There are only 2 days left in the month. I hope that my voice can be heard on the other side of the Capitol, and I would ask the United States Senate to immediately take up the JOBS 3.0 Act and make sure that the economy of tomorrow for our children and grandchildren is as healthy and thriving as the economy of today.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7187) to extend the National Flood Insurance Program until December 7, 2018.

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 yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee. He is also the author of the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, which was passed by this body over a year ago, and we still await the Senate to take up this version.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the chairwoman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

Florida (Mr. Ross), the vice chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee and the true author of competitive flood insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice chairman on the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the Financial Services Committee majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I return the kind words of the ranking member. One, she very much negotiated in good faith on the flood program, something she has a lot of passion and expertise on. We didn't get quite there as we did on a few other items, but, again, she negotiated in good faith. She has a lot of

expertise on the matter. If we don't get it in this Congress, I have no doubt that she will play a key leadership role in the next in order to effectuate long-term flood reform.

And I appreciate the kind words. Although, I must admit, I have learned many things in the 16 years I have served in Congress, and one is, the best way to get people to say kind words about you is to announce your retirement. I have never had kinder words spoken, but I know they were sincere, of the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, November 14, 2017, was a proud day for the United States House of Representatives, because that is the day, on a bipartisan basis, we passed the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, and I negotiated with the House majority whip, Mr. Scalise, this bill, among others.

And here we are, over a year later, and no action from the Senate. And, today, November 29, 2018, is a sad and embarrassing day for the United States House of Representatives. And I must say, as a Republican, it is a sad and embarrassing day for something we call regular order, something that my party ran on.

And now we have a bill coming to the floor, within the jurisdiction of the House Financial Services Committee; regular order says the committee of jurisdiction first works their will before the House works their will. The committee didn't work its will on this bill. And, in fact, I have yet to find anybody in the Republican leadership who will own up to how this came to the floor in the first place.

So, unfortunately, because my party lost at the ballot box, we are going to soon be out of the regular order business and apparently we have forgotten how to do it. So it is a sad day in that regard. It is also a sad day because what we see here with this bill is a perpetuation of the status quo.

Now, let me tell you what the status quo is, Mr. Speaker. The status quo is 100 different people are dying in America every year from floods. At least a part of that tragedy--a part of that tragedy is a failure to reform the National Flood Insurance Program.

Status quo is that we continue to pay people to build the same homes in the same fashion in the same places that flood over and over and over and somehow expect a different result. We are not helping them. We are not helping them at all. We are helping put them in harm's way. That is what the status quo is, and if you vote for this extension, you are voting for the status quo.

Status quo is a government monopoly--a government monopoly with no competition, no innovation, and, by the way, it is subsidized, and it is still not affordable. We are seeing average premium increases of 7 percent a year. You know, on the Republican side of the aisle, why don't we give free enterprise a chance? Why don't we allow competition to bring in innovation, to bring down rates as opposed to, again, making taxpayers subsidize it and still have unaffordability? Only government can bring about that insane result.

What else is the status quo? The status quo is $35 billion of debt-- $35 billion of debt with $1\1/2\ billion actual actuarial annual deficit a year. Totally unsustainable. Totally unsustainable

The status quo is that taxpayers, hardworking factory workers in Mesquite, Texas, are having to subsidize millionaires' beach condos. That is the status quo. That is the bill that is on the floor right now.

The last several tragic hurricanes we have seen, 80 to 90 percent of the affected flooded homes didn't even have flood insurance. Why? Because it is not part of the homeowner's insurance policy due to the government monopoly. That is the status quo. And we are paying on the back end because we are not allowing market competition on the front end. That is the status quo.

The status quo is, we are taking environmentally sensitive areas, and they are getting paved. They are getting paved in flood-prone areas.

That is the status quo, and so that is really the debate that is before us today.

We know what the classic definition of insanity is: doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result. Eight times--this will be the eighth time since the House passed the 21st Century Flood Reform Act on a bipartisan basis that there will be yet another vote for status quo.

Here is a radical idea. Why don't we do something different? Why don't we tell the Senate it is time, after a year, that they do their business?

I have got to tell you, once again, Mr. Speaker, I have learned a number of things in my 16 years of service in this body. One is never underestimate the Senate's capacity to do nothing.

Why do we allow them to do nothing? Let them bring a bill.

I don't believe we are through negotiating, Mr. Speaker, but the House shouldn't negotiate with itself after we have made a House position on a bipartisan basis known. There is no reason to do this.

There can be a better day. There is hope. I imagine a day when we have a flood insurance program with affordable premiums that is brought about by competition, that is brought about by innovation. I can imagine a day where every American remotely placed in a flood-prone area has flood as part of their homeowners insurance so that when one of these great tragedies occurs, at least they had insurance on the front end. So I dream about and I imagine greater take-up rates.

I also imagine a day where, for the people in flood-prone areas, we either help move them up or we help move them out so that they don't continue to be in harm's way.

I went to Hurricane Harvey. I met with the survivors. I heard the tragic stories. I saw the tragedy of the lost homes. And yet here we are, voting on status quo to put them right back where they were again.

This is a sad and embarrassing day for the House. We need to vote ``no.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on behalf of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my great privilege to have the responsibility to chair this committee for the last 6 years. I take no pride on behalf of myself, but I take a lot of pride in the work that has been done on this committee.

A lot of that work, Mr. Speaker, has been bipartisan. And I believe, indeed, that the Financial Services Committee is the hardest-working, most productive committee in the United States House. We have produced more bills; we have had more bills passed on the floor; we have had more bills signed into law than any other committee.

I am especially proud of the work that we have done to create more pro-growth economic policy throughout banking and finance, and the passage of S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, has meant so much to helping create more capital to help save our credit unions and community banks, and to really play a part in the unparalleled economic growth that we see in our Nation today. I take great pride in that work on behalf of all our members.

I also take great pride on behalf of our Members for a piece of legislation

that modernized the foreign investment in the U.S. The bill is technically known by its acronym, FIRRMA, and it modernizes a regime that had not been modernized in quite some time.

Mr. Speaker, so many of us know we have challenges in America today with foreign interests that come in and essentially take our intellectual property, that take our technology, and regrettably China is one of the prime perpetrators of this. I have had the occasion to go to China and meet with their leadership. And I want China to rise, I want them to have economic growth, but not at the expense of the United States of America and not by violating either the letter or the spirit of the WTO, of the World Trade Organization, which we helped them enter a couple of decades ago.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work, especially, done by the gentleman from North Carolina, who is the vice chairman of our Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee. He was the House leader on this legislation and worked with the senior senator from Texas, John Cornyn, my friend, to bring this onto the President's desk that ultimately got signed into law.

This was really a revolutionary law dealing with both export controls, foreign investment in the U.S., and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Pittenger, was an early leader. He saw the threat before others saw it.

I have had a number of great privileges serving as chairman, but one of the greatest privileges is serving with men and women who have vision, who have commitment, who have principle, and that certainly describes the gentleman from North Carolina.

Regrettably, he and I are both departing after this Congress, and that is a bittersweet feeling. I think we both look forward to the next opportunity that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield him some time, because it is important for us to hear from him about the significance of this legislation and how important it is. I was happy to be in the White House not too long ago to have the President extoll the virtues of this law as well.

Mr. Speaker, I will miss his company, I will miss his leadership, and there is no one that I know of who is a greater authority on terrorist finance who is serving in the U.S. Congress today than Robert Pittenger of North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman for his comments tonight.

I hope that there are a fair amount of Americans who are watching this this evening, because they need to know that they owe this gentleman, Mr. Pittenger of North Carolina, a great debt of gratitude. And indeed America is going to be a safer, more secure Nation because of his leadership.

In his three terms, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pittenger achieved more in three terms than many Members achieve in ten terms.

Many people, unfortunately, come to the People's House to be somebody. Mr. Pittenger of North Carolina came to do something.

And, indeed, don't just take my word for it, but the President of the United States thinks this is one of the most significant pieces of legislation when it comes to dealing with the threats of those who would take our intellectual property, who would take our technology by hook or crook, or however they might do it.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Mr. Pittenger for his leadership.

I must admit, this was kind of faint on my radar screen, this issue, but among Mr. Pittenger's other endearing qualities, he is persistent. He is a very persistent individual. And I am glad he was persistent, because it became a major piece of legislation.

Part of my job as chairman and one of my great privileges is I get to take credit for a lot of other people's good work. I shouldn't, I shouldn't be accorded this. And so I get many thanks, but this was a team effort and it was led by Mr. Pittenger.

Other countries are now put on notice. We are watching. These rules, as Mr. Pittenger, the gentleman from North Carolina, has said, will be unveiled in the weeks and months to come. But a new day has dawned for those who think that they are going to take, by hook or crook, our technology.

We want our global neighbors to succeed, but, again, not to succeed at our expense. Those applications of technology and intellectual property that have any type of national defense implications, that is going to stop, and it is going to stop because of the leadership of Robert Pittenger, the gentleman from North Carolina.

It has been a great, great source of pride and joy to be associated with him. I will count him as a friend for life. I appreciate the fact that he would come and spend time here.

I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that his leadership is not done. His leadership may be done in this body, but his leadership in fighting global terrorism from illicit finance and global terrorist finance, that leadership is not done. In many respects, it is just starting. I look forward to continuing to follow his career and his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, we are also joined tonight by another real authority on global terrorist finance, a gentleman who has been incredibly active on the Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee. I have come to really appreciate his intellect, his knowledge, and his work ethic. He is clearly one of the hardest working members of the Financial Services Committee.

As, regrettably, the gentleman from North Carolina departs, and I am saddened by that, we are both heartened to know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) will remain, and he will be one of the key leaders in the entire United States House of Representatives in combating terrorist finance. He has been such a workhorse in helping some of our economic growth measures that have helped save community banking and credit unions.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. Speaker, well, after hearing those kind comments, I would be happy to yield the gentleman even more time. I say that tongue-in-cheek.

Mr. Speaker, I have learned that if you want kind things said about you, announce your retirement. So, I must admit, I am humbled by this experience, and I thank the kind words of the gentleman.

I must admit that it is a real mixed blessing that I get ready to leave Congress, but I take a lot of solace knowing that there is a new generation of conservative leaders who are coming to this body, who know how important faith is in the life of a great Nation, because you cannot have a free Nation that is not a virtuous Nation and a godly Nation.

I know that there is a new generation of conservative leaders who are coming up who know how important our families are, our families who care for our elderly and nurture our youth and perpetuate our values. They know how important free enterprise is, not just because it allows people to sleep at night knowing the bills are paid, but how empowering it is to finally leave the assembly line and to start your own business; how empowering it is to send that first kid to college; but, ultimately, how important it is to pursue happiness, to use your God- given talents in any way that can help you and your family prosper.

I know I take great solace to know there is a new generation of conservative leaders who know that, ultimately, liberty is an inalienable right given to us by our creator, the Almighty, and how precious it is and how few people on the face of the planet really enjoy the full fruits of liberty.

I count Mr. Davidson among those people, and I will always count him as my friend. But it makes it much easier, after 16 years, to leave this body knowing that there is a Warren Davidson in Congress and knowing that there is a Ted Budd from North Carolina who will remain in Congress as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd). He also has become a fast friend of mine. More importantly, I count his wife as a friend of my wife, and me as well. Not unlike Mr. Davidson, he is one of the hardest working members of our committee, and he never, never gives up.

Again, a significant portion of the economic growth packages that we have passed out of the House Financial Services Committee, two or three of them I know contain Mr. Budd's name. That is unusual for somebody who has been a freshman member of our committee, to have so many bills passed. It is a testament to the great citizens of his congressional district that they would return him to office. I hope, next time, maybe a few more will join in and make it a little less interesting. But I am also proud to call him colleague; I am proud to call him friend; and I, again, take great solace to know that this body will see his conservative leadership for quite some time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words, and far more importantly, I thank him for his leadership. He is truly one of the workhorses for economic growth in the United States Congress.

Again, I take great solace, as I will soon leave this august body, in knowing that somebody like Mr. Budd will be here. He has such principle, character, is a hard worker, and has success in actually getting bills done that make a difference in the lives of working people. Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to serve with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. Speaker, several of our Members have spoken tonight about what we call the JOBS 3.0 Act, Jumpstart Our Business Startups. Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, thanks to the leadership of Speaker Ryan, and thanks to the leadership of Chairman Kevin Brady, we have a great economy. We have, perhaps, the greatest economy in most Americans' lifetimes. Unemployment is at about a 50-year low. For the first time in a decade, we are seeing paychecks rise. We are seeing that take-home pay increase.

Small business optimism, consumer optimism, is off the charts. It is amazing what can happen with some tax reform and regulatory reform. And, yes, I take pride--not on my behalf, but on behalf of the Financial Services Committee--in what we have done to help take some of the shackles off of our community banks and our credit unions. But there is so much more work to be done.

Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, the whole idea of capital formation for our entrepreneurs, for our small businesses, traditionally, that has been a bipartisan effort. And, in fact, the very first, what we call JOBS 1.0, was signed into law by President Barack Obama. I don't quite have the quote at my fingertips, but at the time, he said something along the lines that we have to, from time to time, remove the regulatory burdens to capital formation that are preventing our entrepreneurs from accessing capital.

So the first point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is the economy of today is in great shape. But can we count on it for the economy of tomorrow? Particularly, Mr. Speaker, when I look at public companies, what I see is that our public companies are fewer, they are older, and they are bigger. Today, in America, we still have far too many old cars and not enough startups in our garages.

I sometimes think--and I am the father of a 16-year-old daughter, a 15-

year-old son--the companies that will drive the economy when they are in their peak earning years, they probably haven't even been founded yet. Where are the next Amazons coming from? Where are the next Googles coming from? Where are the next Apples coming from?

But what we see as recently as 2016, just a couple of years ago, is that new startups' entrepreneurial capitalism was at a 40-year low. Now, fortunately, under this administration, it is taking a turn upwards, but we have got a lot of ground to make up.

Our public companies have been cut in half, a 20-year low, as recently as 2016. Half of the number of companies are going public. And so not only is that bad for America's economy, but it is bad for the family economy because they lose out on investment opportunities.

Had you invested early in Apple, you would have made a gazillion percentage rate of return. It would have been an incredible investment opportunity. At the time, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts wouldn't even allow Apple to sell their securities because they were fearful it was too speculative.

We want to make sure that every American family has the opportunity to invest in the next Apple. But, unfortunately, what we see is a regulatory burden that is absolutely strangling a lot of these startup companies.

Over the past 2\1/2\ decades, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. share of global venture investment has steadily declined. And when we see it decline, what we also see is that regulatory restrictions on securities and investment have increased 54 percent in 10 years--in just 10 years, a 54 percent increase in regulatory restrictions on securities, and an 80 percent increase over 20 years.

We are wondering why there is so little entrepreneurial activity, and we are wondering why so few companies have gone public.

Part of what we have to do is simply modernize antiquated statutes. And so with the exceptions of Sarbanes-Oxley, and with the exception of, frankly, the first version of the JOBS Act and the second version of the JOBS Act, almost all of our other significant Federal securities laws date back to the 1930s.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of these, the Securities and Exchange Act, the Securities Act, they are foundational. But so many of these other laws that we still labor under, I mean, there was a time that the telephone was the cutting-edge technology. That is when the SEC was created, in 1934, and the telephone was the cutting-edge technology of the time.

So many of the security laws we have date back to that particular era. At that time, stock offerings were part of the daily newspaper. Well, we don't see that anymore. Pneumatic tubes and ticker tape transmitted the news of a stock sale.

If we are going to be able to fuel the economy of tomorrow, we are going to have to modernize these securities laws. And, again, traditionally, this has been a bipartisan effort.

The United States House of Representatives has passed JOBS 3.0 by a vote of 406-4. Months later, the United States Senate has done nothing on this piece of legislation. This cannot hold. This cannot be. There is no excuse for the United States Senate back there behind my shoulder to do nothing while, for example, we see more companies go public in China.

We had a discussion a little earlier, Mr. Speaker, how China, unfortunately, too often has taken our technology--our intellectual property--by hook and crook. But a lot of it is companies are choosing to confine their capital in China because they find it easier, and now we are looking at over one-third of public companies are going public in China, and we are down to 11 percent. They have an ascending curve; we have a descending curve.

In order to successfully compete with China in a global economy, we have to make it easier throughout the ecosystem of our small entrepreneurial ventures to make it easier, and so that is what the whole thrust of the JOBS 3.0 Act is all about.

Again, it is a very, very strong bipartisan measure. So often the lead Democrat in this institution, known as ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) and I don't see eye to eye on much. We see eye to eye on very little. But we are joined at the hip in wanting to see the JOBS 3.0 Act. She has been stalwart, and she has been a good negotiating partner to get this done.

So you have one of the most liberal Members of Congress and one of the most conservative Members of Congress come together to advocate for our small businesses, for our entrepreneurs, to help us compete with China in the JOBS 3.0 Act, but somehow they are still not hearing this in the United States Senate.

Please, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), gives every liberal permission to vote for the JOBS 3.0 Act. As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and one who used to chair the conservative caucus in the House, I give every conservative permission in the United States Senate to vote for JOBS 3.0.

Please, we need a message for all Americans who care about small businesses. We want to make it easier. We want to make it easier for these businesses to get funding.

The bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have capitalism without capital, and we want to make it easier to access this capital.

So I was very heartened by the fact that, although maybe our Senators--and I have many friends who are United States Senators. I still cannot understand why they haven't taken up a piece of legislation that came out of the House 406-4, a piece of legislation strongly supported by the administration, and a piece of legislation, again, that is going to help our small businesses and entrepreneurs. Why haven't they taken it up?

Perhaps the single most influential newspaper in America is The Wall Street Journal. It is certainly the most influential economic publication in America, and probably the world. Fortunately, their lead editorial today was to encourage the Senate to take up JOBS 3.0. In fact--I am kind of paraphrasing here because I don't have the newspaper at my fingertips--they said that Congress has done yeoman's work shepherding a compendium of bipartisan bills to access capital. They were referring to JOBS 3.0.

Again, go online. It is their lead editorial.

They said that the Senate shouldn't scuttle what could be one of Congress' better achievements. I agree. This will be one of Congress' better achievements to be able to capitalize our small businesses to make sure, again, they can access capital, they can go public, and that they are not treated like a Fortune 500 company on day one.

Mr. Speaker, many of our biotech companies that provide lifesaving pharmaceuticals, some of them don't even cash flow positive for a decade. They can't be treated with the same regulatory burden on their capital as a Fortune 500 company. If you do, again, they are going to go to China. They are not going to stay in the USA. They are going to go to China. As we continue to compete with them, we cannot allow this to happen.

So we have had such great support. I alluded to the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters). She said that this bill is ``a carefully crafted bipartisan compromise.'' Those are her words. She said that it is ``an example of Members on both sides of the aisle working together to support our Nation's small businesses and investors.''

Again, she is one of the most liberal Members of the United States House of Representatives and most likely the next chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. She said that this bill will help entrepreneurs, small businesses, investors, and our economy to thrive.

In the 6 years I have been chairman, it has kind of been rare for us to agree on the time of day, but we definitely agree that the JOBS 3.0 Act is important. It is important to America's economy not only today, but more importantly, it is important for the economy of tomorrow.

If there is one aspect of America's economy that is somewhat unique in the world, it is how we have ensured that entrepreneurial capitalism can't just survive in America, but thrive. So those seeds have to be planted today. There is so much competition worldwide, and that is why it is important that we get this done.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce weighed in, and they said that the House amendment to S. 488--I am talking about the JOBS 3.0 bill--would remove barriers for raising capital for America's businesses. Approximately three-fourths of financing for businesses in the United States comes from capital markets, but regulations have failed to keep up with the demands of the 21st century.

The Angel Capital Association has written: ``Thank you again for your leadership in promoting American startups, capital formation, and job creation. The JOBS and Investor Confidence Act will help foster innovation and job growth.''

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, known as BIO, said: ``The JOBS and Investor Confidence Act of 2018, or JOBS Act 3.0, will significantly improve the ability of emerging biotech companies to access capital and invest in their potentially lifesaving research rather than unnecessary compliance costs that do not add value to investors.''

There is widespread support. I am almost baffled, Mr. Speaker, why the United States Senate won't take this up. Again, this is a strongly bipartisan package. It doesn't get much stronger than 406-4.

Again, our business startups have neared a 40-year low in 2016. Our IPOs, our initial public offerings that allow our working families to invest in the American economy, are half of what they were 20 years ago.

Why? The average regulatory compliance for initial public offerings has now doubled. It has doubled in the last 25 years. It costs $2.5 million to go public, with average compliance costs clocking in at $1.5 million.

Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we have to take a look at regulations that date back to the 1930s and start to ask the question: How is that going to impact the economy of the 2030s? The answer is not too well, particularly in a global economy competing with China.

So I just want to conclude by saying that I have so many friends in the United States Senate. I respect the United States Senate. I used to be a staffer of the United States Senate. But there is no excuse why they can't do what the House did and follow our leadership and work on a strong, bipartisan basis to make sure that America just doesn't have the strongest economy of today but has the strongest economy of tomorrow.

It started with men and women, Democrats and Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee, to ensure that the economy of tomorrow, once again, will be strong for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and my friends in the United States Senate to follow our lead, to listen to the administration, and to pass the JOBS 3.0 Act immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report and want to congratulate my friend and fellow Texan, Chairman Mac Thornberry for his leadership and hard work to get us to this point and his willingness to work with the Financial Services Committee on a number of provisions where we have shared jurisdiction.

I wish to address one title in particular: the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, or FIRRMA, which reforms the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). FIRRMA represents the first significant update to CFIUS since passage of the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007. In the intervening 11 years, a number of gaps in CFIUS's jurisdiction have emerged that FIRRMA now seeks to close, particularly in the realm of sensitive non- controlling investments and real estate transactions near national security-related sites.

This is not to say that everything outside CFIUS's jurisdiction qualifies as a gap. Far from it. Although the House and Senate both produced their own versions of FIRRMA, the House approach was generally more cautious in the authorities it delegated to CFIUS. If CFIUS needed to review transactions that genuinely posed a national security risk, the House worked in good faith to determine which additional powers were called for, but also circumscribed those powers appropriately to prevent overreach and unintended consequences.

The final version of FIRRMA adopts many important provisions from the House's bill (H.R. 5841), which passed this chamber in June by a vote of 400 to 2.

For instance, the text that we have negotiated focuses on U.S. businesses that own, operate, or supply--and by ``supply,'' we mean provide--critical infrastructure, targeting specific information or influence that could be transferred. This approach is designed to prevent CFIUS from sweeping up entire economic sectors regardless of a business's connection to national security.

Even within the scope of ``critical infrastructure,'' FIRRMA makes explicit that CFIUS is only to focus on the subset of systems and assets that are likely to be important to national security. There are technically a number of assets that fall within critical infrastructure sectors broadly, including everything from restaurants to amusement parks, but the bar for inclusion under FIRRMA is much higher. FIRRMA makes this clear.

CFIUS must also limit its new jurisdiction to certain categories of investors, which is meant to include foreign persons connected with problematic countries. Those categories of foreign persons are not intended to target our allies.

As under current law, CFIUS will continue to have jurisdiction over foreign investments in U.S. businesses when a transaction could result in control of the business. Under FIRRMA--and we have confirmed this point with the Treasury Department--CFIUS will continue to be limited to transactions involving a U.S. business only to the extent of its activities in interstate commerce.

Finally, a key innovation originating in the House is the protection of sensitive personal data of U.S. citizens that may be exploited in a manner threatening national security. While some had sought to expand this language to include personally identifiable information more broadly, the conference committee rejected that approach in order to focus only on sensitive data with a clear link to national security.

Again, the need for CFIUS modernization was clear, and the conference committee has worked to address it through FIRRMA. At the same time, we have ensured that expansions to CFIUS's jurisdiction are themselves appropriately limited in order to preserve our country's open investment climate. It is this openness to investment that drives forward our productivity, innovation, and growth, making openness itself indispensable to national security.

I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle who helped ensure that the will of the House was reflected in the conference report. I especially want to acknowledge the author of the House's CFIUS bill, Mr. Pittenger of North Carolina who has been a tireless advocate for reform, and my fellow conferees from the Financial Services Committee: the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, who chairs our Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, as well as the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, the gentle lady from California, Mrs. Waters. This legislation is narrowly focused on national security while keeping America's doors open to investment. For that reason, it deserves our support.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1182) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint commemorative coins in recognition of the 100th anniversary of The American Legion, 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 the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to do something I do not often do, and that is: I have asked my leadership to put a bill on the floor that I do not support.

I am talking about the bill that would provide for a non-reform reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program through the end of November. To make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, I believe this program needs to be reauthorized, and the House has done its work. The House passed a bill with reforms last November. Never underestimate the Senate's capacity to do nothing.

Unfortunately, the Senate has done nothing. But this is a program, Mr. Speaker, that continues to be in dire need of reform. And now, we have reauthorized it without reforms, not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, but six times since the Financial Services Committee first reported this bill out. Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, in America, we lost 116 lives last year to flooding, with billions and billions of dollars of property loss, and, yet, we have a program unreformed that incents people to live in harm's way. We should not be doing this, Mr. Speaker.

I went and I visited with those who survived Hurricane Harvey, people that were close to your district, people whose homes had flooded three times in the last 8 years, and I heard harrowing tales of survival. And, yet, we have a program that says, you know what? We are going to help rebuild your same home in the same fashion in the same place. Hope you survive next time. That is just wrong, Mr. Speaker.

And, yes, we need more mitigation money. We need better flood control projects. The House bill had more flood mitigation money than any other reform bill, but this bill before us has no reforms.

Finances: This is a program that the taxpayer has subsidized so far by $40 billion. Some of the debt has been forgiven, but it runs a billion-and-a-half dollar deficit every single year, Mr. Speaker. It is unsustainable. The Congressional Budget Office says it, the GAO says it, the OMB says it. It is an unsustainable program. The finances do not work.

And then last, but not least, Mr. Speaker, it is a government monopoly. It is a government monopoly when people could, through a competitive marketplace, actually get more affordable flood insurance. And that is just not a theory. That is happening as we speak.

In the small little bit of the marketplace that is open to competition, people are saving hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in places like Pennsylvania, and in places like Florida. We had testimony in our committee. And so it is just rather disappointing that, again, we face the seventh time of not reforming a program that has no market competition, and that is fiscally unsustainable, and, yet, we continue to see premiums skyrocket in the government monopoly.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Blumenauer from Oregon. They tried to put together a reform package with the most minimal level of reforms, and, unfortunately, it did not appear to carry the day.

I suspect we will soon cast, with an overwhelming vote, a clean reauthorization, but I don't think they are going to take it up in the Senate. Maybe I am wrong, in which case, we will have to deal with this. And I would just simply again ask, particularly for the people on my side of the aisle--I think it helps maybe once or twice a month if we ask ourselves Ronald Reagan's eternal question: ``If not us, who? If not now, when?''

Mr. Speaker, I invite somebody to answer that question for me, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is the chairman of our Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who is the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a very senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), who is also the author of the legislation for the reauthorization bill before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance and the author of the real flood reform bill.

I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker. I think I have the right to close.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, deja vu all over again. This House has been here many times before. In fact, we have had 41 reauthorizations of this program, 38 with no reforms.

So, a vote for S. 1182 is a vote for the status quo. And what is the status quo? The status quo is people in harm's way who have homes that flood five, six, seven, and eight times, putting their lives in danger and burdening the taxpayer at the same time.

A vote for S. 1182 is a vote to ensure that we continue to have more red ink as far as the eye can see. Mr. Speaker, $40 billion of taxpayer subsidies to the program already. A vote for S. 1182 is a vote to protect a government monopoly.

The ranking member spoke about affordability. Well, the irony is, if we had market competition, we would have more affordable flood insurance, but we don't have market competition.

When is enough enough? When do we finally act? If we can vote down this, we can vote in favor of reforms, which is what we should have done in the first place. For us to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, we all know, Mr. Speaker, is the very definition of insanity.

I have no doubt this thing will be voted ``aye,'' but it shouldn't be, and it is a sad day for the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 488) to increase the threshold for disclosures required by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to compensatory benefit plans, 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 yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, two things that are vital to the American economy: number one, 3 percent economic growth, and number two, competing with China.

Three percent economic growth, Mr. Speaker, is so important because, when you look at the history of America, if you look at jobs that are created, if you look at increasing incomes, if you look at decreasing unemployment, this happens in our 3 percent-plus growth years, and that is why it is so great that America is once again seeing 3 percent-plus economic growth.

But, Mr. Speaker, can we keep it?

There are some alarming trends that we have to arrest, and that is that, unfortunately, entrepreneurship, that is, launching new businesses, recently hit a generational low. Companies that are going public--and 90 percent of the jobs that a company creates happen after they go public, IPOs, initial public offerings--they have been in a decline, a 20-year decline, and they have reached a new low.

If we look at what China is trying to do with their 2025 program, Mr. Speaker, and dominate the world in high tech and then we turn around and we see that China has over a third of the world's IPOs, America-- our decline is now down to 11 percent--has got to change.

So thus, today, we are taking up the JOBS and Investor Confidence Act, also known as the JOBS Act 3.0.

What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, number one, we are doing it on a bipartisan basis, but we are trying to ensure that our entrepreneurs at least don't face the challenge of having the capital they need to launch their companies, because, Mr. Speaker, when we have more small businesses that are launching new enterprises and going public and staying public, these are the Amazons and the Googles and the Microsofts of the future.

So, again, Members on both sides of the aisle have come together because, historically, capital formation has been a bipartisan issue here. We have come together, Democrat and Republican, to make sure that these small

businesses get this start. And we try to treat the whole capital formation ecosystem, from venture capital with the HALOS Act and helping accredited investors be able to bring their capital to the table, to early growth companies and how they have to handle the very expensive 404(b) Sarbanes-Oxley provision, to the stages of companies going public, but once they go public, Mr. Speaker, the ability to stay public, and so we have a venture exchange bill to make sure that they can concentrate their liquidity in one area.

So this is important. It is important to keep 3 percent economic growth. It is important that America's garages have fewer old cars, more new startups.

I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle, but I especially want to thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California, working so strongly and fervently and on a good, bipartisan, cooperative basis to produce the JOBS and Investor Confidence Act.

Mr. Speaker, I expect that we can have a strong bipartisan vote on the floor, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of the Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments Subcommittee, the real leader of this capital formation package on the Republican side of the aisle, and also the sponsor of two provisions of the bill: H.R. 477, the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage Simplification Act, and H.R. 6139, the Improving Investment Research for Small and Emerging Issuers Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is the chairman of the House Small Business Committee and who has sponsored a very important provision in the package, H.R. 79, the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the chair of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, also the lead sponsor of an important provision in this package of bills, H.R. 5970, the Modernizing Disclosure for Investors Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chair of our Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), who is the vice-chairman of our Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment Subcommittee.

Mr. Hultgren is the lead sponsor of two provisions of the bill, H.R. 5749, the Options Market Stability Act, and H.R. 6319, the Expanding Investment in Small Businesses Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), who is the chairman of our Housing and Insurance Subcommittee. Mr. Duffy is the sponsor of a provision of this bill, H.R. 4537, the International Insurance Standards Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), who is the vice-chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of our Financial Institutions Subcommittee, who is also the lead Republican sponsor of one of the bills in the package, H.R. 6069, the Fight Illicit Networks and Detect Trafficking Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a senior Democrat on the committee and the lead sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the majority whip of the committee and also the lead sponsor of H.R. 5783, the Cooperate with Law Enforcement Agencies and Watch Act, and who worked, also, extensively on H.R. 1585, the Fair Investment Opportunities for Professional Experts Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), who is the lead sponsor of a very important provision in the package, H.R. 5877, the Main Street Growth Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), who is the lead sponsor of two provisions in the package: H.R. 3555, the Exchange Regulatory Improvement Act, and H.R. 5953, the earlier referenced BUILD Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), the lead sponsor of one of the provisions in the bill, H.R. 3903, the Encouraging Public Offerings Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, some would say the ranking member and I can't agree even on the time of day. I was told when this debate started that thunderstorms came over Washington, D.C., it was that monumental of an achievement.

But in seriousness, I do want to offer my thanks and my gratitude to the ranking member. She and her staff worked very constructively with us on this bill and the preceding important bill, the CFIUS reform, which we are still trying to work out our differences on with the Senate. But, long story short, we came together.

This is going to be an important day for small business. It is an important day for 3 percent economic growth, which is so important to American families.

I, too, want to echo how important the work of our staffs is. Particularly on the majority side, I wish to thank Kevin Edgar and Fritz Vaughan and their staff for their contribution.

This is going to make a difference, ultimately, because small businesses one day become big businesses. This will make a difference in economic growth for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the JOBS and Investor Confidence Act of 2018, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 770) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in recognition of American innovation and significant innovation and pioneering efforts of individuals or groups from each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the United States territories, to promote the importance of innovation in the United States, the District of Columbia, and the United States territories, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5841, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, which the Financial Services Committee approved last month by a unanimous vote of 53-0.

I want to thank both Republican and Democrat Members for their effort, but I especially want to thank the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), who has worked tirelessly to develop this legislation and bring it to the House floor. Mr. Speaker, we would not be here but for his expertise and leadership.

I also want to thank Chairman Royce for the cooperation of the Foreign Affairs Committee working with us on this very important piece of legislation.

Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who chairs our Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, as well as his ranking member, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.

I also happen to see the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Heck, and I want to thank him for his contributions as well.

The subcommittee held no fewer than four hearings prior to marking up this legislation, and the thoughtfulness that they brought to the issue is something we should all emulate.

The bill is a comprehensive reform of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, as it is known; the first update of its kind in over a decade.

CFIUS is authorized to review foreign investment transactions that may threaten our national security. And although these authorities have been wielded carefully, Congress must remain vigilant when delegating additional powers that may have far-reaching effects.

The reason, Mr. Speaker, is simple. According to a Department of Commerce study from 2016, 12 million American workers have jobs resulting from foreign investment; 3\1/2\ million in the manufacturing sector alone.

On top of that, the vast majority of foreign investments' value added comes from deals with U.S. allies. We need to protect our national security while also ensuring that America stays open for business.

This is exactly what the House version of FIRRMA does. It closes real gaps in CFIUS' jurisdiction that could otherwise be exploited by bad actors, but it doesn't give the government a foothold to go after deals or entire sectors on a whim.

We target those transactions in countries, including China and Russia, that truly present a national security risk, but without strangling the investment and innovation that makes our country strong to begin with.

We also focus on particular assets that are sensitive, assets like sensitive personal data of U.S. citizens or technical information on critical technologies and critical infrastructure rather than walling off entire categories of U.S. companies and industries.

It is also important to know what that bill doesn't do, Mr. Speaker. We don't change due process under CFIUS, and we don't weaken confidentiality requirements that CFIUS is subject to. H.R. 5841 keeps CFIUS accountable.

Finally, this legislation recognizes that CFIUS and export controls are complementary. As two sides of the same coin, reforms to both clearly belong in the same bill.

We are pleased to see this legislation include such reforms to the export control regime, again, reforms that passed the Foreign Affairs Committee by voice vote in April. They make the House version of FIRRMA even stronger.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Members on both sides of the aisle, especially Mr. Pittenger, but all Members on both sides of the aisle who contributed so thoughtfully to this legislation, including the cooperation of the ranking member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), the vice chairman of the Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee and the author of the FIRRMA bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, and the subcommittee chairman who helped craft the bill and helped shepherd it to the markup process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), who is a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee and a member of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee that dealt with this FIRRMA legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who is the chairman of our Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I think this is a very important piece of legislation that has come before the body. I also want to acknowledge that, yes, it is very challenging for this body to engage in bipartisan legislation. But we have clearly achieved it today. I think we have achieved it because we know that as Americans we must rally around when it comes to issues of national security.

So, again, I want to thank the ranking member. I want to thank the gentleman from Washington and all other Members on the other side of the aisle for coming together. And as the gentleman from Washington said, perhaps not getting exactly the bill that they wanted--I assure the gentleman from Washington I didn't get exactly the bill I wanted-- but we have a very strong bill that I think balances our critical need to safeguard our technology and at the same time recognizes how important foreign direct investment is in growing our economy and being able to afford the type of defense structures that we need so that our national security is never second to none.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we could not have done this first without the leadership, the expertise, and the drive of the gentleman from North Carolina. I believe that some form of this bill will soon end up on the President's desk and we will all thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership in getting America to this point.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 5735.

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

Mr. Chairman, I received a letter not long ago from a constituent, Jim, from Dallas County. The first three words were: I need help.

In the letter, he talks about his grandson, Joshua, who is a good kid. Jim became his guardian at age 6, but Joshua took a bad turn at age 16. It was at age 16 he started using opioids. His life has never been the same.

Jim writes that at first his grandson started out with pills and then, later, street drugs and ended up on heroin. No surprise here, Mr. Chairman: His usage escalated, and he ended up dropping out of school in the last semester of high school.

Along the way, he found a menial job here, a menial job there, but he

couldn't hold one down because of the drug usage. Jim tried to help him every way he could. He said that in the summer of 2014 his opioid usage brought him almost to death.

I won't say the story has a happy ending, but at least he is now trying to turn his life around. He is off of opioids, and he is on other medications: methadone, Xanax. He has actually gone back and gotten his high school diploma.

He has learned how to operate a forklift, but because of the damage that has been done, he can't hold down a job. His drug costs are expensive. He still needs help.

Mr. Chair, you know what is unusual about this story? Regrettably, nothing. Nothing is unusual about this story. Again, although it doesn't have a happy ending--and we don't know how this story is going to end--at least it doesn't have a tragic end, because far too many stories like it end in the tragedy of death.

And my guess is, Mr. Chair, that every single Member of this body could read a similar letter as I read from Jim from Dallas.

I have been in this House now for eight terms. Rarely--rarely--does a week go by that somebody doesn't use the term ``crisis.'' And most of the time I don't give it much thought. But Mr. Chair, when somebody says there is a crisis of opioid use in America, I could not agree more. How negligent this body would be if we didn't declare war on this crisis and do what is right and what is smart to address this crisis.

So today, out of the House Financial Services Committee, I am bringing up a bill by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), a member of our leadership team. I want to thank him for his leadership, because I know how heartfelt the pain he knows from his district is.

What the gentleman from Kentucky is bringing before us is that we have seen evidence that transitional housing can be a proven method to really help thousands and thousands of Americans like Joshua that I describe, to help them maintain their sobriety after completing rehab and as they are gaining skills and training and trying to get back into being independent, productive members of society.

So the gentleman from Kentucky says: It is time for a demonstration project, because we have some evidence. We have evidence already. And out of the 2.2 million Section 8 housing vouchers, the government's largest means-tested housing assistance program, let's take less than 1 percent of them--in fact, 0.5 percent of them--and on a temporary basis let's allocate some of these Section 8 housing vouchers to people who are literally dying of opioid addiction every day and need transitional housing options in a recovery evidence-based program.

I really think, Mr. Chairman, it is the least we can do today. I am sorry that this is not on the House's suspension calendar. Demonstration programs are done every single day in the government.

Again, I would hope that this is something that we could join overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle to do. Apparently, that is not the case, but I don't think this House will be deterred. I do not think this House will be deterred. I think, very soon, people like Joshua who are getting their life turned around can at least have transitional housing options to support their recovery. When they do, we will thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee and author of the Transitional Housing for Recovery in Viable Environments Demonstration Program Act, or THRIVE Act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), vice chairman of our Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a valued member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), another hardworking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Handel), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I anticipate no more speakers. I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Chairman, in my congressional career, I have experienced a number of surreal moments. I think perhaps I am experiencing another one, and that is, typically, within my career, next to a study, I think the least controversial provisions we take up in this body are demonstration projects.

We do it all the time, and it is good that we do it all the time so we can find out if what is happening in a small subset within our society is going to work, and so we will roll out the program throughout our country. Typically, these receive very strong bipartisan support.

I couldn't help but notice, there are only two, two Members on the other side of the aisle, who are against this opioid housing recovery program, and we had almost a dozen Republicans on our side of the aisle come to support it.

I listened very carefully to the ranking member who, on more than one occasion, said we should not rob Peter to pay Paul. Well, what happens when she or other Members on the other side of the aisle decide to submit budgets that aren't balanced?

We just had a balanced budget amendment come to this floor, and if memory serves me right, it was not supported by the ranking member. So thus, she appears to be robbing Peter to pay Paul. If that is of great concern, I will certainly be happy to go to our leadership and see if we can bring that vote to the House floor, so that we might balance the budget.

I heard it said, well, this demonstration project may take away a voucher from a veteran, somebody homeless, somebody disabled. Who do you think these people who are suffering with opioid addiction are? They are veterans. They are homeless. They are disabled, Mr. Chairman, and that is why it is so critical that we reach out and we help them.

Then I continue to hear from the ranking member, well, this doesn't make a dent. This doesn't make a dent in the problem.

So let me get this straight. If we can't help everybody, we ought to help nobody is, I think, the logic of that argument. Well, we reject that. We reject that argument, Mr. Chairman.

So, again, I just cannot believe something that should be on our suspension calendar, something that should be receiving overwhelming bipartisan support apparently has to come with what we call a rule bill.

But we know that 42,000 people have died in the last calendar year, to where we have the data, due to opioid abuse--up tremendously. So there is just an urgent need to target resources for substance use treatment services, to make effective treatment more widely available.

We have an opportunity, right here in this House, right now, today, to say that we have the evidence. Let's take some Section 8 vouchers and make sure that they are part of the solution.

And so I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. What a wonderful leader he is on our committee in trying to help--and we are not helping everybody. I admit it.--to begin to put people in transitional housing.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support the THRIVE Act. We can make a difference today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for coming and offering this very simple amendment. I thank him for his kind words for the gentleman from Kentucky, who has been an outstanding leader in this effort.

The amendment will simply allow Congress to work its will on the report from the Secretary and allow us to have our own full analysis. I think it is a helpful amendment. I would urge its adoption.

Finally, I would just echo what my friend from Kentucky, the leader of this effort, has said. We are an authorizing committee, not an appropriating committee under the rules of the House, and we authorize programs based upon priorities.

We do demonstration projects all the time, and if there were ever a worthy one that should be considered by this body in the midst of, again, a legitimate crisis on opioid addiction, it ought to be this program.

We have had several amendments that have been agreed to by the majority. I think all have probably improved the underlying legislation. But again, this is something that should have been on the suspension calendar, I don't understand why we have to take so much floor time on this. I don't understand the argument that, if you can't help everybody, then don't help anybody. I don't understand the argument that, since you are not an appropriating committee, then don't authorize the help. I simply don't understand that.

Again, we have the opportunity in this Congress, on this floor, at this moment to make a difference, a huge difference, in the road to recovery for thousands of opioid addicts who are trying to get their lives back together. If we believe in their hope and if we believe in their cause, then we should support the THRIVE Act of the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the amendment from the gentleman from Arizona, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 905, I call up the bill (S. 2155) to promote economic growth, provide tailored regulatory relief, and enhance consumer protections, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, for far too long, far too many people in our country have struggled to make ends meet. They have struggled to buy a car. They have struggled to buy a home. They have struggled--they have struggled for their version of the American Dream.

I hear from these people frequently, Mr. Speaker. I hear from Colton in Terrell, Texas, who said that he and his wife have been unable to get a mortgage due to credit and that they were 25, 30 years old and they had good credit but they were getting denied. They needed a home to provide a sense of stability, but they couldn't get it due to Washington's bureaucratic regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I heard from Dirk in Dallas. He said he used to have a $100,000 line of credit from his bank. He had an unsecured signature line of credit that he used for working capital for his small business. He often paid it down to zero, and cash flow was ample, but then the bank canceled it because of the bureaucratic government burden on the banking system.

I heard from Sherry in Eustace, who said:

After a divorce 4 years ago, I needed to buy a car because

my car was over 10 years old. I had a checking account in my

name at my credit union, but they didn't loan me money for

the car.

Mr. Speaker, we hear these stories far too often. The Main Street banks and credit unions that these people depend on have been suffering for years under the weight, the load, the volume, the complexity, and the cost of heavy Washington bureaucratic red tape. They haven't been able to serve these people to help get them into homes and to help get them into cars.

As one west Texas banker told me, Mr. Speaker: ``My major risks are not credit risks, risk of theft, or risk of some robber coming in with a gun in my office, my number one risk is regulatory risk.''

We have been losing a community bank or credit union every other day in America and, with it, the hopes and dreams of millions. But today, that changes. Help is on the way with the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is the most pro-growth banking bill in a generation. You would have to go back to 1999 to Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Although we didn't have a formal conference with the Senate, I am proud that over half of the bills in this package, including three-quarters of the regulatory relief provisions, came from the House. These are the provisions to help hardworking, struggling taxpayers get into home mortgages, get into car loans, and get into their small businesses. This is what will help drive 3 percent economic growth, which is the birthright of all Americans.

Today is an important day in the history of economic opportunity in America, and I encourage all of us to support the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the leading voice in Congress on trying to bring rationality to the SIFI designation and accountability to the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the lead voice in the House for capital formation for our start-ups and small businesses, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance and the author of the Family Self-Sufficiency provision in S. 2155.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the vice chairman of the committee and the Chief Deputy Whip of the majority and author of two provisions of S. 2155 to promote capital formation and hold credit bureaus fully accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who is the chair of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade and the author of two provisions on access to manufactured housing and portfolio lending in S. 2155.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the committee's majority whip and the author of the amendment dealing with the Volcker rule.

Mr. Speaker, I now am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), the author of two different provisions in S. 2155 to give more flexibility to private companies and small banks with respect to their call reports.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of two different provisions in S. 2155 to bring clarity to the complex capital rules and flexibility to our savings associations.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the author of the MOBILE Act, Making Online Banking Initiation Legal and Easy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the author of the key regulatory relief provision for small banks and credit unions in S. 2155.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), who is the author of two provisions in S. 2155, the Senior Safe Act and supporting capital formation for small companies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), a fellow Texan who is an incredibly strong advocate on our committee for small business to obtain credit for their customers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), who is the author of a key regulatory relief provision to provide small banks the opportunity to grow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who is the author of two key regulatory relief provisions for our community banks and credit unions in S. 2155.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers on this side.

I believe I have the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, since Dodd-Frank was passed, the big banks have become bigger and the small banks have become fewer. Free checking at banks has been cut in half. Credit cards: 200 basis points more, 15 percent fewer. Many creditworthy borrowers are having to pay almost $600 more for their auto loans.

Mr. Speaker, the American Dream is shrinking. We have 1.6 percent economic growth, stagnant paychecks, decimated savings, and a diminished American Dream. That is the legacy of Dodd-Frank.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could believe 10 percent of what I heard from the other side of the aisle. I wish it did gut Dodd-Frank. It didn't. You can't find something in here. It is hard, challenging, to find anything in this bill that helps what the ranking member calls the so- called Wall Street megabanks.

Mr. Speaker, listening very carefully to this debate, it is clear that there are some voices that appear to be driven by their loathing of banks and credit unions, and there are other voices that are driven for our love and respect of our fellow citizens, hardworking taxpayers like Dirk in Colton and Sherry, who I mentioned in my opening statement, who are trying to capitalize a small business, who are trying to buy a car that is 10 years old, who are trying to buy that home. It is their American Dream, and they are being challenged due to this law.

I have heard so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle say: Oh, I believe in taking away bureaucracy and red tape from community financial institutions, and I believe in bipartisanship.

Well, they may believe in it, but they are not voting for it. The opportunity is right here in front of us with S. 2155, a strong, bipartisan bill that has come over from the United States Senate. So, again, they claim they believe it in theory; they just don't believe it in practice.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, 3 percent economic growth counts. If you look at the history of our Republic, 3 percent growth is where all the job creation takes place. It is where the paycheck increases take place. It is where the poverty reductions take place. It is the birthright of the American people.

Thankfully, due to the leadership of our President and this Congress, we now have a 3 percent tax policy. We need a 3 percent regulatory policy, especially for our community banks and our credit unions, who help finance the American Dream for all of our citizens.

We should join in unison on this historic day to pass S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, for the help of all our citizens.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman.

I come here to the House floor as the son, grandson, and great- grandson of farmers. I grew up working on a farm in rural Texas, and I strongly oppose Federal subsidies to agriculture in general and the sugar program in particular.

Under the Federal sugar program, which dates back to the New Deal, domestic sugar prices are propped up via a Byzantine system of marketing, allotments, import quotas, price supports, and a loan guarantee program so bad it would make a Soviet commissar blush.

This may be a sweet deal for sugar producers, but it is not a sweet deal for the auto mechanic in Mesquite, Texas; the store clerk in Mineola, Texas; or the teacher in Garland, Texas, that I represent in the Fifth District. Where is their government subsidy program?

This is antijob. It is a food tax. It is income redistribution at its worst. And it is not commensurate with any free market principle I know.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 872, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 57) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which many of us know as perhaps the single, most powerful, unaccountable agency in the history of our Republic, a few years ago, issued guidance that essentially outlawed the practice of auto dealers in America being able to take wholesale finances from third parties and charge retail rates. They did this because the Bureau claimed that the practice potentially violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, known as ECOA.

Mr. Speaker, there were several different problems with this approach, not the least of which is at section 1029 of Dodd-Frank, which forbids the Bureau from regulating auto dealers. It is in the law, and so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle come to this very floor to jealously, religiously, and unrelentlessly, defend the Dodd-Frank Act.

I am anxious to hear their voices today, because to defend the Dodd- Frank Act, you must vote to overturn the Bureau's guidance because this was absolutely trampling upon the sacred ground of Dodd-Frank.

Now, I didn't support Dodd-Frank, but it is the law of the land, Mr. Speaker. And if there is anything, shouldn't lawgivers in this Chamber be committed to the rule of law, the laws that have been passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States? So no less of an authority than Dodd-Frank says: Bureau, thou shalt not regulate auto dealers. But they attempted to do it. So that was sin number one.

Sin number two: they didn't engage in rulemaking. This was guidance. Now, guidance is supposed to tell a market participant: Okay, we understand what you are trying to do, and what you are trying to do is permissible. But, instead, the Bureau flipped it on its head and said: No, you are not allowed to do X, Y, and Z, which is essentially rulemaking, Mr. Speaker.

And so what the Bureau did was they violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which is there to assure that market participants receive due process; that they are allowed notice; that they are allowed to comment; that they are allowed to participate in the democratic process by which rules are promulgated.

So, again, what the Bureau did was, as opposed to engaging in formal rulemaking as demanded by the Administrative Procedure Act--by the way, which was essentially defined by the Clinton administration--but they violated that. They just threw it out.

The third problem here, Mr. Speaker, is the Bureau claimed under its former Director, Mr. Cordray, now gubernatorial candidate Mr. Cordray, that they were a data-driven bureau. Well, guess what? They couldn't come up with any data of this purported violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

They claimed that somehow there was unconscious discrimination on racial basis, known as disparate impact. But where was the data? Auto dealers, by law, cannot keep records on the racial characteristics of their customers.

So what did the very enterprising Bureau do, Mr. Speaker? They guessed. Now, they came up with a great academic name for it: Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding system. Do you know what that means, Mr. Speaker? They guessed. They looked at somebody's last name. They looked at a ZIP Code. They scratched their heads.

Oh, that person must be of Asian heritage.

Oh, that person must be of European heritage.

Oh, that person must be of African heritage.

They made it up. They had no data; so they made it up.

Now, because of all this, in the previous Congress, Mr. Speaker, this body voted overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly--to overturn the guidance. The vote was 332-96. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act then. Fortunately, today the Senate has now acted; so this body has the opportunity to overturn these many wrongs.

And let me end with this wrong: consumers are being hurt. An analysis by The Wall Street Journal showed that

many creditworthy borrowers, because of what the Bureau has done, will have to pay up to $586 more--$586 more--for their auto loans because of what the Bureau has done. Because of that, under the Congressional Review Act, it is time for Congress to say: We said what we mean. We are going to protect consumers. We are going to overturn the Bureau's guidance, and we are going to do it today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), an outstanding advocate for all the working people of New York, a member of the Financial Services Committee, and the author of the House companion bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that the study that my friends on the other side of the aisle allude to from the NFHA wasn't even in existence when the Bureau promulgated their guidance, number one.

Number two, it is based on 2 people, 2 people out of 325 million. This is beyond junk science. It is a mockery, an absolute mockery of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act when we are here today to ensure that working Americans of all colors and races and creeds get credit.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), chairwoman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the majority whip of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman

from New York (Ms. Tenney), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee and chair of the Congressional Auto Caucus.

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

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

It is rare, but I have found common ground with the ranking member; and the common ground is I have never heard such outrageous comments on the House floor as other Members of the other side of the aisle come and accuse us of defending discrimination?

Number one, almost half of her caucus supported S.J. Res. 57 to get rid of this in the last Congress.

And I hope every single car dealer in America is listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have come down here on the House floor to accuse them of racism. With what? The proof of a report that has a universe of two?

Again, it makes a mockery of the Equal Opportunity Credit Act.

And for those to come to the House floor and say they are appalled by discrimination? Well, where were they when the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection was accused of having a pervasive culture of retaliation and intimidation? They were found to engage in discrimination, but what did we hear from the other side of the aisle? We heard crickets. We heard crickets, Mr. Speaker.

Now, what is next? What are we going to hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle next? Are we going to hear that every pharmacist in America is a Fascist? Are we going to hear that every single doctor in America is engaged in spousal abuse? Where is the proof?

People are trying to sell cars and help them get into transportation.

And, oh, by the way, Mr. Speaker, almost every American now has one of these. Go to your smartphone and Google ``auto finance.'' And guess what? At least on mine, it comes up State Farm, Lending Tree, Bank of America, Chase, RoadLoans. Nobody forces you to take the financing package of the dealer, even though often it is a better choice than other lenders.

It is so easy, Mr. Speaker, to come to the floor and say, My Lord, the charge is serious; therefore, you must be guilty until proven innocent.

This is an embarrassing day for the House, Mr. Speaker, absolutely embarrassing, and we ought to stand for the rule of law.

When my friends on the other side of the aisle so jealously guard the sanctity of Dodd-Frank, why haven't we heard their voice today? Why aren't they defending Dodd-Frank today? Because Dodd-Frank, itself, as coming down from Mount Sinai said, Thou shall not regulate auto dealers.

And so now we are throwing Dodd-Frank overboard. We are calling auto dealers racists. It is, indeed, outrageous comments. And to come here to the House floor and so recklessly make that accusation is an outrage, and it is why we need to ensure that S.J. Res. 57 is voted on affirmatively today.

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

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