Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 736, I call up the bill (H.R. 3978) to amend the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 to modify requirements related to mortgage disclosures, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3978, which is a package of five strongly bipartisan bills, yet again, from the Financial Services Committee of the House. As standalone bills, all were favorably reported, again, with strong bipartisan support of at least three-quarters of the committee.

The title provision of this package is the TRID Improvement Act by Congressman French Hill. This bill amends CFPB's complex TILA/RESPA integrated disclosure, known as the TRID rule, in order to simplify the closing documents consumers get when they close a mortgage.

It does this by allowing for the calculation of the discounted rate that title insurance companies provide to consumers when they purchase a lender's and owner's title insurance policy simultaneously. This makes it more accurate, Madam Speaker.

Title II is the Protection of Source Code Act introduced by Representatives Sean Duffy and David Scott, a Republican and a Democrat. This provision ensures that the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot require financial services firms to disclose algorithmic trading source code without first obtaining a subpoena. Source code is among a firm's most sensitive information, and this bipartisan provision balances privacy and due process concerns while preserving the SEC's ability to obtain such information when necessary.

The third title is the Fostering Innovation Act which was introduced by Representatives Sinema and Hollingsworth to provide relief to small and emerging businesses by extending the popular onramp exemption of the JOBS Act for emerging growth companies in a more tailored manner. In short, it provides emerging growth companies more time to reach a size when they reasonably can be expected to financially sustain the legal, accounting, and compliance costs associated with the full Sarbanes-Oxley section 404(b) compliance.

Fourth, Madam Speaker, is the National Securities Exchange Regulatory Parity Act which was introduced by Mr. Royce and which will ensure further clarity and competition among national security exchanges by modernizing the blue sky exemption in the Securities Act. Modernizing this provision will ensure all national security exchanges operate on a level regulatory playing field and help protect retail investors from arbitrary acts by State regulators that may bar investors in one State from buying stock freely available to investors in every other State.

The final title of this bill is a provision introduced by Congressman Stivers to allow mortgage loan originators who work as loan officers in banks and credit unions to transition to a new job at a nonmortgage company without losing the ability to originate loans. Without this bill, the transition process can take weeks or months depending on the State.

Each of these measures, Madam Speaker, will cut through layers of red tape and help level the playing field making regulations smarter, fairer, clearer, and more efficient, thus ensuring that there are more competitively priced credit opportunities, more credit opportunities for consumers, and that investors have greater investment opportunities in competitive markets. They will provide commonsense regulatory relief. They are practical, they are bipartisan, and they are needed.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the majority whip of the committee and the sponsor of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance and the sponsor of title 2 of the Protection of Source Code in this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say the widespread opposition to the bill alluded to by the ranking member doesn't include roughly half the Democrats on the committee, including the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), who was quoted in our markup as saying: ``As someone who can code in at least seven languages, I understand that source code is qualitatively different from other documents that a firm might have and that our regulators should have legitimate access to. They are truly the crown jewels of an electronic trading firm, and there are obvious dangers that have been exposed in transferring things really not just to the government, to any entity. The first line of defense in cybersecurity is to keep the data as closely held as reasonable and still be able to do your job.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), the vice chairman on the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), another member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), another proud member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would tell the ranking member that I have potentially two speakers, if they make it. They are on their way from a hearing, but they are not here now.

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

Madam Speaker, there may be other Members coming, so, at the moment, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, again, all over America today, fortunately, because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, people are waking up to new opportunities. They are finally seeing their wages begin to grow. We have seen the greatest wage growth in almost a decade, Madam Speaker, again, thanks to President Trump and thanks to a Republican Congress, a bill that was opposed by every single Democrat.

But as they wake up to these new opportunities, Madam Speaker, they also need new credit. As their incomes rise--this is good--they still need credit in order to buy a home, in order to purchase that car, and sometimes just to put groceries on the table. Unfortunately, over the last 8 years of the Obama administration where we saw probably one of the greatest increases in the cost, expense, and burden of costly Washington red tape, we have seen fewer credit opportunities.

So now, fortunately, today there are good men and women on both sides of the aisle who are trying to work together to bring some rationale and reason to the regulatory burden. Many Members on the other side of the aisle do realize that Dodd-Frank did not come down as tablets from Mt. Sinai, that it isn't chiseled into stone, and that maybe there are some improvements that could be made.

So today, we are taking a number of very bipartisan bills to the House floor. The Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act, which we debated earlier, Madam Speaker, passed by 42-17.

The TRID Improvement Act by Mr. Hill from Arkansas passed through our committee 53-5--90 percent. Almost all of the Democrats but the ranking member supported the bill. The Protection of Source Code Act, 46-14; the Fostering Innovation Act passed by a vote of 48-12, a Democratic bill; the National Securities Exchange Regulatory Parity Act, 46-14.

We have a lot of bipartisan bills, but with one exception, title V of the TRID Improvement Act, none of them were supported, unfortunately, by the ranking member.

So there is, again, a lot of bipartisan work we are trying to get done here. Unfortunately, very little of it is supported by the ranking member.

And why is this important? It is important, Madam Speaker, because every day we are still hearing from our constituents who need access to competitive affordable credit. And because of this Washington red tape and regulatory burden, they are not getting it.

It wasn't that long ago we heard from Ann of Wisconsin, who said:

My husband and I had very high credit scores. We have

plenty of equity in our home. But because my husband has a

seasonal job and finds other employment in the winter, many

banks we contacted rejected our loan request. They based our

annual income only on the job he has currently and said that

was part of the new regulations.

Part of the new regulations--there is somebody who won't buy a home; they can't get a home.

I heard from a mortgage banker in North Carolina who said:

Last year, we declined a young man and his family fixed

rate financing to purchase a primary home. The applicant

recently relocated to work for a family business. Prior to

Dodd-Frank, it would have been easy to qualify, but no more.

Another potential American home buyer denied credit because of this regulatory burden. Madam Speaker, that is what many of us, on both sides of the aisle, are trying to remedy today.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), a sponsor of title III of the Fostering Innovation Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to hear the voices of hardworking Americans, not just Washington, D.C., letterhead groups.

We heard from a community banker, who said:

A local union member wanted to refinance his primary

residence. He was currently laid off due to the winter

season. His tax return showed he was generally laid off for

about 6 weeks each year during the extreme cold but was

always called back when weather improved. Since he was laid

off, we could not meet the requirement to validate his

current income that would continue for 3 years. We had to

deny the loan.

Yet again, Mr. Speaker, more Washington red tape taking away home opportunities from hardworking Americans. It is wrong. We must do something about it. It is why, on a bipartisan basis, so many of us have gotten together to pass H.R. 3978.

Yes, we want to make sure that people can buy homes, they can buy cars, they can put groceries on the table, and right now, when the economy is finally starting to improve, thanks to President Trump and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we want them to have opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 3978, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague on the Financial Services Committee. I lost track of how many times he mentioned Wells Fargo. That has nothing to do with an early growth company. That has nothing to do with this title of the bill.

So the Fostering Innovation Act by the gentlewoman from Arizona is all about allowing emerging-growth companies the opportunity to actually grow. What a novel concept.

What we know is, Mr. Speaker, in 8 years of Obamanomics, they were only able to produce about 1.8 percent economic growth, for all intents and purposes. Nobody's savings account came back. Wages were stagnant. And now that we have sensible regulation, now that we have passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, now we have 3 percent economic growth, which is economic growth for America's working families. Unemployment is at a 17-year low. It remains at a 17-year low.

Again, wages grew at 2.9 percent last year, the fastest in almost a decade. Two million Americans have gone back to work, Mr. Speaker, and this is not by accident.

So what the gentleman is doing with his motion to recommit is sending us back. He is rolling the clock back to an era where working Americans didn't get ahead, where entrepreneurship was at a generational low, where small businesses were finding it hard to access lines of credit. So the bill that he so much maligns from the gentlewoman from Arizona, who happens to reside on his side of the aisle--at markup, the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), supported the provision and said: This is a sensible compromise that provides a narrowly targeted relief to only the companies that truly need it.

Researching a new drug and getting FDA approval is a very, very long process, which is exactly what we heard in our committee. For example, we have heard from John Blake, senior vice president of finance at Atyr Pharma, who testified before the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments. He said: It remains the case that the biotech development time line is a decades-long affair. It is extremely likely that Atyr will still be in the lab, in the clinic, when our EGC clock expires, our early growth company.

In other words, they may have revenues, but they don't have profits. They don't have profits. This is something that is especially common in the biotech area. They need this capital for innovation.

So once again, we have heard this rhetoric on the other side of the aisle before. This is all about Dodd-Frank revisited. They aim at Wall Street, but they are hitting Main Street, Mr. Speaker. The MTR, the motion to recommit, hits Main Street in the gut. It will mean fewer early growth companies. It will mean fewer jobs. It will mean lower wage growth. And it will mean, again, a decimated and declining American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, we should reject the motion to recommit, and we should support the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 725, I call up the bill (H.R. 4771) to raise the consolidated assets threshold under the small bank holding company policy statement, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018. It is a bipartisan bill which passed our committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 41-14.

Mr. Speaker, this exact same provision came out of the Senate Banking Committee also with a very strong bipartisan vote of 16-7.

First, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love) who is a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee. I want to thank her for introducing this legislation and helping lead our congressional efforts to provide regulatory relief to our Nation's community banks. She is a great asset to our committee and widely respected.

The Federal Reserve Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement is a regulation that allows certain bank holding companies that have less than $1 billion in assets to hold more debt at the holding company level than would otherwise be permitted by current capital requirements. They do this as long as they meet a number of ongoing requirements and restrictions.

H.R. 4771 would raise that threshold for qualifying institutions from $1 billion to $3 billion, thus allowing more community banks to raise more capital by the issuance of debt. By increasing this threshold, H.R. 4771 provides much needed relief for bank holding companies from overly burdensome capital and leverage requirements that were truly intended, Mr. Speaker, for the largest and most complex global financial institutions.

It is a reoccurring problem, Mr. Speaker. Again, over and over, the regulatory burden on our community financial institutions is causing us to lose one approximately every other day in America. These are rules that have made it, again, more difficult for small banks to raise capital. And while the bank holding companies will no longer have to abide by these rules under this bill, again, there are plenty of safeguards that continue to be in place to protect the safety and soundness of the institution and its customers. But these institutions present no threat to the safety and soundness of our financial system.

First and foremost, the Federal Reserve retains the right to impose capital standards on a holding company if they determine it is needed. In other words, this is a ``may'' bill and not a ``shall'' bill. The $3 billion threshold remains totally within the discretion of the Federal Reserve. It is permissive.

Next, capital rules and regulations will continue to apply to the subsidiary banks of the holding company level. Again, let me repeat, the capital rules and regulations continue to apply to subsidiary banks.

All institutions must continue to meet certain qualitative requirements, including those pertaining to non-banking activities, off-balance-sheet activities, and publicly registered debt and equity. These requirements ensure that the higher leverage the policy statement allows does not pose any undue burden on subsidiary depository institutions.

So the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act will indeed make it easier for small, hometown community banks to raise capital. And as they raise more capital, they can turn it into more Main Street jobs, more economic growth, and more home ownership opportunities for our constituents.

In fact, passing this bill will immediately benefit community banks all across America. Not the big banks, not Wall Street banks, as I have no doubt the ranking member will say in her remarks, but again, it will be community banks that will benefit.

If you don't believe me, ask them. Ask the Independent Community Bankers of America and its 5,700 community bank members.

As a matter of fact, the passage of this bill, Mrs. Love's bill, has been an important, longstanding goal of the Independent Community Bankers of America because they have been suffering and suffocated by an avalanche of red tape with massive increases in regulatory burdens, which has caused consolidation with much, much larger competitors. Because of increased regulation and compliance costs, again, many of them have found it difficult to access and raise capital. This is the capital that is needed to capitalize our small businesses.

Small businesses are struggling for access to credit, and the incredible regulatory burden placed on home buyers has simply complicated the buying process.

These higher costs are being felt at the same time that paychecks are only now beginning to grow for working families thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Just don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Let's listen to just one community banker who happens to be from West Virginia. They wrote in and said:

What no one in a position of power seems to realize is that

many customers in our

country prefer to deal with a smaller, hometown institution,

with people they know and trust. If a customer has a question

about their loan or their deposit, they simply pick up the

phone and call or drop by. If we don't know the answer, we

find out and let them know as soon as possible. But it

appears that Congress and the administration are attempting

to get rid of smaller institutions, so there are a lot fewer

institutions to deal with, and those are the large ones who

are too big to fail.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what happened under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Continuing:

Please just try to remember that small financial

institutions and small businesses are the heart of America.

The American Dream is to work hard, learn, and make a good

life for yourself and your family. In the meantime, it

includes working in your community or neighborhood to help

others out. Even as a small institution as ours, we sponsor

Little League Baseball teams, soccer teams, the county junior

fair, and many other activities. We realize if we don't

support local small businesses, they soon won't be here.

Those words could have been written by almost any community financial institution in America, Mr. Speaker, and they ring so true. In order to keep our small communities alive, we have to keep their small businesses alive and we must keep their small banks alive.

So, again, it is so important that we enact H.R. 4771 and that we reduce this red tape on our community financial institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Utah for introducing the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that, as the ranking member appears to be vexed at where the $3 billion number came from, it is the product of bipartisan compromise, something I invite her to engage in more often, and this particular bill is supported by almost half the Democrats on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that I am shocked that anybody would come here and say that they want to support community banks and they supported Dodd-Frank--the very reason these community banks are being gobbled up. The whole idea of this legislation is to allow them to come together and protect themselves and not be gobbled up by the big banks they vilify in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to simply use a term popularized on the other side of the aisle. These are crumbs, deregulatory crumbs, offered by the ranking member when, in fact, she and others on the other side of the aisle have their handprints all over Dodd-Frank, which 90 percent of community bankers will tell you is the number one reason they are going out of business, which is why we have to enact this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), vice chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to request of the ranking member, on her time, if she will begin to name the community banks that were responsible for the 2008 financial crisis, ostensibly, that was supposed to be answered by Dodd-Frank. She will have some time to think about that.

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

I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 30 seconds.

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

I yield the gentleman from Ohio an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, our community financial institutions play a vital role in our local communities, particularly in rural areas like the Fifth District of Texas, our east Texas counties, and yet they are being crushed, crushed by the sheer weight, volume, complexity, and expense of regulation brought about by Dodd-Frank.

I hear so much from the ranking member about how much her side of the aisle cares about community banks, but their words are belied by their actions in supporting Dodd-Frank, supposedly meant for Wall Street, but it is hurting Main Street.

We have a bill before us today, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4771, that will give a little bit of ability for community banks to protect themselves from the onslaught of this regulatory burden. The whole idea, again, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that community banks can at least gather and merge amongst themselves so they are not gobbled up by the big banks that are vilified by the other side of the aisle in the first place.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is actually--you wouldn't know it from the ranking member--a bipartisan proposal, supported by almost half--half-- of the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee. And again, there is great bipartisan work on our committee. Almost three-quarters of our bills are bipartisan; it is just few of them that are supported by our ranking member.

Let's do one small thing today. Let's have the House do one small thing today, Mr. Speaker, that will help them survive a day more so that they can lend money to a hardworking family to buy that first home, so that they can lend money to somebody to realize their American Dream of perhaps starting their own small business. After having to get that paycheck at the local factory for so many years, now they can finally go out and start their own small business. Maybe it is a matter of sending the first kid to college.

But all of this, all of this disappears. These hopes and dreams disappear with our community banks who are still failing, unfortunately, at the rate of one approximately every other day. This is unacceptable. This is totally unacceptable.

So we have one deregulatory measure here--one--to help our community banks survive. And we hear from so many of them, Mr. Speaker.

Here is one from Indiana that says:

Regulations have significantly reduced our ability to make

judgment calls on credit decisions. When I first came to

First Savings Bank, I had a number of people tell me that the

First Savings Bank gave them their first loan, probably when

they didn't deserve it. Today, they are business and civic

leaders. And I guess we made the right call then. However,

today we cannot make that call. Washington has made that

call, and the answer is no.

One reason, one voice of one banker telling us why we need the bill from the gentlewoman from Utah.

Here is another from a banker in Texas, who said:

When I started banking, the community bank business model

was built around bankers helping their communities to thrive.

Today, customers are confused when they have to sign so many

papers to open a deposit account or borrow money. I can only

think of one explanation, and that is our government thinks

our customers are too stupid to come into the bank and

negotiate a private transaction with their banker, the

community banker that they go to church with, the community

banker whose kids go to school with the customers' kids, and

the community banker whose wife is in the local charity with

the wives of the banker's customers' wives.

Here is another one from Nevada:

I have been a banker for over 30 years, and I have never

been more discouraged than I am now. Good bankers are fleeing

the industry. The days of making a commonsense decision for

the benefit of a customer are gone. For me, retirement can't

come soon enough.

I have got binders and binders full of these testimonies, Mr. Speaker. As the local community banks leave, so leave the credit opportunities of so many low-and moderate-income Americans. It has got to stop.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the House to enact H.R. 4771. Let's stop the carnage, let's encourage community bank living, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 725, I call up the bill (H.R. 1153) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to improve upon the definitions provided for points and fees in connection with a mortgage transaction, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on H.R. 1153, currently under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1153, the Mortgage Choice Act of 2017.

I would like to start out thanking my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) for his tireless leadership on this issue, having ushered this very same legislation through our committee in three different Congresses.

The purpose of H.R. 1153 is simple: to provide much-needed regulatory red tape relief to our community financial institutions so they can serve their customers; so they can provide them more mortgages. This is a straightforward piece of legislation. It is practical, it is necessary, and, Madam Speaker, it is bipartisan.

Now, you may hear today, Madam Speaker, from some of our Democratic colleagues that ``we oppose the bill.'' We heard that claim in the Rules Committee earlier this week. But I do find it interesting that no amendments were offered during committee markup, nor were any amendments offered at the Rules Committee. I remind all on the House floor, Madam Speaker, that the Financial Services Committee favorably reported this bill to the House with a strong bipartisan vote of 46-13, which means almost half of the Democrats on our committee supported this bill; and in the 113th Congress, Madam Speaker, this bill passed by voice vote--not a single objection.

Madam Speaker, this bill would help make homeownership more affordable for working Americans and would promote access to affordable mortgage credit for low- and moderate-income families and first-time home buyers. It does this while continuing to protect consumers.

The Mortgage Choice Act is needed because the CFPB wrote a flawed and problematic definition that grossly miscalculates points and fees. The result is that many mortgage loans, particularly those for low- and moderate-income borrowers, would not meet the standards of a qualified mortgage and thus not get made.

Currently, CFPB rules include affiliated title charges under a 3 percent cap when determining whether a mortgage is a qualified mortgage, but it doesn't include unaffiliated. This does not make sense. The CFPB rules are detrimental, again, to low- and moderate- income borrowers and first-time home buyers since they are more likely to have smaller loan amounts and, therefore, more easily trigger the 3 percent cap.

That means under the current definition, many mortgage applicants will be denied homeownership opportunities simply because they do not fit into the government box; or the only mortgages in the alternative available to them might be at far higher interest rates, making them unaffordable for many. In other words, the CFPB's defective definition has ended up protecting many consumers right out of their opportunity to buy a home.

H.R. 1153, from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), would change the way points and fees are calculated by excluding fees paid for affiliated title charges and escrow charges for insurance and taxes. That would, therefore, Madam Speaker, increase homeownership opportunities for borrowers by allowing more loans to meet the QM standard.

Let's not just listen to me, Madam Speaker. Let's listen to our community financial institutions that we expect to help our constituents. A credit union from Washington explained how this was affecting everyday Americans.

They wrote: ``A member at our credit union wanted to buy down his rate on his mortgage with cash out of pocket at closing in order to lower the payments for his retirement. However, doing so would have made his total points and fees higher than allowed under ATR/QM, and there was no allowable way around the problem.''

From my native Texas, a community banker wrote in and said: ``The greatest frustration our customers have is our bank's inability to now make home loans. For years we made loans to people for the purchase of their homes. We would do about one every other week. So it was not a large volume. It was a good service. We always made these loans to keep in our loan portfolio. We never sold any home loans, but with the new requirements for home loans, it has driven us out of this kind of business. It has also taken us out of the construction lending on homes because we cannot risk the risk of a takeout commitment failing. The consumer is the loser.''

Indeed, that is true, Madam Speaker. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Huizenga has worked on this bill for the past two Congresses again. In the 113th Congress, it passed by voice vote. It passed by an overwhelming majority of 286-140 in the 114th Congress. I trust the third time will be the charm.

I urge all of my colleagues to do what is right for our constituents and to pass H.R. 1153 to provide open access for Americans to purchase a home.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that, if the ranking member would read section 8(a) of RESPA, she would realize everything she said was false because it prevents any fee, kickback, or thing of value.

Second of all, what she describes as a harmful and fraudulent policy was supported by half of her Democrats, including her vice ranking member, Mr. Kildee from Michigan.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is the sponsor of the legislation and the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), a cosponsor of the legislation and a great friend of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, we could not be more highly honored that the minority leader would take such an interest in H.R. 1533, the Mortgage Choice Act.

I am reminded that there are Members who come to this great Chamber to make speeches, and there are those who come to make laws. When it comes to speeches, I would note that the Gettysburg Address came in at 2 minutes, and Americans may think it had greater eloquence.

I would note that as the minority leader quoted the Bible frequently throughout her speech, it reminds me of Isaiah 1:18, ``Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord.''

Yet President Trump stood right there in the State of the Union Address with his hand out with an olive branch extending an open hand to work with Members of both parties on an immigration reform package. He offered a fair compromise. He offered a fair compromise, and, instead, the minority leader slapped his hand and called it insulting, Mr. Speaker. She called it lame. She called it dangerous.

This is not someone who has come to this Chamber, the people's House, in order to make law. The President didn't offer legalization. He offered a pathway to citizenship. He didn't offer this for 700,000. He offered it for 1.8 million. He said:

Let's secure our borders, and let's make sure that

immigrants who come to this country come legally and come

with their sleeves rolled up coming to work and build

America.

There are those who want to solve a problem, and there are those who want to exacerbate a problem for the election.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, hardworking Americans need the opportunity to get mortgages to buy their part of the American Dream. Everything that the ranking member said, she ought to share it with her own Democrats because half of them on our committee support H.R. 1533 which is good for America and good for prospective home buyers.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all House Members to adopt it, 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 693, I call up the bill (H.R. 2954) to amend the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 to specify which depository institutions are subject to the maintenance of records and disclosure requirements of such Act, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 2954, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act.

H.R. 2954, which was introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee, is a very important piece of legislation

that will provide much-needed regulatory relief for our community banks and credit unions from onerous CFPB regulations that are impeding their ability to make home loans to our constituents.

On January 1 of this year, draconian changes went into effect related to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act known as HMDA. These changes, which were mandated by Dodd-Frank and blindly implemented by the CFPB, radically expanded the information that lenders are required to collect, record, and report about mortgage applications and loans. But like many things the CFPB is involved in, the rule went far, far beyond what was originally intended by Congress, and effects have far-reaching and negative consequences on community financial institutions and home buyers.

To be more specific, the CFPB's updated HMDA rule now requires financial institutions to collect 48--48--unique, different data fields on each mortgage loan they make. This is more than double--double--the number, Mr. Speaker, of data fields lenders were required to collect before the rule went into effect.

Now, as if adding 25--two dozen--more data fields weren't enough, the CFPB rule also modified 20 of the 23 existing fields in this constant, constant changing of the regulatory scheme to fit the narrative of regulators rather than focus on the cost and benefits to our constituents of existing statutes.

Mr. Speaker, again, the constant changing of this regulatory scheme, the increased complexity and cost, we do not fully appreciate the impact on our community financial institutions, and we do not fully appreciate how this is impeding the success and growth of our community financial institutions in the communities we represent.

You don't have to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. A community banker in Kansas has said that: ``As crazy as it seems, our current HMDA process includes four people verifying HMDA data on each loan.''

Mr. Speaker, that was before the changes we are discussing today.

According to that same community banker, who is trying to fund homes in his local community, doubling the number of data fields, as required in the CFPB's HMDA rule, ``will almost be overwhelming for a bank such as ours.''

As a community banker from Nebraska has stated: ``All the new mortgage lending rules have made it almost impossible to provide timely service to our local customers.''

So home buyers are feeling this effect, Mr. Speaker. As one community banker from Ohio explained, he was working with a woman who recently went through the tragedy of divorce. She was trying to refinance her home in order to make ends meet. But after filing mountains and mountains of paperwork and wading through all the different forms, she looked up at the banker and said: ``Jim, just tell me it will be okay.''

As Jim put it: ``At that point, I realized just how overwhelming all the forms and disclosures were to a customer.''

Sadly, we all have--the lawmakers, the regulators, and the bankers-- forgotten the most important item in this entire process: the customer.

This community banker is right, Mr. Speaker. Our local financial institutions, our community banks, our smallest financial institutions especially, they have to spend less time in resources meeting Washington's complex, burdensome, onerous paperwork requirements. Instead, we need to give them more freedom to do what they do best, and that is to help people in their communities get into homes they can actually afford to keep.

But doubling--doubling--HMDA data requirements needlessly-- needlessly--makes home buying more expensive, more confusing, and more difficult for the very people that we should be trying to help.

Home buyers like April from Kentucky wrote that the process to get a home: ``Is almost impossible and extremely frustrating.''

Or a home buyer from Michigan by the name of Rob, who explained: ``The very people this was supposed to be helpful to, lower income working Americans, have been the parties most devastated by the overreach.''

And that is exactly what this is, Mr. Speaker, overreach. And it is not only these individuals, but even charities--great charities like Habitat for Humanity, who said: ``Thanks to the CFPB's burdensome regulations and rules, charities such as Habitat that provide these loans have found it more difficult to do their important work.''

H.R. 2954, from the gentleman from Minnesota, simply addresses the fact that in order to make home loans, small financial institutions should not and cannot afford to keep pace with the massive laws that disregard their businesses, their business models, and create an uneven playing field.

Mr. Speaker, for this reason and for the others I have stated, I urge all colleagues to help struggling would-be home buyers in our districts and to support H.R. 2954.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a very valuable member of our committee and the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of our Financial Services' Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the vice chairman of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it was a most interesting and passionate speech that my colleague gave.

I have some good news for him. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution are not repealed by this bill, and neither is HMDA. HMDA is not repealed. Even the new CFPB regulations that double the data of HMDA are not repeal.

I would urge the gentleman from Minnesota to actually read the bill, which happens to be four pages long, and he would find out that a current--a current--exemption that exists under current law for our smallest financial institutions that are trying to make loans to the very people he claims he wants to protect, that is slightly enlarged.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), who is the majority whip of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), who is another hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle. It is fascinating because they tell us they want to protect the single mothers. They tell us they want to protect the people of color. They tell us they want to help and protect the poor, but they are protecting them out of their home ownership opportunities.

Because of the increased HMDA compliance on our smallest community financial institutions, they are ceasing to make these loans. But they will sleep well tonight in their apartments and in their rental homes, knowing that my good friends on the other side of the aisle protect them out of their ability to finally realize their portion of the American Dream and have that shot at home ownership.

Mr. Speaker, how many people have to lose their home ownership opportunities due to the onslaught of the onerous Federal regulations?

What is fascinating about this debate is that what they would discover is that HMDA is still the law of the land. Again, I would encourage my friends to actually read the bill. I think it is 3 pages long; maybe 3\1/2\ pages long.

HMDA doesn't go away if we enact H.R. 2954. But what it says is that for our smallest financial institutions, the HMDA requirements, the doubling of HMDA requirements, the increased burden, will not be placed on our smallest financial institutions, as we are losing one every single day. As we lose them, we lose that credit opportunity for the least of these that my friends, I know in their heart, want to help, but they are not helping them.

Listen to those who are actually trying to make these loans. By the way, I don't know of a successful business model for any bank that says: You know what? I am going to make more money if I don't lend it to you. If I refuse to make loans, if I refuse to serve my community, if I practice active racism, that will be good for my bottom line.

I am not seeing it in the Fifth District of Texas, and I highly suspect that it is difficult to find in the United States of America in the 21st century.

So I hear from the community banker in Nebraska, who says:

Go to any community bank reporting HMDA and have them sit

down and watch bank staff review a loan file. Then document

the data showing how difficult it is to prevent errors.

This bank got out of the business of loaning. They said:

We don't need the ulcers created by such stress from the

fear of the regulators.

I heard from a community bank in Oklahoma that said:

Because of Dodd-Frank, we no longer offer-purchase house

loans. We are servicing only the ones we have on the books.

Thank you Dodd-Frank and HMDA. May I have another.

I heard from a community bank in Nevada that said:

The mortgage regulations intended to help the consumer have

been particularly harmful. My bank is a very small community

bank servicing communities in rural Nevada. We used to do

quite a bit of residential mortgage lending, but hardly any

now, due to the restrictive regulations.

So, again, I would just ask that my friends on the other side of the aisle open up both their hearts and their heads and see how many people are being hurt by the cumulative impact of this regulatory tsunami hitting those who loan the money to the least of these to make sure that they can achieve their version of the American Dream.

And where was all the angst, Mr. Speaker? Where was all the angst? My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about statistics. Well, here is a statistic that comes from the Federal Reserve: When the qualified mortgage rule of the CFPB is fully implemented, 30 percent fewer Blacks and Hispanics, people of color, will be able to get mortgages versus 2010. There is a statistic.

And I would say, Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is even a more valuable statistic when it comes to looking at the increased HMDA burden placed by the CFPB on our community financial institutions. Maybe that is a more important statistic than even the 20-some-odd new fields of HMDA data that CFPB is requiring on the smallest banks and credit unions in America.

My friends on the other side of the aisle say: Oh, we care about the plight of these community banks. Well, why are we still losing one a day, and why do you tell us that you care about their plight and their ability to loan money but you don't vote with us?

Fortunately, some Members on the other side of the aisle in the other body over my shoulder, Mr. Speaker--there is actually a bipartisan bill in the Senate that does exactly what H.R. 2954 does. I am very happy to say that it was a bipartisan bill coming out of the Financial Services Committee, also enjoying some Democratic support.

But, again, I just don't think my friends who are debating now have read the bill. I encourage them to read the bill, and every Member ought to support H.R. 2954 and support the opportunity to buy a home in the American Dream.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend and colleague from Minnesota restating, in his motion to recommit, what is essentially already current law; but, unfortunately, he adds on yet one more form for community financial institutions to fill out on top of the 18.7 gazillion forms they already have to fill out, the cost of which ultimately is imposed upon those who are trying to find credit and find affordable credit.

And I would remind the gentleman from Minnesota again, every single financial institution impacted by H.R. 2954 still must submit HMDA data. They are still subject to HMDA. For the third time, they are still subject to HMDA. And I am sure that all will be glad to hear Federal regulators still have statutory authority to take any formal enforcement actions against entities for violations of the laws or rules.

But why, when we are trying to make it easier for the least of these to buy a home, are we trying to, instead, my friends on the other side of the aisle, make it more difficult by adding yet more forms, forms that also say: Do you know what? Even though this is America, you are guilty until proven innocent.

That is a whole different argument, and I wish we had time to develop it here today, Mr. Speaker.

But here is what we need to do. We need to make sure that struggling, hardworking Americans have homeownership opportunities, and the regulatory burden that came out of the previous administration is making it more difficult. So, now, to think that we would double the HMDA requirement data--double--for our smallest financial institutions that are fighting for survival, that are trying to help our constituents buy homes is unthinkable; to add yet one more Federal law, one more Federal form on top of all the others that we have, is just unfathomable. It is unthinkable. It will only harm those whom we are trying to help, and I would urge all Members to reject the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, 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 to submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act. Frankly, I don't quite understand why every Member is not rising in support of H.R. 3326.

This is important legislation, which is sponsored by my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee. It was cosponsored by a senior Democrat on our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). Mr. Chairman, it passed our committee by a unanimous vote 60-0. Again, Mr. Chairman, this measure passed our committee by a unanimous vote of 60-0.

H.R. 3326 makes a share of future World Bank appropriations contingent upon vitally needed reforms, with focus on the World Bank's International Development Association, known as IDA, which is the World Bank's concessional lending window, dedicated to 75 of the world's poorest countries.

Mr. Chairman, the reforms in this bill have emerged from five different oversight hearings held in our committee over the past 2 years and they all enjoy bipartisan support.

The bill also supports the administration's goal of ensuring that the World Bank's work is consistent with U.S. priorities that are, obviously, financed by the U.S. taxpayer. In the President's FY 2018 budget, the administration called for a holding to account international organizations whose missions don't advance U.S. foreign policy's interest or which haven't been well managed. H.R. 3326 would enact the administration's request for a 15 percent reduction on authorized funds for IDA.

In addition, Mr. Barr's legislation contains crucial national security provisions, including a prohibition on World Bank assistance to countries that knowingly violate U.N. Security Council sanctions on North Korea.

Also, safeguarding our national security is a provision that helps ensure World Bank assistance won't be used for state sponsors of terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense requirement that benefited from the input of our democratic colleague on the committee: again, Mr. Sherman from California.

So, again, Mr. Chairman, it does kind of beg the questions: Why are we here today? Why are we debating a bill that received support from every single Republican and Democrat on the committee?

As some who may be viewing our proceedings know, there is such a thing known as a suspension calendar for relatively noncontroversial items. This bill should have been dispensed with on what is known as a suspension calendar since it passed our committee 60-0.

But now, apparently, the ranking member has had a change of heart on opposing a bill that she voted for on committee. So some may be confused, and indeed we are confused. It is interesting that we now see opposition to linking these IDA payments to reforms, but that is exactly what Democrats on the Financial Services Committee did in 2005. It is exactly what they did when they voted to withhold 25 percent of IDA funds in a foreign operation's appropriations bill. Last July, the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), consistent with her earlier vote, voted in support of H.R. 3326 as well. So, again, some of us are confused as to why it is being opposed now if she has voted for the policy of withholding twice, including voting for the very bill we are debating today.

It is also important to note, Mr. Chairman, that the reforms included in this bill are those that the World Bank itself deems are important. As far back as 1992, a bank management review highlighted its perverse staff incentives that made pushing money out the door more important than making a dent in global poverty. And as recently as 2014, a bank evaluation report confirmed that these very same perverse incentives are still in place.

Then there is the notorious case of mismanagement in the Uganda Transport Sector Development Project: a scandalous bank initiative, where basic lack of project oversight led to sexual exploitation of underage girls, repeated harassment of female staff, and deficient safety measures that very well may have resulted in five fatalities-- lest we forget.

In 2015, the World Bank's president had this to say:

The multiple failures we have seen in this project on the

part of the World Bank, the government of Uganda, and a

government contractor are unacceptable. It is our obligation

to properly supervise all investment projects to ensure that

the poor and vulnerable are protected in our work. In this

case, we did not.

I am committed to making sure that we do everything in our

power, working with other stakeholders first, to fully review

the circumstance of this project, and then to quickly learn

from our, and other's, failures so they do not happen again.

Mr. Chairman, if the World Bank thinks these reforms are necessary, shouldn't we all think these reforms are necessary?

And how about the testimony of Sasha Chavkin, a reporter for the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, who testified before our committee?

Sasha said:

We found that, over a decade, spanning from 2004 to 2013,

projects financed by the World Bank physically or

economically displaced an estimated 3.4 million people around

the world.

Mr. Chairman, these are some of the world's most vulnerable displaced by the World Bank that screams out for more reforms.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Barr for saying with his legislation that enough is enough. He has produced a serious, long overdue reform bill, one that was supported in our committee unanimously 60-0. We typically could not get a 60-0 vote on a Mother's Day resolution, yet we have it for this bill. Again, it just begs credibility and credulity as to why are we here today debating a bill that was passed unanimously in committee. I urge the House to adopt it unanimously.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the sponsor of the legislation that passed unanimously 60-0 in our committee and the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say when my colleague on the other side of the aisle talks about meaningful participation, not one single amendment was offered by my Democratic friends. It was a perfect bill. It passed 60-0.

I would also point out the only leverage we have as the United States is our contribution, and that is what this bill does.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice chairman of Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), another hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee who knows this bill passed 60-0 with no Democratic amendments offered.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds again to say it is an interesting narrative being told by the minority, but they offered no amendments, voted for the bill 60-0. We have heard nothing for 6 months until last Friday, the first time they decided to articulate a specific concern about a bill they had already supported.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the majority whip of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

First, Mr. Chairman, let me get the whole process debate out of the way. Anybody who is watching this debate has got to be scratching their head at the proposition that every single one of my Democratic colleagues who come to the floor to denounce H.R. 3326 have already voted for it. They voted for it 60-0 in committee.

Mr. Chairman, do you know how many amendments they offered in that markup, their opportunity to refine the legislation, their opportunity to improve the legislation, their opportunity to put their imprimatur on the legislation? Do you know how many amendments they offered? Zero. Zero amendments were offered by the minority who now claim that somehow they were cut out of the process.

For 6 months, we have been waiting, waiting to bring this bill, waiting to hear about these improvements, and only three legislative days ago did, finally, the Democrats deign to offer any new improvement to this bill.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, she doth protest too much. And now what I don't understand, Mr. Chairman, is how my Democratic colleagues can defend some of these rogue regimes and some of the activities of the World Bank.

Dr. Jean Ensminger, Edie and Lew Wasserman professor of social science at Caltech, testified that there is corruption throughout World Bank projects in remote areas of Kenya near the Somali border.

She said: ``As I dug more deeply, it became apparent that corruption had been entrenched in the project since 2000.'' And we are talking about the poorest of the poor.

She goes on to say:

As the board was about to renew the project for 5 years,

finally, the internal investigation showed that 62 percent of

the transactions were fraudulent.

Except my friends on the other side of the aisle: It doesn't matter. Don't worry about the fraud. Just send them U.S. taxpayer money. It doesn't matter that the poor aren't actually helped. Just send them money because it makes us feel good.

Sasha Chavkin from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists testified--and I alluded to this earlier about the forced displacement of the poorest of the poor caused by projects financed by the World Bank.

He went on to testify: ``We found, instead, that the bank repeatedly funded governments that not only failed to adequately resettle communities, but, in some cases, were accused of human rights abuses such as rape, murder, and violent evictions associated with bank projects. We found in several cases that the World Bank continued to bankroll these borrowers even after evidence of these abuses came to light.''

We have a bill to reform that, to make sure the poor are actually helped, to ensure that instead of taxpayer money going to rape, murder, and violent evictions, that it actually goes to help the poor. And why my Democratic colleagues who were once for it are now against it is beyond me.

We certainly know about the infamous World Bank project, road project, in western Uganda where it was associated with an increase in sexual exploitation of young girls. Teenage girls were being sexually harassed on the way to school. Many were sexually exploited or wagged by project workers, and once this became known, the World Bank denied it.

So we have the simple bill to say that the U.S. taxpayer will demand accountability. We will demand reforms. People should be aghast at how this money has been spent at the World Bank. It is not how much money you spend. It is how you spend the money. And if we want reforms, we are going to have some accountability, something that my friends on the other side of the aisle used to support, and they should be ashamed that they are not supporting it today.

We must all support H.R. 3326. I very much commend the gentleman from Kentucky for bringing this valuable piece of legislation to the floor.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, not only do I want to thank him for his leadership in providing accountability to the World Bank to ensure that the poorest of the poor are truly helped and that the hardworking, beleaguered taxpayer has his funds respected, but I also want to thank him for this amendment and his previous work to ensure that sanctions on one of the most dangerous regimes on the face of the planet, North Korea, are actually effective. We know the threat that North Korea presents to all of our constituents and our country.

So I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership, and I urge the adoption of his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 657, I call up the bill (H.R. 4015) to improve the quality of proxy advisory firms for the protection of investors and the U.S. economy, and in the public interest, by fostering accountability, transparency, responsiveness, and competition in the proxy advisory firm industry, 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 such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4015, the Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act of 2017, and I thank the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee of our committee, for offering this bill.

Each year, Mr. Speaker, public companies hold shareholder meetings wherein shareholders vote for the companies' directors and on other significant corporate actions that require shareholder approval.

Mr. Speaker, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires that, before these annual shareholder meetings take place, public companies must provide shareholders with proxy statements that include all important facts about matters to be voted on at a shareholder meeting. Many shareholders and investment advisers rely on information provided by proxy advisory firms to guide their votes on these matters.

H.R. 4015 would enhance transparency in the shareholder proxy system by requiring proxy advisory firms to register with the SEC, disclose potential conflicts of interest and codes of ethics, and make their methodologies public.

Mr. Speaker, this is a pure disclosure bill, nothing more, nothing less. Proxy firms play an outsized role in the U.S. economy in shaping corporate governance. They counsel pension plans, mutual funds, and other institutional investors about how to vote the shares of corporations that they own.

With respect to institutional investors, Mr. Speaker, the share of institutional investor ownership was roughly 46 percent as recently as 1987, but today, that figure is more than 75 percent; in other words, the volume of proxy votes for which investors are responsible has grown into the billions.

In 2003, the SEC adopted a rule under the Investment Advisers Act that requires an investment adviser to vote in

the best interest of their clients' own proxies. A series of SEC no- action letters give the investment adviser a fundamental safe harbor from liability if they use a proxy adviser.

As a result, institutional investors have increasingly relied on proxy advisory firms to help them decide how to vote their shares. However, regulators, market participants, and academic observers have highlighted potential conflicts of interest that are inherent in the business models and activities of proxy advisory firms.

The committee, for example, is aware of numerous instances whereby the two largest proxy advisory firms have issued vote recommendations to shareholders that include errors, misstatements of facts, and incomplete analysis.

For example, in one instance, a company reported that, even though the total shareholder return the company actually had generated for its shareholders was 64 percent, a proxy advisory firm, Glass Lewis, erroneously reported this calculation to be 26 percent.

Another company reported that ISS erroneously reported that the company's long-term cash awards will vest and pay out their maximum opportunity in the event of a change in control. Well, this was reported even though the company's plan had been amended and approved by the shareholders years earlier in a manner that would pay out at target upon change in control, and there are many other examples.

Some proxy advisory firms' recommendations have been made without any contact to the public company at all, and then these same proxy advisory firms encourage companies to join their service in order to have the privilege to ``influence'' an advisory firm's recommendations. I suspect, for many people, this simply does not pass the smell test.

An industrial company told its shareholders, Mr. Speaker: ``ISS' negative recommendation was based on flawed analysis of our compensation programs that did not appropriately take into account the significant declines in our CEO's pay in 2015 or the performance-based nature of our annual and long-term incentive compensation programs.''

A pharmaceutical company responded to a proxy advisory firm's recommendations with this statement: ``For the second year in a row, Glass Lewis did not include its full pay for performance analysis in this report. For shareholders who rely only on Glass Lewis materials to make voting decisions, there is no discussion of the company's industry-leading performance over this time period.''

Again, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many more examples like these.

So another concern that many people have, Mr. Speaker, is that the two largest proxy advisory firms collectively--collectively--make up 97 percent of the proxy advisory industry--97 percent. This monopolization and the lack of transparency regarding proxy advisory firms means that the writings, analysis, reports, and voting recommendations of these two firms have a disproportionate effect on fundamental corporate transactions like mergers or acquisitions, the approval of corporate directors, and shareholder proposals. In other words, these two firms have a huge impact on our economy.

The bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) helps address these concerns by setting up a new regulatory regime for proxy advisory firms that looks out for the interest of investors, shareholders, by ensuring they receive complete information through the proxy process and can better vote in a manner consistent with shareholder interest as opposed to the potential conflicted interest of a proxy firm.

Mr. Duffy's bill also helps ensure that shareholders and their proxies have access to accurate information regarding companies by allowing companies to provide input on proxy recommendations. This is especially important for emerging growth companies that rely heavily on investors.

A bad proxy recommendation in which emerging growth companies cannot refute the recommendation can be devastating to those emerging growth companies and, thus, have a harmful impact on our economy.

In a letter to our committee, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization wrote: ``Small business innovators operate in a unique industry that values a strong relationship with investors. Yet they are often held to standards that are not applicable to their company and forced to engage in proxy fights over issues that do not add value to shareholders.''

H.R. 4015 would provide for SEC oversight of proxy advisory firms, ensuring that they operate within appropriate boundaries and can be held accountable to regulators and the public.

To be clear, Mr. Speaker, nothing in this bill permits companies to rewrite a proxy firm's report or forces a proxy firm to change its recommendation based on feedback received from the company.

In summary, H.R. 4015 will improve transparency in the proxy system and enhance shareholder access to information by ensuring that proxy advisory firms are registered with the SEC, disclose potential conflicts of interest and codes of ethics, and make publicly available their methodologies for forming proxy recommendations and analysis. For every Member who believes in investor protection and supports a healthier economy, they should support H.R. 4015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is a historic day in America. Republicans deliver historic tax relief for working Americans and small businesses.

The ranking member has articulated concern over burdensome requirements. I look forward to working with her now on reducing the burdensome requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services' Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), our Republican Conference whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that, if the gentleman is so busy he can't read a 100-page proxy statement, perhaps he could read a 20-page bill and he would realize that his comments have almost absolutely nothing to do with the bill whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the sponsor of the legislation and the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, while I was fascinated to hear so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle exclaim how much they care about working Americans, it just makes we wonder why now twice--twice--in the last 24 hours they have voted against giving the average working American a $2,059 tax cut. Twice now they have voted to deny working Americans tax relief in order to bolster their paychecks. I wonder about that.

I also wonder, as I listened to this litany of groups whose letters were entered into the Record, how often I heard labor union; government pension; Washington, D.C.; and special interest group.

What I didn't hear about is average working Americans who have their investment in trying to save to buy a home, trying to perhaps fund a small business, or send a kid to college. It is their interest that we are trying to stand up for.

So what we know is that the SEC--the Securities and Exchange Commission--have, for all intents and purposes, required investment advisers to use one of two proxy advisory firms, one of which, as my colleague, the author of the bill pointed out, is owned by a foreign labor union. Yet the SEC requires us to use them.

So here is the radical nature of the bill: the bill, H.R. 4015, simply says that we ought to have transparency--something apparently my friends across the other side of the aisle are against.

We say they have to register with the SEC--something my friends on the other side of the aisle are against.

They have to disclose potential conflicts of interest. Apparently my friends on the other side are against that.

They have to disclose codes of ethics. Apparently my friends on the other side of the aisle are against that, as well as making their methodologies public.

This is a disclosure bill to help investors, pure and simple. We ought to vote in favor of H.R. 4015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully. I didn't hear anything about labor union political campaign contributions, known political allies of the Democratic Party.

This is yet one more assault on the First Amendment's freedom of speech by my friends on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, it ought to be rejected, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 667, I call up the bill (H.R. 3312) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to specify when bank holding companies may be subject to certain enhanced supervision, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 3312, the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act of 2017.

This very important piece of legislation was introduced by my friend, Mr. Luetkemeyer, who serves as chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee, and is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Members of the House. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the bill was approved in October by the Financial Services Committee with a very strong bipartisan vote of 47-12, so strong, Mr. Speaker, that even a majority of Democrats on the committee voted to support the bill.

This bill reforms what Republicans and now many Democrats acknowledge is a flawed and arbitrary framework under the Dodd-Frank Act to designate so-called systemically important financial institutions, also known as SIFIs. In fact, one of those Democrats who acknowledges that it is a flawed and arbitrary framework is none other than former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, the very Frank of Dodd-Frank, the coauthor of the Dodd-Frank Act. He, himself, has said that this provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that many of us are trying to reform today is ``arbitrary'' and ``a mistake.'' Those are his words, Mr. Speaker, not mine.

That arbitrary and mistaken provision is Dodd-Frank's one-size-fits- all standard that subjects banks with $50 billion or more in assets to the same costly and cumbersome SIFI regulatory standards as trillion- dollar global systemically important institutions.

We should take note that this flawed standard has now been criticized by Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, former Federal Reserve Board Governor Dan Tarullo, former Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry, and many other Obama appointees. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is that bad.

Mr. Luetkemeyer's bipartisan bill--again, very strong bipartisan bill--replaces this inflexible, flawed, $50 billion threshold that has been criticized by so many with a series of well-established, critical standards that more accurately measure systemic importance.

Specifically, his legislation requires the Federal Reserve to review a financial institution's size, interconnectedness, global cross- jurisdictional activity, and complexity, before determining whether the institution should be subject to heightened SIFI regulatory standards.

In other words, this bipartisan bill tailors regulations based on a bank's

actual level of risk, instead of Dodd-Frank's one-size-fits-all system that ensnares smaller regional and midsize banks that, essentially, have simple community bank lending models. These banks are not globally complex Wall Street banks and shouldn't be treated the same.

It simply doesn't make sense to subject small regional and midsize banks with only $50 billion in assets to the same expensive and cumbersome SIFI regulatory regime as a bank like JPMorgan Chase, which has $2.5 trillion in assets. Based on size alone, the $50 billion bank is just 2 percent, 2 percent of JPMorgan Chase's size.

What does make sense, Mr. Speaker, is to base the regulation of these financial institutions on their actual risk profile rather than their asset size alone, which is exactly what Mr. Luetkemeyer's strongly bipartisan bill will do.

Now, while I personally do not support the SIFI architecture at all and do not believe any financial institution in America should be designated too big to fail, it is important that we always continue to work to find bipartisan reforms where we can find them and improve current law, and the legislation before us today represents a good faith effort to do exactly that.

Let's keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, this is simply not a debate over an arcane definition in law. It is about the real world effect these regulations have on the U.S. economy and the working men and women whom we represent.

Let me share with my colleagues what the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council has to say about the importance of the bill that we are debating today: ``Access to working and growth capital remains a challenge for many entrepreneurs and small businesses. H.R. 3312 would improve the lending environment and unleash capital by alleviating inappropriate requirements imposed on regional and midsize banks under Dodd-Frank. Midsize and regional banks, which many startups and small businesses have counted on for lending, have been negatively affected by this Dodd-Frank arbitrary trigger.''

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. They deserve a healthy economy with growing paychecks, better jobs, and a brighter future. It is time to restore economic growth fueled by capital flowing from America's banks to American communities across our Nation.

So I urge my colleagues to correct this widely acknowledged mistake in Dodd-Frank, even acknowledged by former Congressman Barney Frank himself, and put into place real, discernible, critical standards, and help our struggling small businesses on Main Street. Let's pass H.R. 3312.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who is the Republican sponsor of the legislation and the chairman of our Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the chairwoman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, in order to better balance the time on each side, may I inquire if my colleague anticipates having speakers on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to yield me time?

Is the gentleman prepared to yield me time?

How much time does the gentleman yield me?

I inquire of the gentleman how much time is he yielding? I don't wish to be cut off.

I am going to respectfully decline the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a member of the Financial Services Committee and our Republican whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), a very hardworking member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I might point out to the ranking member that she should read her mail, since I responded to her letter.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to have the letter in my hand. I would be happy to share it with the ranking member if she has misfiled it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. GOTTHEIMER), a Democratic colleague.

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

First, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, for coming to the floor. I know how busy he is with his impeachment activities, so we are glad he has had an opportunity to come and share his views on this particular bill.

He spent a lot of time telling us who wasn't for the bill, but he didn't tell us who was for it. And I would, once again, inform my friend, my colleague from Texas, that not only is every single Republican member of the House Financial Services Committee for this bill, but a majority of the Democrats on the committee are for this bill. Perhaps that is why he could find so few Democrats to speak out against it.

So what we have heard, Mr. Speaker, is my colleague and the ranking member vociferously defend the whole idea that there should be institutions that are too big to fail. As they defend the Dodd-Frank Act, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, yet again, the big banks have gotten bigger. Under their regulatory scheme, the big banks have gotten bigger and the communities banks have become fewer.

And now what they are telling us is: Oh, no, we have got to protect this regime.

Well, I don't believe in it. But what I do believe in, Mr. Speaker, and what Mr. Luetkemeyer believes in, is that we need to try to find some bipartisan solutions, some common ground, to try to make some common sense out of some of these regulations.

What is fascinating to me is so many of the Obama-era regulators have said this $50 billion threshold makes no sense. Usually, my Democratic colleagues will quote Mr. Tarullo, they

will quote Janet Yellen, or they will quote Mr. Curry. Well, all of them have said that the $50 billion threshold is essentially arbitrary and does not work.

So, at the end of the day, what it is doing, Mr. Speaker, is putting in an additional regulatory burden on banks that pose no systemic risk to our economy, making it more difficult to extend credit to hardworking Americans who need it. But for people who just voted against tax relief for hardworking Americans, I guess that is what I would expect.

Now they want to make sure that they don't have tax relief, they don't have mortgages, and they don't have credit cards. That is what they are defending, Mr. Speaker, and it is wrong.

On a bipartisan basis, today, I believe we are going to vote for H.R. 3312 and make some sense out of this SIFI rule, and we will have a better America tomorrow.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember a dear friend, Judge Bascom Bentley, III, who passed away peacefully on December 11, 2017.

Bascom was a life-long resident of Palestine, Texas and served almost 3 decades with distinction as the Judge for Texas' 369th District Court until his recent retirement. Prior to that he served as County Court at Law Judge, County Attorney for Anderson County and also the City Attorney for Palestine. Along with his time on the bench, Bascom taught as a professor at Trinity Valley Community College for 37 years. The totality of his awards and honors are too numerous to list here today, but he has been honored by civic groups, charitable organizations, educational institutions and veteran groups. And he was honored multiple times for his good work as a judge including one from the Texas Gang Investigators Association that seems to sum everything up-- the ``Damn Good Judge'' award.

Bascom touched countless lives, including mine. His wit and humor were unmatched and his knowledge endless--likely fueled by his unquenchable thirst and love for history. For those who knew Bascom, they saw compassion and love for others that was unbounding.

As the Representative for the 5th District of Texas, I am honored to have known such a wonderful and unique person, and I will forever treasure our many conversations through the years. I send my deepest and sincerest condolences to his mother, Kelly, wife, Carol, to his children Bonnie, Matthew, William and Hunter, as well as the rest of his family and innumerable friends. May we all remember a life well lived.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 657, I call up the bill (H.R. 2396) to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to update the exception for certain annual notices provided by financial institutions, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act, which is an important bill cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Members of the House and a bill that was approved by the Financial Services Committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 2-1, quite literally: 40-20. Additionally, this bill builds upon an issue that has a long track record of strong bipartisan support in Congress.

I thank Congressman Trott, a member of the Financial Services Committee, for introducing this legislation and for leading congressional efforts to modernize the privacy notification process for consumers and to provide regulatory relief for our struggling financial institutions.

There is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker, with the sheer volume, complexity, weight, load, and cost of the regulatory burden upon, particularly, our struggling community financial institutions, our community banks, and credit unions.

It is no one specific regulation, but the totality, the combination of them all, are causing us to lose a community bank or credit union a day in America. As we lose them, our constituents lose their opportunity for credit opportunities to share in their version of the American Dream. It makes it more costly, more difficult for them to finance someone to go to college, for them to perhaps buy an auto to get them to work, or perhaps capitalize their own small business. So we frequently hear from our community financial institutions.

I heard from a community banker in Nebraska, not long ago, who explained: ``I have explained about how things have changed since I started in banking 10 years ago. In efforts for our government to make things more fair or easier for consumers, it has actually become increasingly more difficult for people to obtain favorable loan terms and, not to mention, obtain loans in a timely manner.''

I heard from a banker in Alabama about real estate regulations, who said: They were intended to help customers, but it is actually hurting them. As wait times increase and banks are no longer offering certain products, not all of these people can be protected from themselves, no matter how many rules and regs the banks follow to protect them.

I heard from a community banker in Utah, who said: I have been in banking for 29 years. In that time, the regulatory burden has increased dramatically. The ability to help customers and small businesses succeed in rural America has been greatly hampered by regulation intended to protect the customer from Wall Street banks, but in the process, smaller community banks, such as mine, have been caught in the fray or broad brush of regulations.

A banker in Oklahoma said that, because of Dodd-Frank regulations: ``We no longer offer/purchase house loans.''

The list goes on and on and on.

So this is one regulation that simply says: under the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act, if a financial institution doesn't change their privacy notification, they don't have to send out a piece of paper annually--a piece of paper like this that 99 percent of the time customers throw away and don't read in the first place.

Don't take my word for it. Professor Adam Levitin, who is a frequent Democrat witness before the House Financial Services Committee testified before our committee: ``One thing that I think should go the way of the dodo bird are the Gramm-Leach-Bliley privacy notices. Nobody reads them.''

That is a Democrat witness, Mr. Speaker. It is not a Republican witness. It is a Democrat witness.

He goes on to say: ``There's no reason anyone should--even the large banks--should be spending money on giving these notices.''

But that is not what this bill does. It just simply says, if a financial institution does not change their privacy notification, they don't have to send out a paper notification that creates more costs, that gets passed on to the customer, and that nobody reads in the first place.

Number one, it is important regulatory relief for our financial institutions. But it is also important when we think in terms of the sheer volume of financial disclosures that our constituents receive.

This goes back to the fact, Mr. Speaker, if you disclose everything, you effectively disclose nothing because you overwhelm the customer.

So we must vigilantly ensure that our constituents are receiving effective disclosure, not just voluminous disclosure, but effective disclosure of material items written in clear, understandable, common language. Again, not voluminous disclosure of irrelevant items written in legalese and fine print. That doesn't do anybody any good, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his leadership. The bill that he is bringing today has earned bipartisan support because it is a simple technical correction to clarify that customers have to be physically mailed an annual privacy notice only when the privacy policies have actually changed from the previous year.

Importantly, this bill was carefully crafted to maintain and retain current privacy and opt-out policies and does not exempt any financial services provider from an initial privacy notice, nor does it allow any loopholes for an institution to avoid issuing an updated notice.

In fact, this legislation, Mr. Speaker, does not change privacy provisions at all, just how they are delivered. Let me repeat: the legislation does not change privacy provisions at all, just how they are delivered.

Again, Mr. Trott's bill has strong bipartisan support. It provides a simple and flexible approach that modernizes privacy notification to the benefit of our customers and to the benefit of our financial institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure and urge every Member to vote for it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I listened very carefully. It was a fascinating speech from the ranking member. Too bad it has absolutely nothing to do with the bill that is before us. Ms. Waters was speaking of privacy policies. The bill has to do with notification.

But I do agree with the ranking member that we do need more effective disclosure. In H.R. 2396, we require financial institutions to make their current policies available on its website at all times. That actually improves disclosure. The only people who can be for the status quo are those who own paper mills so that we can waste more paper.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), the sponsor of this legislation and an outstanding, hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 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 myself 1 minute to say I hope that schoolchildren from around the Nation have been listening to this debate because they would be educated on the House version of the filibuster.

I thought that the ranking member was going to break out the Washington, D.C., phone book and begin to read from it. It was a fascinating discussion of a litany of Washington-based special interest groups. I know they appreciated the shout-out; I know it will help them in their fundraising efforts; but it has absolutely nothing--nothing-- to do with the bill that we are debating, nothing to do with the bill that we are debating.

So the ranking member said how important it is that consumers receive an annual--an annual--notice of the privacy policies of financial institutions. Well, under this bill, H.R. 2396, they don't get it annually, they get it monthly. They get it weekly. They get it daily. They get it hourly.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

In fact, under H.R. 2396, the privacy notification must be continuous. It has to be put on the website. This helps the consumer. The consumer has access 24/7 to the privacy notification under the gentleman from Michigan's bill, as opposed to the status quo being defended by my friends on the other side of the aisle, who say, once a year--once a year--you ought to get a piece of paper that is probably going to end up in the round file anyway.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this debate has nothing to do with the privacy policies of financial institutions. It has everything to do with the notification of such policies. What we provide for is the continuous notification; and should that policy change, then, and only then, does that necessitate the killing of trees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), the sponsor of this legislation.

I yield the gentleman from Michigan an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been several surreal moments on the House floor this week, and today certainly is one more of them.

The debate today is not between regulation and deregulation, but in many respects, the debate is between smart regulation and dumb regulation. What we have today is a dumb regulation that forces a number of financial institutions annually to send out a paper notification even if they don't change their privacy policy; cut down trees, engage an expense--by the way, an expense that, my guess is, doesn't come out of executive bonuses, but probably comes out of the credit availability and the credit cost to the customer. It gets passed on to the consumer.

What we are also having a debate about--and I would encourage all my friends on the other side of the aisle, if in doubt, read the bill.

In this particular case, guess what, Mr. Speaker. It is a 2-page bill. It really doesn't take that long to read. If you read it, what you will find out is that this is a bill that is pro-consumer because we go from a notification that happens once a year to a continuous notification. We improve the consumer notification by ensuring that it is consistently on the website of the financial institution.

What we hear from the ranking member is: No. I want to stay in the 20th century. Gramm-Leach-Bliley is a law from the 20th century.

But, Mr. Speaker, we are in the 21st century. Why don't we ensure that the privacy notification for the consumer is actually on the website?

This is what is truly pro-consumer, not forcing people to go and subsidize the paper mills and the U.S. Postal Service by sending out a notification on paper that doesn't change anything and merely confuses consumers. If you are really pro-consumer, then try to respect their markets and try not to pass additional cost on to them.

Again, regardless of what you have heard from the other side of the aisle, this is everything to do with how we notify people of privacy policies, not the underlying privacy policy itself. It is 21st century. It is not 20th century. It is pro-consumer, regardless of all the special interests and Washington, D.C.-based lobbyists that the ranking member has cited.

The gentleman from Michigan brings us pro-consumer legislation, the Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act. I am kind of embarrassed that we are having to spend this much time debating something that should have been on our expedited suspension calendar. It is almost like there is just simply a knee-jerk reaction anytime we attempt to modify any government regulation.

This is pro-consumer. Frankly, it is pro-environment. Every Member of the House should embrace H.R. 2396. I am sorry we have had to take up so much time for it, but there are thousands and thousands of regulations that hurt our financial institutions, that hurt our consumers. We are trying to get rid of every dumb one, one at a time.

Again, this should be passing unanimously. I don't understand it, but I am glad the American people could see this debate for what it is.

Mr. Speaker, again, let's be pro-consumer, let's be pro-community financial institution, let's be pro-environment, and let's enact H.R. 2396.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, again, I would encourage the ranking member and all Members on the other side of the aisle to read the underlying bill. It is 2 pages long. It has now been amended by perhaps a 1-page amendment. This has nothing to do with Wells Fargo. It has nothing to do with Equifax. It is limited to the annual paper notification from auto finance companies, pure and simple.

Again, for those who listened to the earlier debate, the question is whether or not these auto finance companies are going to be forced to spend money that comes out of their customers' pockets to send out a paper notification of privacy policies even when the policy doesn't change, or whether or not we should modernize into the 21st century and ensure that there is continuous notification on a website and that a paper notification only goes out upon a change, an actual change.

What the ranking member is doing with the motion to recommit is once again empowering the unconstitutional and unaccountable CFPB to engage in even more activities that harm consumers. It ought to be rejected, and we ought to ensure that we adopt H.R. 2396 and simplify and modernize one regulation that is harming consumers and harming financial institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, introduced by my colleague and dear friend from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

This legislation requires the Treasury Secretary to report to Congress on the assets held by the Islamic Republic of Iran's most senior political and military leaders, and on the probable sources and uses of those assets.

A classified version, if necessary, would be available, as appropriate, to Congress, and a public version of the report would be posted on the Treasury Department's website in English and in the major languages used within Iran that could easily be downloaded.

The genius of this latter point is that it will allow the average Iranian to understand and circulate information of how their leaders are, in a phrase, robbing them blind, as well as aiding and abetting terrorists.

Iran's top political, military, and business leaders, if there is much of a distinction between those roles in Iran, fund terrorist- related activity, we know this, and through intricate financial arrangements that give them great flexibility in moving their money.

According to the nongovernmental organization Transparency International, Iran's economy is characterized by high levels of official and institutional corruption, and there is substantial involvement by Iran's security forces, particularly involving the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Unsurprisingly, then, members of Iran's senior political and military leadership have acquired significant personal and institutional wealth by using their positions to secure control of major portions of the Iranian national economy.

Some estimates put their iron grip at a third or more of the country's economy, and some individual holdings in the billions of dollars; all at a time when the average Iranian citizen earns the equivalent of about $15,000 a year.

The unwise sanctions relief provided through the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran resulted in the unwarranted removal of many Iranian entities that are tied to government corruption from the list of entities sanctioned by the United States.

Thankfully, however, the Trump administration has, in recent months, levied a number of needed new sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities. Still, the Transparency International index of perceived public corruption in Iran is higher than ever.

As well, the Treasury Department has identified Iran as a country of ``primary concern for money laundering.'' Separately, the State Department has continually identified Iran as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. Iran is, the State Department tells us, a country that has ``repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism,'' and ``continues to sponsor terrorist groups around the world, principally through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.''

The bill before us today, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, requires the Treasury Department again to list the known assets of senior Iranian officials in a form that is easily understandable and accessible to individual Iranians, as well as to those in the financial or business sector who might be concerned--hopefully concerned--about inadvertently doing business with a corrupt Iranian entity.

The bill also requires the Treasury to evaluate the effectiveness of existing sanctions against Iran and make any appropriate recommendations for improving the effectiveness of sanctions.

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last month with a bipartisan support vote of 43-16. The House approved a nearly identical bill just 18 months ago by a very strong vote of 282-143.

As passed by the committee, this year's version has an important addition, a sense of the Congress section, that urges the Treasury Secretary, in addition to other sources, to seek information for the report from private sector sources that search, analyze, and, if necessary, translate publicly available, high veracity, official records overseas, and provide methods of searching and analyzing such data in ways useful to law enforcement.

These source of services provide information that could augment information that is gathered, often by classified means, and provide a final public report that helps give the world a better picture of the true nature of Iran's economy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge immediate passage of Mr. Poliquin's thoughtful and bipartisan bill. I appreciate his leadership to bring us here today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, December 6, 2017.

Hon. Jeb Hensarling,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hensarling: Thank you for consulting with the

Committee on Foreign Affairs on H.R. 1638, the Iranian

Leadership Asset Transparency Act.

I agree that the Foreign Affairs Committee may be

discharged from further action on this bill so that it may

proceed expeditiously to the Floor, subject to the

understanding that this waiver does not in any way diminish

or alter the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee,

or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or

similar legislation in the future. The Committee also

reserves the right to seek an appropriate number of conferees

to any House-Senate conference involving this bill, and would

appreciate your support for any such request.

I ask that you place our exchange of letters into the

Congressional Record during

floor consideration of the bill. I appreciate your

cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward to

continuing to work with you as this measure moves through the

legislative process.

Sincerely,

Edward R. Royce,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds simply to remind the ranking member that in the State Department's latest Country Reports on Terrorism, Iran is labeled the ``world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.''

Why we would want less information as opposed to more information on that rogue state is beyond me.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), the sponsor of the legislation and a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), who is a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), who is never an apologist for the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. He is a proud member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say in the time the ranking member was speaking, I went back, yet again, to read the nine-page bill. Nowhere is the JCPOA mentioned in the bill.

Iran was the leading state sponsor of terrorism before the JCPOA. They remain the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism after the JCPOA. We ought to know something about the leadership of this terrorist nation, and I think the next speaker will tell us even more.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining on my side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes again to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, and I believe I have the right to close.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I find it fascinating how often the ranking member criticized our own President and didn't have one critical comment for the President of Iran, the nation which our State Department, including the Obama State Department, has labeled as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. But yet, in the last almost hour we have not heard one single critical word.

We hear much about the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, perhaps one of the worst arrangements, international agreements that has ever been entered into by our country, but look as I may, in the legislation--and it is 9 pages long, not 900--you will not see the JCPOA in it.

Mr. Poliquin's bill, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, is just that. It is seeking to have greater international transparency for the leaders of this rogue nation, regardless of the JCPOA.

Let's remember what the gentleman from Ohio reminded us, that it was because of information, including radio-free Europe, that went across the Iron Curtain that ultimately brought that curtain down and freed millions. We want to make sure the Iranian people know about their own leadership.

Our own State Department has said the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force along with Iranian partners, allies, and proxies continue to play a destabilizing role in military conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, but the ranking member says: Oh, let's not say anything about their leadership because we might hurt their feelings.

The State Department goes on to say: Iran continued to recruit fighters from across the region to join Iranian-affiliated Shia militia forces engaged in conflicts in Syria and Iraq and has even offered a path to citizenship for those who heed this call. And yet the ranking member says let's not report on the leadership of this rogue regime because they are very sensitive people.

The State Department goes on to say: Hezbollah continued to work closely with Iran in these conflict zones, playing a major role in supporting the Syrian Government's efforts to maintain control in the territory and providing training and a range of other support for Iranian-aligned groups in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Yet we continue to hear from the ranking member that we shouldn't learn anything about their leadership. Again, we might step on their toes after the JCPOA, and we wouldn't want to do that. We wouldn't want to be insensitive to international terrorists.

In 2016, Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, boasted: ``We are open about the fact that Hezbollah's budget, its income, its expenses, everything it eats and drinks, its weapons and rockets are from the Islamic Republican of Iran.''

I mean, how much more do we need to know? Why do we continue to have Members of the United States Congress come to the floor of this institution and somehow want to seemingly protect the leaders of this rogue regime?

We want to know more information. We want to disseminate this information. We want the whole world to know about the leadership of the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. It is exactly what the gentleman from Maine is trying to. I salute him for his leadership.

I encourage all Members to vote ``aye'' for his bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for her amendment. I note that she was a supporter of H.R. 5461, a nearly identical bill that passed the House in the last Congress. I think that her amendment is a valuable addition to H.R. 1638. Indeed, we should always know the effectiveness of the programs that we promote. In this case, we do need to understand how effective economic sanctions may be. So I appreciate her leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge all Members to vote ``aye'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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