Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 658, I call up the bill (H.R. 4324) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to make certifications with respect to United States and foreign financial institutions' aircraft-related transactions involving Iran, 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 such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 4324, which is a commonsense piece of legislation sponsored by my good friend and fellow Texan, Mr. Williams. His work as a member of the Financial Services Committee and as vice chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee has been invaluable.

Mr. Speaker, as our colleagues know, under the Iran nuclear bill, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, the Obama administration committed the U.S. to license the sale of aircraft to Iran.

In addition to authorizing the sales, these licenses have authorized banks to engage in financing, even though Iran remains classified by the Treasury Department as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern. On top of that, the State Department continues to label Iran as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

The recipient of these aircraft would be Iran Air, the state-owned airline that was sanctioned as recently as 2011 for supporting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which itself has been designated by the Trump administration as a terrorist organization. So, Mr. Speaker, so far, so bad.

And yet, while I and many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle find these aircraft sales and their financing deeply disturbing, Mr. Williams' bill is about something far, far simpler. All

his bill would do is bring about the implications of the aircraft finance for Iran out into the sunlight. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is a reporting requirement--nothing more, nothing less.

It would simply require Treasury to help Congress understand who is involved in these transactions. If it is an airline, has that airline stopped supporting terrorists or other sanctioned persons. If it is a bank, does that bank have the due diligence in place to guard against the immense illicit finance risk endemic to Iran.

All this legislation does is have Treasury certify this information for Congress. And, if Treasury can't make those certifications, it simply has to notify us what plans it has in response, even if it has no plans in response.

So, when we hear today from the other side of the aisle how this bill may impose new conditions on Iran or somehow stand in the way of commitments under the JCPOA, I suggest, again, everyone read the bill. It is simple. It is common sense. In fact, we should be considering this under the expedited process of the suspension calendar.

This legislation provides, again, for a simple reporting requirement, Mr. Speaker; that is it, a reporting requirement.

If my friends who oppose this bill don't care enough to even request the information from the executive branch, especially information that may reveal the use of their constituents' bank deposits for the benefit of enablers of terrorism, well, Mr. Speaker, that is a sad, sad day for congressional oversight and a sad day for the United States Congress.

But there are people who have read the bill, if everybody in this institution hasn't, people, for example, associated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who wrote recently in a November 22 policy brief for the Foundation's Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance: ``The proposed bill supports Treasury's robust licensing approval process by codifying steps that are likely already central to the Department's evaluation process.''

They go on to write, Mr. Speaker: ``While not imposing any new standards for the approval of sales to Iran, codifying the existing standards in law through this bill makes the licensing process more transparent and gives the American people--through their elected representatives--a clear picture of a significant component of the sanctions relief provided to Iran under the nuclear agreement.''

Mr. Speaker, I include this report in the Record.

[From the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Nov. 22, 2017]

Congress Supports Financial Transparency for Iranian Transactions

(By Annie Fixler, Tyler Stapleton)

The House Financial Services Committee approved last week

the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act,

which codifies in law a set of conditions that the U.S.

Treasury must use to evaluate licenses for the sale of

commercial aircraft to Iran.

The bill requires the secretary of the Treasury to report

within 30 days whether transactions related to the export and

re-export of aircraft to Iran pose a ``significant money

laundering or terrorism financing risk to the United States

financial system.'' The secretary must also determine whether

the transactions benefit any Iranian person that has

knowingly transported or otherwise supported the

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or provided

material support to persons included on Treasury's sanctions

lists. If the secretary cannot certify that the transaction

meets these conditions, he must explain whether the licenses

authorizing the transaction will be revoked, modified, or

remain valid despite the potential for illicit transactions

or benefits going to sanctioned persons.

Under the July 2015 nuclear agreement known as the Joint

Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, the United States

committed to allowing the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran

provided the planes are used ``exclusively for commercial

passenger aviation.'' The JCPOA specifically states that if

aircraft are either used for a prohibited purpose or

transferred or re-sold to individuals or entities on

Washington's sanctions lists, the U.S. would view this as

grounds to cease its approval of aircraft sales--but, by

implication, not abrogate the nuclear deal in full.

Upon the implementation of the JCPOA in January 2016,

Treasury issued a Statement of Licensing Policy (SLP) and

additional guidance reiterating and expanding on the relevant

language from the nuclear deal. The SLP and related guidance

indicate that Treasury would view license applications

favorably but would review applications on a case-by-case

basis and ``include appropriate conditions to ensure'' that

no sanctioned persons were involved in the transaction.

The SLP and related guidance are clearly consistent with

the JCPOA, which does not require the United States to issue

licenses for aircraft sales without conditions. Accordingly,

the SLP does not guarantee that all applications will be

approved. If Washington determines that certain criteria are

necessary in order to ensure that commercial aircraft are

used appropriately, it is permitted to reject an application

that does not meet those criteria.

The proposed bill supports Treasury's robust licensing

approval process by codifying steps that are likely already

central to the department's evaluation process. First, for

more than two decades, Treasury has been at the forefront of

efforts to implement global anti-money laundering and

counter-terrorism financing standards. The bill emphasizes

that these standards should be a critical component in the

evaluation of licenses vis-a-vis Iranian aircraft

transactions. Second, the bill's requirement that no persons

knowingly supporting proliferation benefit from the deal

mirrors Treasury's statement that no persons on sanctions

lists be involved in the transactions.

While not imposing any new standards for the approval of

sales to Iran, codifying the existing standards in law

through this bill makes the licensing process more

transparent and gives the American people--through their

elected representatives--a clearer picture of a significant

component of the sanctions relief provided to Iran under the

nuclear agreement.

The most novel component of the bill is that it requires

the secretary of the Treasury to issue a report listing all

U.S. or foreign financial institutions that have conducted

authorized transactions in connection with the export or re-

export of commercial aircraft to Iran. While not classified,

this information is not currently part of the public record.

Objections to the publication of a list of companies and

banks involved in aircraft sales revolve around exposing

businesses to reputational risks for transacting with Iran.

Yet it is unavoidable for there to be reputational risk for

doing business--even legal business--with the world's leading

state sponsor of terrorism.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my fellow Texan, has given all Members an opportunity, no matter what their views on the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, to simply support transparency and Congress' right to basic information. I hope that my colleagues will seize that opportunity.

And, again, I thank Mr. Williams from Texas for his leadership and his excellent work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), my friend, the sponsor of this legislation, and a great member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairman emeritus of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and chairman of its Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), a member of the Small Business Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, from time to time in my Congressional career I come to the House floor, and I have a surreal moment. Iran is the world's foremost state sponsor of terror, and we have Members on the other side of the aisle saying: Well, we shouldn't learn anything about them. We shouldn't learn about who is financing their aircraft. We shouldn't learn whether or not aircraft will be converted for military purposes.

Iran is a regime where every day the leadership wakes up shouting: ``Death to Israel, Death to America.'' Yet I have friends on the other side of the aisle who say: Well, we shouldn't have any reporting on Iran because it might hurt their feelings.

This is a surreal moment, Mr. Speaker, an absolute surreal moment. We have been told over and over that somehow this stops the JCPOA, the nuclear deal with Iran. I wish it did, but it doesn't. I would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if they actually read the bill, it is 10 pages long, 6 pages of findings. You can put the findings aside and read the 4 pages. It is a reporting bill.

It has certifications. And guess what the implications are if the administration can't give the proper certifications? Nothing. The deal continues to go on. It is perhaps the single worst foreign policy agreement in the history of America that legitimizes Iran's nuclear program and, on its best day, slows up their nuclear weapons by maybe a few years, at best, on its best day.

When the JCPOA was sold to us by the previous administration, we were told: This would be for civilian aircraft use only. Don't worry about it. This is not going to exacerbate terrorism in any way. But we know Boeing itself says their aircraft, which are being sold to Iran, can be used for combat purposes, and, in fact, have been. Iran Air was cited in 2011. It was sanctioned for supporting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been designated as a terrorist organization.

This isn't just theory, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact. Then we had my colleague, the gentleman from Washington, say: Well, it is important that we sell aircraft to Iran so companies can make profits. Well, using his logic, maybe we ought to sell weapons to North Korea if some company can make a profit. I think not, Mr. Speaker.

There are some things that are more important. Our security is even more important than the profit of any one particular company. So, again, this is a simple reporting requirement.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for his leadership here. It is incredibly important that we understand from those who sold us this terrible Iranian deal, they need to make good on their promises.

We need to make sure that civilian aircraft are being used for civilian purposes. We need to make sure that the banks who are financing these deals are not financing terrorism. Yet those on the other side of the aisle say: No, let's put our heads in the sand. Let's just trust--let's trust the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. They will do the right thing. Let's just ignore this terrorism thing.

No. No, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is so important that we enact H.R. 4324, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for it. It is important to America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be schizophrenic. They can't seem to figure out whether they want to coddle Iran or to ``stand up to'' Iran. We were also told that H.R. 4324 was designed to ``blame and shame'' financial institutions, and now they offer a motion to recommit to blame and shame financial institutions.

So here is what is going on, Mr. Speaker: What we have is a regime that wakes up every morning shouting ``Death to America; death to Israel,'' and yet we have a motion to recommit trying to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election.

We have a regime which has been certified as the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism whom we are trying to hold accountable and from whom we are trying to get information, and our friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election.

We know that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps supports the Assad regime in Syria. According to the U.N., the Assad government, with the help of Iran, has now carried out 27 chemical weapon attacks since the start of the Syrian conflict, including an April 2017 sarin gas attack that killed more than 80 people, including scores of women and children, and my friends on the other side of the aisle want to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election.

Mr. Speaker, Iran continues to imprison foreign nationals, including Americans--including Americans--including 81-year-old Baquer Namazi, who has lost his teeth in prison due to malnutrition. We have had another American prisoner, a student at Princeton, who has suffered health problems, and yet my friends on the other side of the aisle, with their motion to recommit, want to relitigate the 2016 Presidential election.

This is a serious moment, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 4324 by the gentleman from Texas is an important piece of legislation to ensure that civilian aircraft sales to Iran remain civilian aircraft and that our financial institutions are not unwittingly helping to finance this rogue terrorist regime, and it is no time to relitigate an election that my friends on the other side of the aisle lost.

We need to reject the motion to recommit, and we need to enact H.R. 4324.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3971, the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act. It is an important bill that is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Members--again, bipartisan. It was approved in the Financial Services Committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 41-19, and it has a long track record of bipartisan support,

and all Members should take note of this.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who is a fine member of the Financial Services Committee. I want to thank her for introducing the legislation and really helping lead our congressional effort to provide needed regulatory relief for our small community banks and credit unions, to give them relief from rules that are unfairly restricting our constituents' access to mortgage credit. This is mortgage credit that would help Americans achieve a greater level of financial independence by being able to achieve perhaps their version of the American Dream, a home they can actually afford to keep.

H.R. 3971 is a narrowly focused, modest effort to resolve concerns related to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rules implementing Dodd-Frank Act provisions on escrows and mortgage servicing. The CFPB's escrow requirements for property taxes and insurance are unnecessary, they are impractical, and they are a significant expense that just makes it harder for community banks and credit unions to offer mortgage loans to their customers and members.

These escrow accounts are the accounts that people use to pay their taxes and pay their homeowners insurance. With the amendment soon to be introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a cosponsor of this legislation, this bipartisan bill would simply relieve certain small community banks and credit unions from the obligation to provide escrow accounts if they have consolidated assets of $10 billion or less and hold the mortgage on their balance sheet for 3 years.

Again, Mr. Speaker, if they are holding the mortgage on their balance sheet, they have every incentive--every incentive to protect the collateral and ensure that tax and insurance payments are current. There is no reason to force them, these community banks and credit unions, to go through this very expensive process of escrowing, particularly if the customer or the credit union member doesn't want it.

A large majority of community banks do not currently escrow because of the cost of which I have spoken. And requiring them to do so, Mr. Speaker, is only going to stop them from making loans; fewer home loans, fewer people with homeownership opportunity.

You know, a community banker in Missouri recently told us that the CFPB's rule has forced his bank to ``limit in-house residential real estate lending.'' The banker went on to say: ``This is hurting the housing market and our community.'' That just shouldn't be happening, Mr. Speaker.

A credit union official in Pennsylvania told us that this bureaucratic CFPB requirement has caused his credit union members to become ``very upset and confused as to why they were unable to pay their taxes how they always had.''

He went on to write: ``These members had managed their tax and insurance payments for years without institution interference, but suddenly they feel like the government now told them they were not responsible enough to manage their own affairs.''

This echoes precisely what we learn from a credit union leader in Pennsylvania who wrote a letter saying that ``changes to mortgage servicing rules have made it more expensive and more time consuming. Servicing rules and regulations have become a full-time regulatory and compliance nightmare.'' Again, Mr. Speaker, fewer home loans means fewer homes for our constituents. It is not right.

To fix these problems, H.R. 3971 would also increase the small servicer exemption threshold from 5,000 mortgages to 20,000 mortgages annually, which better delineates small servicers from the large servicers. A community bank or credit union that services fewer than 20,000 mortgages should not be subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as the big financial institution that has a $2 trillion servicing portfolio.

Again, these important reforms will give smaller credit unions and community banks greater flexibility to ensure more of their members and customers can get a loan to buy a home and stay in their home.

Again, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Tenney's bill has strong bipartisan support. It has in the past; I expect it will have it again today. It solves a real problem for our constituents, and I urge adoption of the measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say we are losing a community bank or credit union a day in America, and we are losing them because they are drowning in a sea of Dodd-Frank regulations; and as they perish, so do the dreams of many of our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, if a small community bank or credit union makes a loan and keeps it on their books, guess what. They want the loan repaid. They are going to make sure that the taxes are kept current. They are going to make sure the insurance is kept current. They don't need the burdensome regulation coming out from some Washington bureaucrat telling them how to do their business. They want to ensure the loan gets paid anyway.

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 Texas (Mr. Williams), a fellow Texan and a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague, the ranking member, and I know how much respect she has--bordering, perhaps, on religious fealty--to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and I must admit, now that it is being led by our former colleague Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, I am taking a renewed interest in their actions and their pronouncements. I am just curious, as time goes by, whether the ranking member will continue to show such faith and confidence in that particular institution.

Here is what we know, Mr. Speaker. All across America, we continue to lose one community bank or credit union a day. They are not perishing of natural causes. They are perishing from the sheer weight, volume, load, cost, complexity, and expense of the Dodd-Frank regulatory burden, of which this CFPB rule is just one aspect.

Again, as my colleague, the chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee--I believe it was he who pointed it out. There is not any one particular regulation that may cause the demise of these financial institutions, but it is the totality of them all. And as they perish, so perishes the American Dream of homeownership for so many of our constituents, particularly in rural areas like much of the Fifth District of Texas that I have the honor and pleasure of representing.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we save our community financial institutions. They play a vital role in our economy. It takes small banks and credit unions to fund our small businesses, which are the job engine of America. But again, they are being crushed by a regulatory burden.

So I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney) for bringing, again, just one needed, vital regulatory relief bill.

Again, let's make sure, Mr. Speaker, everybody knows what this bill is talking about.

Number one, already in current law, there is an exemption for small financial institutions dealing with having mortgage servicing and mortgage escrows. We are trying to bring it to a more reasonable level, an exemption that already exists. And I assume that the ranking member believes in the exemption or she would offer legislation to repeal it in total. So now we are debating how large this exemption ought to be.

Given how many of our constituents still are in need of mortgage opportunities, given the demise of our community banks and credit unions, I think what we are trying to do here is most reasonable. Soon, the gentleman from California on the other side of the aisle, a respected Democratic member of the committee, will offer an amendment that I believe the sponsor of the legislation--I, myself, am willing to accept because we are trying to work on a bipartisan basis.

There is a lot of bipartisan legislation that goes to the House Financial Services Committee. I wish the ranking member would participate in more of it, as she did last week. I am sorry she is losing out on this opportunity today, so I am happy to work with the gentleman from California on a bipartisan basis to get this legislation done.

Another important note to be had, Mr. Speaker, is we get this implication from the ranking member that, oh, my Lord, if we pass this bill, H.R. 3971, all of a sudden, all consumer protection law disappears from the books. Well, I have got good news: it doesn't.

After the passage of H.R. 3971, all of these mortgages will still be subject to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; they will still be subject to regulation B; they will still be subject to the Fair Housing Act; they will still be subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act; they will still be subject to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; they will still be subject to the Homeowners Protection Act; they will still be subject to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

I have got a whole sheet here, Mr. Speaker.

Again, that is a red herring. At the end of the day, this is about ensuring our constituents, particularly in rural areas, have access to mortgage credit and that community banks and credit unions that are absolutely suffering under the weight of the load aren't forced to escrow when they keep a mortgage on their books for 3 years. They are going to make sure the taxes are paid. They are going to make sure the insurance is paid. Instead, all that regulation does is burdens them and causes them to make fewer mortgage loans and, in some cases, no mortgage loans.

So, again, I just want salute the gentlewoman from New York. I want to thank her for her leadership and what she is doing for her constituents in rural New York, and I urge everybody to adopt H.R. 3971.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at this motion to recommit, and, on its best day, it may be superfluous and redundant; and on its worst day, it may be confusing. But I fear, in many respects, it is just a smokescreen to give many of my friends on the other side of the aisle an excuse not to vote for the underlying legislation, H.R. 3971.

Already the CFPB has full UDAAP authority to deal with unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts. That already exists. So this is a red herring that somehow people are using the lack of the passage of the MTR as a rationale not to support H.R. 3971, which is vitally needed for so many of our community financial institutions to be able to make home mortgage loans to hardworking Americans who deserve their chance at the American Dream.

Again, as I said earlier during this debate, Mr. Speaker, all of these mortgages continue to be subject to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Homeownership Counseling Act, the Homeowners Protection Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act, the Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z, and the list goes on and on and on.

That is simply an excuse. The MTR is an excuse not to save our struggling community banks and our citizens in rural America who deserve the services of these community banks and credit unions.

Again, on its best day, it is superfluous and redundant. On its worst day,

it is introducing confusing language into an already settled area of the law for consumer protection.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 647, I call up the bill (H.R. 477) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to exempt from registration brokers performing services in connection with the transfer of ownership of smaller privately held companies, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 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 such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if it weren't for the last moment, a lot of things wouldn't get done in life, but last evening, the ranking member and I came to a meeting of the minds on a path forward for H.R. 477. So in the interest of efficiency of time for the House, I want to thank the ranking member for her willingness to work on a bipartisan basis to move this bill forward.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our small businesses labor under a gazillion regulations, some of which are quite good and quite helpful; but, in the aggregate, they can be a very heavy burden and cost upon our small businesses. One is an unnecessary registration system for small business brokers.

I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) for his leadership to ensure that they have a simplified registration regime, which can help our small businesses as they are ready to engage in sales or mergers or other transactions. It is a good, bipartisan piece of legislation. I thank him for his leadership.

Again, I thank the ranking member for working on a bipartisan basis, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the distinguished chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that, again, this is a commonsense reform. It is a balanced reform. It is good for small business. It is bipartisan. I urge all of my colleagues to adopt

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 635, I call up the bill (H.R. 1699) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to modify the definitions of a mortgage originator and a high-cost mortgage, to amend the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 to modify the definition of a loan originator, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1699, the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act. It is an important bill that is cosponsored by a bipartisan--I repeat, bipartisan--group of members, and it was approved by the Financial Services Committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 42-18.

In fact, this proposal has a long track record of bipartisan support with a similar bill having passed the last Congress with votes from both Republicans and Democrats.

I want to thank my colleague, Representative Barr, the chairman of our Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee for his leadership in introducing this legislation and for leading congressional efforts to help Americans, particularly those of lower and moderate incomes, to help them achieve a greater level of financial independence and being able to achieve their American Dream of homeownership.

Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. Under the CFPB's regulations, many small-balance manufactured home loans are now being considered ``high cost.'' This means that many people, particularly those with lower and moderate incomes who want to buy a manufactured home, aren't able to buy that home.

Their access to credit is being unfairly restricted through no fault of their own. Lenders are leaving the market. Five County Credit Union in

Maine, Zia Credit Union in New Mexico, Manhattan Bank in Montana, and the list goes on and on and on. Lenders are leaving the market.

As we know, many consumers who live in rural areas, including those in the Fifth District of Texas who I have the pleasure and honor of representing, they just don't have access to rental options or other affordable housing. So the CFPB rules are unfairly penalizing rural residents and working families, many of whom happen to be retirees, single moms, working families, veterans, and they simply want to buy a manufactured home that they can live in. They are being denied that opportunity.

So here in Washington, inside the very elite beltway bubble, there is simply not an appreciation for manufactured housing and the role that plays in our vital affordable housing component.

But let's listen to what the American people tell us outside of the beltway. A 75-year-old retiree from Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, said he purchased a manufactured home because ``it was affordable, and it was in a desirable location.''

A 57-year-old single mom from Albuquerque, New Mexico, purchased a manufactured home. She said: ``It provided the best value for the money. There were no other housing options available. I searched for over a year to find affordable housing. All of the site-built homes in the area were over $100,000, which was out of my price range.'' Manufactured housing is within the price range of many working Americans.

A 28-year-old single mom of two from Jenera, Ohio, she had been renting. She wanted her own home. And when she purchased it, she said, she ``found this, allowed us to own a home for less than we would have to pay to rent another.''

Stories like this are commonplace all over America, Mr. Speaker. And it is why it is so important that we recognize the rights of our fellow citizens to give them the opportunity of affordable housing. You can't protect consumers by protecting them out of their homes. Manufactured housing is affordable housing.

So we have a regulation from an agency that is supposed to be protecting consumers, but, instead, it is preventing families from purchasing affordable housing. We must change that.

We have to pass this bipartisan bill, H.R. 1699. With just a few minor clarifications to the definition of mortgage originator, loan originator, and high-cost mortgage, this bill will ensure that consumers of small-balance mortgage loans have access to the mortgage credit they need. These minor technical clarifications will help preserve consumer choice and financing options for those seeking to buy a manufactured home.

Now, some on the other side of the aisle will say: Well, this eviscerates important consumer protections. Well, number one, loans under this bill will still be covered by the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Housing Act, the ability to repay rules, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and all of the consumer protection laws passed by the various States.

So let's support working Americans. Let's support affordable housing. Let's support Mr. Barr's H.R. 1699.

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

Mr. Speaker, before the morning is over, I hope to have some additional time to yield to the ranking member so she can continue her diatribe against President Obama's favorite billionaire and Democrat financier, Warren Buffett.

Until then, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who is the sponsor of the legislation and the chairman of the Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky.

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Mexico an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman

from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), the land of moose, maple syrup, and lobster, a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I don't have enough time for the ranking member. On this side of the aisle, we are fully subscribed. I have lots of Members who wish to speak in favor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), yet another distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), a member of the Small Business Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard this morning, unfortunately, is an assault on affordable housing from too many people on the other side of the aisle. We have Washington elites who are deciding that low-income people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. We have too many people on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, who want to take them out of their affordable homes--manufactured homes--and are saying: No, go rent, go find someplace on the street.

Here is the reality: when Washington elites at the Orwellian named Consumer Financial Protection Bureau decided to make these manufactured housing loans ``high cost,'' we saw a 22 percent drop in these type of loans being made. But what we know is that this is vital for so many working Americans.

I heard from one consumer in Windsor, New York:

I was falling behind on my own site-built mortgage

payments. I was drowning in debt. I needed a cheaper housing

alternative that would meet the needs of my family. The

manufactured home payment cut my overall housing expense by

57 percent.

Mr. Speaker, that is just one example. I have story after story from consumers who this is their only option for affordable housing. But too many of my friends on the other side of the aisle say: No, no, we can't allow you to do that. You might pay a little higher interest rate.

Well, here is a news flash, Mr. Speaker: their monthly payment is lower and they get to own their own home.

Washington elites have tried price controls before. They have been tried since the dawn of man, and it always leads to shortages.

We don't want to shortchange working Americans for affordable housing. We want to protect the vulnerable in society and we want to allow them to have affordable housing. That is why it is so important that today we pass H.R. 1699. Protect affordable housing, protect freedom, and let's vote this in today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a vaguely worded and unneeded

Mr. Speaker, for almost a decade, Americans suffered under Obamanomics. Their savings remain decimated, their paychecks were stagnant, and their American dreams were diminished.

But, Mr. Speaker, a new day has dawned. Under the leadership of President Trump, Speaker Ryan, and Chairman Brady, we are on the precipice of passing a fairer, flatter, simpler, and more competitive Tax Code, one built for 3-plus percent economic growth.

The American people can now imagine a Tax Code that brings jobs and capital back to America. They can imagine a Tax Code that is simplified from 70,000 pages to 500, where 90 percent of Americans can fill out their return on a postcard. They can imagine a Tax Code swept of all the special interest loopholes. They can imagine a Tax Code creating lower rates for working Americans and small businesses, and they can now imagine a Tax Code that is all about economic growth.

All my friends on the other side of the aisle can offer is the politics of division, envy, and class warfare.

I am proud to support the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act because it is all about better jobs, fair taxes, and bigger paychecks.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 616, I call up the bill (H.R. 2874) to achieve reforms to improve the financial stability of the National Flood Insurance Program, to enhance the development of more accurate estimates of flood risk through new technology and better maps, to increase the role of private markets in the management of flood insurance risks, and to provide for alternative methods to insure against flood peril, 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 to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria: the images of the human misery and the economic devastation are still clearly imprinted on our minds.

Unfortunately, we know that part of this is a result of a failed National Flood Insurance Program, which, Mr. Speaker, faced three important challenges.

First, it is a bankrupt program. It is unsustainable. Taxpayers are on the hook for $1.2 trillion, running an annual actuarial deficit of $1.5 billion. It has already received two different bailouts, for a combined total of about $25 billion.

Also, it incents and subsidizes people to actually live in harm's way.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is a government monopoly that, notwithstanding subsidized rates, still, unfortunately, has unaffordable premiums for many.

Today is a good day, Mr. Speaker, because today the House gets to vote on the 21st Century Flood Reform Act.

I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) for his leadership on the mapping reforms and reinsurance. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross) for his reforms on opening up the market. I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) for his tireless effort and leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.

There are a lot of good reforms in this bill, Mr. Speaker, for both taxpayers and ratepayers. Let me just briefly touch upon two.

It is an absolutely revolutionary reform, Mr. Speaker, that we can break open the government monopoly and bring in market competition, innovation competition, and more affordable rates for so many.

Milliman, one of the actuarial experts within the marketplace, released a study a couple of months ago talking about the market competition, saying: ``Based on our estimates, this would hold for 77 percent of all single families in Florida, 69 percent in Louisiana, and 92 percent in Texas,'' who all would see cheaper premiums.

We know that is not theory. It is actually happening in the market today. In the nascent part of the market that is open, people are getting hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars of savings.

One of the great tragedies that I saw in my native State of Texas, in Houston, was how few people actually took up flood insurance. Think, Mr. Speaker, if we had competition, if we had advertising, if people could roll that into their homeowner rates, how many more people would have been protected by the ravages of these hurricanes.

One more reform, briefly. We have these repetitive loss properties where people live in areas that flood over and over and over. I met a couple of families in Houston. They had three floods in 8 years. We have got to help them.

This bill provides more money for relocation, for flood-proofing, and for mitigation, than any other flood reform bill, all by 25 percent. We would prioritize these areas.

We also have to realize that if we are going to make this program sustainable, we cannot have 1 percent of the properties causing 25 percent of the losses.

Ultimately, if all we do is rebuild the same properties in the same fashion in the same location, that is neither wise nor compassionate. We have an opportunity to enact historic reforms. We should do it today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee and one of the coauthors of H.R. 2874.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), the vice chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee and the author of the pro-consumer competition title of the bill.

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

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

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, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip, who has a slightly different message.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), another respected member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a senior Democrat and leader on environmental issues in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee, and the sponsor of the legislation, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of horrific images from Hurricane Harvey. We should never forget them. We should look at this image and say: Never again.

Yet I hear from my colleagues: Let's preserve the status quo. Let's again subsidize people to live i harm's way.

I say no, Mr. Speaker. It is time to get these people out of these neighborhoods. Let's help them. That is why

this bill has more money for mitigation and relocation than has ever been in any flood insurance reform bill.

I hear my ranking member say that she cares about affordability. Then let's give people options.

I hear from people who say: NFIP would have cost me $2,700 a year, but I was able to find private coverage for $718.

Here is another one: I have benefited from switching to private market flood insurance from FEMA. I save about $1,000 a year.

Let's save money. Let's save premiums. Let's save lives. Let's vote ``aye'' on the 21st Century Flood Reform Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, first, I have some good news for my friend on the other side of the aisle. I would have him pay very careful attention to title VI of the 21st Century Flood Reform Act. It has everything to do with the whole Sandy appeals process. We have 25 pages of reforms dealing with what the gentleman was describing, including Section 601, Penalties for Fraud and False Statements in the National Flood Insurance Program.

And, indeed, after Sandy, many of the policyholders were wronged and there was much that we learned from that experience, and we tried to listen very carefully to a number of our colleagues from New Jersey and New York and, indeed, took many of the provisions which they have suggested.

The gentleman from New Jersey, indeed, has some very legitimate issues and concerns. Many of them, I hope and trust, have been addressed in this

bill. It is not too late. I would urge the gentleman to look at that title IV of the bill and perhaps he would be encouraged to support it.

Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I must urge rejection of the motion to recommit because, as you heard from the gentleman from New Jersey, he says it is all about delay. We can't delay getting people out of harm's way. We can't delay getting people out of neighborhoods that have flooded four, five, six, seven times in the last 8 years.

For those who can't afford flood insurance, we can't delay getting them market alternatives, where, in the 2 percent of the market that exists today, particularly in Pennsylvania, there are people that are not just saving hundreds of dollars, Mr. Speaker, but even thousands of dollars. We can't delay.

We know that this is a program that is unsustainable. It is a bankrupt program that is being funded, regrettably, by a bankrupt nation. Taxpayers are on the hook for $1.2 trillion and an annual deficit of $1.5 billion of actuarial deficit a year.

This thing isn't just broke, Mr. Speaker, it is bailout broke. We can't delay. We can't delay trying to put this back on a path of sustainability so the next time we have a serious storm or superstorm, we want there to be funds available to actually pay claims.

So, no, Mr. Speaker, we cannot delay. We cannot delay, and we cannot continue to do what we have done in the past in these repetitive loss areas and have our hands unclean by putting people back in the exact same neighborhoods that haven't just caused the loss of their property, but one day may very well cost the loss of their lives. We cannot delay.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a 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, pursuant to House Resolution 609, I call up the bill (H.R. 2201) to amend the Securities Act of 1933 to exempt certain micro-offerings from the registration requirements of such Act, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that, unfortunately, after 8 years of bad economic policies from the Obama administration, working people did not receive a pay increase. We know that we had one of the lowest labor participation rates in modern history. We know that the economy was limping along at 1\1/2\ to 2 percent economic growth.

But, fortunately, Mr. Speaker, a new day has dawned and now, all of a sudden, we see that, with the policies of Republicans in Congress, with the policies of the Trump administration, we are seeing promising signs. What we are seeing all of a sudden now is 2 quarters, Mr. Speaker, of 3-plus percent economic growth. This means a difference to working families. They are finally seeing increases in their paychecks, increases in their take-home pay.

That is why one of the most exciting policies that are being worked upon today that we hope to see soon is fundamental, pro-growth tax reform for the entire American economy; one that would grow our economy and that makes a Tax Code fairer, flatter, simpler, more competitive; one that would lower rates for families and allow 90 percent of Americans to fill out their forms on something akin to a postcard; something that would help our small businesses and entrepreneurs.

I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to having that legislation on the floor soon. But we have legislation today that is also important to our small businesses and our entrepreneurs, H.R. 2201, by the gentleman from Minnesota.

What is so important about this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that it would allow our entrepreneurs and our small businesses to more effectively be able to reach out to family and friends to get the needed capital to start their businesses.

A 2014 survey by the Kauffman Foundation found out that over 28 percent of startups raise their funding from their personal network. Mr. Speaker, we have a challenge, and that is the Securities Act does not clearly define what is a public offering or, conversely, a nonpublic offering. So this makes it very difficult for our early-stage entrepreneurial growth companies to go out and do any kind of private placement to raise funds from friends and family.

Now, we know that a private placement is already something that is established in law. But what isn't established is a bright line, safe harbor for these business enterprises to go out and raise these funds.

So what we also know, unfortunately, from our Securities and Exchange Commission is that a registered offering is simply not economically

feasible for a small business, an entrepreneur, an issuer who is seeking to raise less than $1 million.

So too often, Mr. Speaker, we have a number of these enterprises that, frankly, just never get jump-started because they don't have the opportunity for a private offering. That is why it is so important.

I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer) for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the House floor today.

So it is a simple piece of legislation. Again, it simply allows a bright line, safe harbor for very small offerings. It requires that each purchaser has a substantive preexisting relationship with an officer, director, or shareholder of the issuer.

The issuer must reasonably believe that there are no more than 35 purchasers of the securities, and the aggregate amount of all securities sold by the issuer cannot exceed $500,000 in a 12-month period.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a very small portion of startups, but a very vitally important section of our startups that need capital.

Mr. Speaker, a few decades ago there was a company where a gentleman borrowed money from his father to import Japanese sports shoes, and he purchased 200 pairs of these Japanese sports shoes. He started a business called Blue Ribbon Sports, and today we know it as Nike.

A few decades ago there was an investor out in Omaha, Nebraska, who borrowed money from seven friends and family members, including his sister Doris and Aunt Alice. Over the next 9 years, this initial investment grew, and this gentleman purchased something called Berkshire Hathaway, the textile company that has now led to the Berkshire Hathaway empire.

In 1994, there was a gentleman who took a loan from his parents, moved to a two-bedroom, small apartment, and launched a company called Amazon.

We want to make sure that the next Berkshire Hathaway, the next Amazon get launched, and that is why it is so critical we enact H.R. 2201.

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

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 material on the bill under consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, just to say, as I listen to the gentleman from Rhode Island and the ranking member, their comments are very interesting, but everything they described is already illegal. Their remarks acknowledge that the SEC can and does bring actions to enforce the securities laws and shut down fraud when they discover the fraud.

Nothing in H.R. 2201 eliminates the DOJ's ability to pursue criminal prosecutions or fraud. Nothing in it impacts the SEC's ability to pursue civil actions against issuers who engage in fraud under section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. It is just a red herring. It is one of the reasons we have had such poor economic growth under the Democratic regime.

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

Mr. Speaker, number one, I was very pleased to hear one of the most compelling indictments of 8 years of the Obama administration I have ever heard on the House floor, and I thank the ranking member for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who is the vice chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say I heard the word ``protection'' often used by my friend, the ranking member, but she and her friends on the other side of the aisle had 10 years to protect paychecks, protect savings, and protect economic opportunity and the American Dream, and they failed miserably.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), he is not a member of the Financial Services Committee, but we would be proud if he were.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, I listen very carefully to my friend, the ranking member. I know that she started off her closing remarks by saying: We don't need this bill, H.R. 2201, because the big banks can loan to the small businesses.

Well, that is fascinating to me, Mr. Speaker, because of the Dodd- Frank Act, which she so jealously supports, all of a sudden, the risk- based capital standards say that the banks have to reserve more for small business loans than they do for sovereign debt and municipal debt.

So all of a sudden, it is because of Dodd-Frank. In addition, we know that the ranking member supports the Federal Reserve policy of paying interest on excess reserves where the Federal Reserve takes taxpayer money to pay the big banks not to loan money. So if the ranking member was curious why the big banks aren't loaning to the small businesses, which they aren't--and prior to the Trump administration, we know that small business lending by banks was at a 25-year low--it is the very reason, Mr. Speaker, that we need the bill, the legislation of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer) so that we can unlock this.

Again, there is no surprise why, after 8 years of Obamanomics and the thinking from my friends on the other side of the aisle, small businesses have languished and why the economy has dropped down to a 1\1/2\ to 2 percent GDP growth. In fact, I think President Obama is one of the few Presidents in American history never to enjoy a year of 3 percent economic growth.

Now, he may personally have enjoyed it, but the American people didn't, Mr. Speaker. But the good news is that there is a change in administration and a change of attitude. That is why it is so important that we be able to get capital to our entrepreneurs, to our small businesses. Let them thrive again on Main Street.

We hear so often the ranking member decry Wall Street. We are talking about offerings of a half a million dollars. No on in Wall Street would touch that with a 10-foot pole. This is about Main Street, not Wall Street, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting, as I listen to my friend, the ranking member, decry the fact that someone might be able to raise capital under this particular set of circumstances. Well, I have a news flash for all my colleagues. Already the SEC can grant a private offering for exactly the set of circumstances that my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, puts into his bill. All the gentleman is doing is creating a bright line, safe harbor, so that the next Nike or the next Amazon isn't stopped from launching their enterprise by having to spend a million dollars on lawyers and accountants trying to navigate this uncertain murky labyrinth of SEC waters trying to determine what is a private offering and what is a public offering. That is all he is doing.

Again, this is already legal. It simply is discretionary to decide what is a private offering and what is a public offering by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

We now, Mr. Speaker, have had two quarters of 3-plus percent economic growth. We are seeing working Americans. We are seeing their paychecks increase yet again. We are seeing hope and resilience in the American Dream yet again, but we have so much more work to do, and that is why H.R. 2201 is so critical.

It takes small businesses today to be the big businesses of tomorrow. They are the creators. They are the job engine of America. They are the drivers of increased paychecks, greater economic opportunity, and a bigger, bolder American Dream. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for this great legislation. I encourage all of my colleagues to adopt it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my true honor to introduce and recognize our guest chaplain today, Father Chris Girata. I am honored because he is my rector, the rector of Saint Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church in Dallas, Texas, where my family and I have worshipped for over 20 years.

Although he has been our rector for only a little over a year, Father Girata has brought a renewed spirituality and passion to our parish. His enthusiasm for God's Word and will is infectious to us all. His sense of humor always brightens our day, and he leads by example.

As one parishioner put it, Mr. Speaker: ``He is a true voice for the powerless and poor and is constantly challenging us to even better walk as Christ did.'' And whether it is through our service at the Jubilee Park and Community Center in South Dallas, the millions in charity provided through the St. Michael's Woman's Exchange, or any of the other ministries or outreach projects of our parish, under Father Chris Girata, Saint Michael is more humbly and effectively serving God's children.

And as we do, Father Girata leads us not to just serve our neighbors' physical needs, but to serve their spiritual needs as well. I am grateful that his prayer and his example could be shared with the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.

This did pass our committee on a unanimous basis.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for her leadership and for her other areas of leadership on our committee. As a very senior Democrat, her counsel is always important; her leadership is always important.

This is indeed, as was described, Mr. Speaker, in many respects, a technical correction that needed to take place. We need to ensure that our family offices, that those investment funds can be put to their highest and best use to help grow the economy.

I was happy that the ranking member used the phrase ``unintended consequences'' because, indeed, Mr. Speaker, from time to time, there are unintended consequences of regulation.

We do wish to ensure that these family offices that otherwise meet the definition of accredited investors have the full range of investment opportunities before them. This bill will do this.

Again, it came out on a strong bipartisan, indeed, a unanimous basis from the Financial Services Committee, and so I would urge all Members of the House to adopt it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3898, the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions Act, which our committee, the Financial Services Committee, passed on a unanimous basis.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who is leading this debate today, for his leadership on our committee and for this bill. I also thank his ranking member, Ms. Moore, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, for her work on this bipartisan bill as well.

I also think that it is a good and proper thing, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is named after Otto Warmbier, a young life that was tragically ended far too soon, who, in his untimely demise, has become an international symbol of the crushing brutality of the North Korean regime.

So it is with his memory that this bill is designed. And, simply put, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today represents the toughest set of financial sanctions ever directed against the nuclear armed North Korean regime, a regime that still represents a clear and present danger to the global community.

The sanctions our committee is bringing to the House today target foreign financial institutions that, in some way, are connected to North Korea's economic activity--activity that ultimately allows this rogue regime to both develop and proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

Under H.R. 3898, those foreign financial institutions are going to be confronted with a choice. As my colleague from Kentucky put it, they can either do business that benefits North Korea or they can do business with the United States, they cannot do both.

Given the far-reaching impact of the sanctions, our committee does not take them lightly. They are reserved for the gravest threats to our national security, and their application should be targeted at clear and achievable goals. That is why H.R. 3898 cuts off virtually any path that North Korea can take to generate hard currency, yet it holds out the prospect of sanctions relief, if there are real and verifiable limits to the regime's weapons program.

As punishing as these sanctions will be, there is a way out for North Korea, if it chooses to take it, and that is to comply. Otherwise, the Kim regime and its foreign enablers will learn that hostility towards America carries enormous cost.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his effort, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this vitally needed legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the terrible tragedy and suffering from Harvey, Irma, and Maria. We have seen the shattered homes, and we have seen the shattered lives. I have been to Houston and my native Texas to visit with a number of the victims.

There are many tragedies, Mr. Speaker, out of these hurricanes and flooding, but one of the tragedies--one of the tragedies--is that in Harris County, where Houston is, 80 percent of the homes that were flooded didn't have flood insurance.

Now, why didn't they have flood insurance, Mr. Speaker?

I believe one of the reasons is because we have a government monopoly called the National Flood Insurance Program. Many people don't even know of its existence. Many people think they were safe because they were 3 feet outside of the government designated 100-year floodplain. Many thought that somehow this was simply rolled into their homeowners' insurance policy, but it wasn't.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to make sure that people have more affordable options for flood insurance.

Wouldn't it be wonderful that for every time you saw a life insurance commercial or an auto insurance commercial, you saw something about flood insurance to help educate the American people about the need for this basic insurance policy?

We could see the savings occur as people rolled this into their homeowners' policy.

In the very small portion of the market, Mr. Speaker, where there is competition, people are saving not just hundreds of dollars, but thousands of dollars.

We have heard from the Megoulas family in Pennsylvania: ``NFIP insurance would have cost me $2,700 a year, but I was able to find private coverage for only $718. . . . ''

We heard from the Cyr family, also of Pennsylvania: ``I have benefited from switching to private market flood insurance from FEMA. I save about $1,000 per year.''

So, Mr. Speaker, there is a piece of legislation known as the Flood Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act, also known as Ross- Castor. I want to thank my colleague from Florida (Mr. Ross) for his leadership on this issue. It is very simple. It simply clarifies congressional intent that people ought to have more options.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, as people begin to rebuild after these hurricanes, they need better options for flood insurance, particularly with the NFIP $30 billion in debt, facing another bailout, and facing an uncertain future. Now we need to take care of that.

That is why I have proposed, along with Chairman Duffy, a 5-year, long-term reauthorization. We are currently operating under a temporary 90-day authorization. But as we do, let's work on something that we can all agree on. The last time this bill came up in the House, Mr. Speaker, 419-0. It has recently come out of the Financial Services Committee 58-0.

I am not sure you can get that kind of vote tally for a Mother's Day resolution. It is bipartisan. It is the very definition of bipartisan.

So let's take one important step today to help the victims of Harvey, Irma, and Maria as they begin to rebuild their homes, to have more flood insurance options, more affordable insurance options. As we work through what we might disagree on in the NFIP authorization, let's pass today what we can agree on and help the victims today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), who is the author of the bipartisan Flood Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act, which passed this body in the last Congress 419-0. He is the vice chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee and the real leader for affordable private flood insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.

Duffy), chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee and a leader on flood insurance in the House today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is so obvious to all as we have looked in horror on our television screens to see the devastation of Harvey, Irma, and Maria. There have been lots of tragic stories, harrowing tales of survival.

I have been to Houston. I have met with a number of the victims. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about one tragic story. One tragic story is that there are people who are living in homes that repeatedly flood five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, even twenty times.

Something is fundamentally wrong in America and something is fundamentally dangerous in America when people are living in harm's way. Many of these people are ready to move.

Mr. Speaker, last week I made a comment about these repeatedly flooded properties that was clearly inartful. It was not meant to be taken literally, but it was. I regret the comment because it diverted from a very important point that needs to be made, and the point is this: if we care about our fellow citizens, if we wish to be compassionate, then Federal aid and Federal policy will help move these people to safer ground.

It is time to either help mitigate these homes or to help move these homes. For this small set of properties, we must help. Otherwise, I fear that the fatalities and the economic carnage will continue.

If we simply rebuild the same properties in the same manner, in the same place, and expect a different result, we are not helping our fellow citizens, we are not helping our first responders, and we are certainly not helping the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, another tragedy of these storms is how many people needed flood insurance but didn't have it. Many of them had no idea that they actually needed it. In Houston, by some reports, 80 percent of the damaged homes didn't have flood insurance.

Why?

One of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, is because we have a government monopoly in flood insurance. Many people don't understand that flood is not included in their typical homeowner's insurance policy. Many people, unfortunately, took false security from living outside the government-designated 100-year flood plain. Many have seen no options.

But help is on the way. Bipartisan help is on the way with the Flood Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act, known as the Ross-Castor bill. It is a critical piece of legislation to give more people more affordable options for flood insurance.

In the small part of the national market where we have competition, particularly in Pennsylvania and in Florida, people are saving hundreds of dollars, if not thousands of dollars, in many cases on their flood insurance premiums.

The very respected firm of Millman, which studies insurance matters, said that half of policy owners in Florida, two-thirds in Louisiana, and 75 percent in Texas--my native State--could all save with private flood insurance.

Think about it, Mr. Speaker. If we had a real competitive market with multiple companies advertising and selling multiple policies, more people would become educated about the need for flood insurance and have that rolled into their normal homeowner's policy. This is vital.

Mr. Speaker, last year this bill passed this House 419-0. You can't get any more bipartisan. It recently passed the Financial Services Committee 58-0.

If there is one thing that we need to do--and it is urgent that we do it now, with the National Flood Insurance Program, which is in debt, facing another bailout and an uncertain future, which we must remedy-- as folks begin to rebuild, let's get them more affordable flood insurance policies.

I appreciate the bill included in this package, and for the sake of all the victims of the hurricanes, I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the following provision of H.R. 3354 for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI:

Beginning with the semicolon on page 535, line 12, through ``(12 U.S.C. 3907(b)(2).'' on page 536, line 14.

This provision proposes to change existing law by altering the Federal Reserve's conduct of the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review regime.

This constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chair, I raise a point of order against section 7080 of H.R. 3354 for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.

This provision proposes to directly amend existing law by changing the statutory quorum requirement of the Export-Import Bank.

This constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently voted YES on Roll Call Vote 433 and would like to have it reflected that I meant to vote no