Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and certainly for his leadership on this very important bill.

I rise in support of the Russia, Iran, and North Korean Sanctions Act.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to highlight the provisions that are the product of the hard work of the Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance. The inclusion of these provisions will undoubtedly assist our government's anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing efforts.

For instance, this bill includes language directing the President, acting through the Secretary of the Treasury, to develop and maintain a national strategy for combating the financing of terrorism and related forms of illicit financing.

The opportunistic nature of terrorist groups, combined with the emergence of financial technology, creates new challenges for our law enforcement community and their efforts to disrupt terror finance.

The national strategy should also seek to enhance partnerships with the private sector that prevent and detect illicit financing, and increase efforts to facilitate compliance with our anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing laws.

I would like to commend Congressman Ted Budd for introducing the National Strategy for Combating Terrorists, Underground, and Other Illicit Financing Act, which is almost entirely incorporated in section 2 of the underlying legislation.

I would also like to recognize Congressman Pearce and Congressman Pittenger, the chairman and vice chairman of the Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee of our committee, whose leadership on these issues has been instrumental to achieve the legislation that is before us today.

Mr. Speaker, we know that Thomas Jefferson once famously said: ``The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.'' And that is indeed true.

Thanks, in no small part, to the hard work of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance, the bill before us today ensures that we remain vigilant to address the evolving threats to our financial system. I am proud to support it and I encourage all Members to support it.

Again, I thank Chairman Royce for his leadership today on this bill and in our committee.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 468, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Arbitration Agreements'', and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, hardworking Americans want something different in their Nation's Capital. They want to change the toxic culture in Washington, D.C., that for far too long has allowed unaccountable bureaucrats to overreach and overregulate.

The best way we can change Washington is to begin to drain the bureaucratic swamp, but it is not easy because we have seen in the last 6 months the swamp fights back. The most recent example of this is a rule issued by one of the swampiest of Washington bureaucracies, the Orwellian-named Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

We all know that this is a rogue agency with a checkered past, chock- full of rampant allegations of abuse, racial and gender discrimination, and Big Government nannyism, which constantly makes credit more expensive and less available to hardworking Americans.

Mr. Speaker, so radical is this agency and so extreme in lacking accountability that a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the Bureau's governing structure unconstitutional.

Now, this unaccountable bureaucracy has joined forces in an unholy alliance with one of the Democratic Party's favorite special interest groups; namely, the trial lawyers lobby. And this unholy alliance will specifically deprive consumers of a low-cost, easy way to resolve legal disputes that can be accomplished without hiring trial attorneys.

What the Bureau and the wealthy trial lawyers want is to take away arbitration for consumers and, instead, force them into class action lawsuits, which just so happens to require consumers to hire the very trial lawyers who will benefit most from this rule.

Americans were promised a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but, instead, they obviously got a trial lawyer enrichment bureau. Oh, by the way, the director of this swampy bureaucracy rushed this regulation onto the books because it is widely reported he is on the way out the door to run for political office in Ohio.

Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker, one accountable bureaucrat has decided that he knows better than the American people, and he has acted unilaterally to dictate the terms of contracts in a way that will actually increase consumer costs and reduce consumer choice. In a free and Democratic society, no one unelected individual should possess this much power.

Mr. Speaker, making consumers pay more for less is the exact opposite of consumer protection, but it is exactly what this regulation means for every American.

This regulation will perpetuate a justice gap that takes away a quicker, less expensive legal option for low-income and middle-income Americans.

Even the CFPB's own study says this: the Bureau's own study found that 87 percent of the class actions it examined resulted in no consumer benefit whatsoever. In the mere 13 percent that actually provided some benefit, Mr. Speaker, the average payout per consumer was $32.

How much did the trial attorneys make?

31,000 times that amount.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, we have an average payout of $32 for the consumers and millions for the trial attorneys. So no wonder the powerful trial attorneys lobby is so eager to see this rule go into effect.

The Bureau's own study also concludes that arbitration is less expensive for consumers and up to 12 times faster than litigation.

Consumers who obtain relief in arbitration recovered in a CFPB study an average of $5,389. Again, Mr. Speaker, compare that to $32 the average consumer received under the CFPB study.

Now, we are about to hear from some Members on the other side of the aisle that somehow consumers will lose their day in court and that somehow big banks will be helped. The CFPB's own study shows that not a single class action it examined, not a single one, resulted in trial by a judge or a jury. So no consumer got his or her day in court under the Bureau's preferred class actions. Instead, we know consumers are far more likely to obtain decisions on the merits in arbitration.

With this rule, we once again see our colleagues in the other party hurting small community banks and credit unions. I have a statement that has been published already from the Independent Community Bankers of America. They are not Wall Street. This is small town community banks, and their statement says they strongly oppose the CFPB rule.

Also, I have a statement from the Credit Union National Association-- again, Mr. Speaker, not Wall Street, but credit unions, our neighborhood credit unions. They say that the CFPB's rule will limit options for resolving disputes and could increase the number of frivolous lawsuits and that credit union members ``could suffer when costs rise and resources are depleted as a result of this rule.''

Indeed, the CFPB, itself, estimates its final rule will increase costs for American businesses over $1 billion per year. That is money that our community banks and credit unions won't be able to lend to our small businesses, to our families, and to American workers.

The CFPB's rule is bad for consumers, it is bad for community banks, it is bad for credit unions, and it is bad for our economy. Washington should be focused on creating more jobs, not more class action lawsuits.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is time to fight the bureaucratic swamp. It is time to pass the resolution offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus). I appreciate his leadership in helping protect consumers instead of enriching trial lawyers.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) be allowed to control the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) for yielding, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue, as I do the gentleman from Pennsylvania as well.

Mr. Speaker, since 1925, this institution, the United States Congress, has recognized the right of consumers to engage in arbitration, which we know for so many consumers is their avenue for redress of grievance. We know that this has been upheld on multiple occasions by the Supreme Court. We have almost 100 years of precedence. And now this rogue agency, the Orwellian-named CFPB, decides to promulgate a rule, and it is not even an agency. Mr. Speaker, it is one unelected, unaccountable individual who has decided that Americans no longer have the right to contract, they no longer have the right to decide that they would prefer to arbitrate instead of go through a class action lawsuit.

Mr. Speaker, let's let people know what this is truly about. What this is about is the trial attorneys relief act. Theirs are the voices that we are hearing on the other side of the aisle, and we are hearing them loud and clear, because what we know is that, in class action lawsuits, consumers end up with almost nothing and the trial lawyers make out like bandits.

Even in the CFPB's own study, they figured out that those who go through class action are doing well to get $32.35, yet the trial lawyers make out with millions. We also know in the CFPB's own study that those who went through arbitration ended up with settlements of $5,389.

Mr. Speaker, here are just a couple of different class action lawsuits that have happened recently. A Dell Computers class action lawsuit: $500,000 for class members, $7 million for the lawyers; Subway sandwiches: $50,000 for the class members, $500,000 for the trial attorneys.

Oh, here is a good one, Mr. Speaker, Coca-Cola class action: $0 for class members, $1.2 million for the lawyers; L.A. Fitness International: $7,000 for class members, $200,000 for lawyers.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are not foolish. It is time to drain the swamp and to start off with the bureaucracy that is taking away their rights to have dispute resolution through arbitration. They are tired of seeing others go and kowtow to the trial lawyers lobby in this town to give them what they want. It is time to make sure that Americans' consumer rights can be protected, and so it is time that we pass this Congressional Review Act for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize 100 years of aviation at Mineola Wisener Field Airport located in Wood County, Texas. On July 4, 1917, a United States Army Signal Corps Curtis JN-4 ``Jenny'' aircraft, piloted by Lt. Ralph W. Stone, landed just outside Mineola, Texas. The site was established as ``Massingale Meadow'' and was used as an emergency landing site for Love Field Airport. The site was published in books in 1920 and 1921 and many early aviators and pioneers frequented the site.

Robert ``Henry'' Wisener, Jr. was 12 years old when he observed the first landing from his family farm in 1917. When he was 17, Henry was taught to fly by Roy Wilson, a Hollywood stunt pilot who spent time at the field. Henry's love and passion for aircraft grew from there. On June 1, 1926, Henry leased ``Massingale Meadow'' and named the airport the Royal Field. Here he built the first airplane hangar and offered flight training, aircraft repairs and fuel. He later based the Royal Flying Circus here and together with his brother Bryce, performed aerial acrobatics throughout Texas and the Southwest and Midwest regions of the U.S.

In 1941, Henry purchased ``Massingale Meadow'' along with a 50 acre tract to lengthen the runway. In 1946, an aircraft maintenance shop, classroom, and flight office were built to provide training under the GI Bill. During that year a decommissioned Department of Commerce Airways Beacon Tower and Beacon were disassembled and moved to ``Massingale Meadow''.

From 1963 to 1983, the city of Mineola leased the airport and it operated as the Mineola Municipal Airport. The airport was renamed Mineola Wisener Field Airport at the expiration of the lease.

Wisener Field and its early founders and operators have been recognized throughout the years on many occasions, including by the Texas Historical Commission. The Texas Aeronautics Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration recognized Mineola Wisener Field Airport as the ``second oldest, continuously-used, uncontrolled airport in the state.'' As Wood County's first airport, Wisener Field has made a long-lasting impact on the economy, as well as aviation enthusiasts.

As the Representative of the 5th Congressional District of Texas, it is an honor to recognize Wisener Field on the 100th Anniversary of its first landing.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to

me, and let me thank him for his leadership of the Republican Study Committee and what that committee means to the conservative movement and what it means to the cause of freedom and opportunity for so many working men and women.

I especially want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his work on the American Health Care Act and what that means to so many of our constituents to truly be able, after this rise of premiums where people are paying more to get less in healthcare, to really bring us to a moment where we can have patient-centered healthcare. I just want to thank him for that.

These are actually hopeful times for the American people. Regrettably, as we know, working America hasn't received a pay increase in almost a decade. Their savings have remained decimated since the financial crisis. So to get this economy moving again, our President knows, this Congress knows that, number one, we do have to return to patient-centered healthcare, not for what that means just to our families, but what it means to our economy.

We have to have fundamental tax reform as well, and I know that our House Ways and Means Committee is working on that assiduously, but we also have to have fundamental reform of our regulations. There is no regulation that has imposed more burden on our economy than the Dodd- Frank Act. In fact, it is more burdensome to our economy than all Obama-era regulations combined. It is simply that bad.

When they passed this bill in the wake of the financial crisis, they told us that it would lift the economy. But instead of lifting the economy, we are mired in the slowest, weakest recovery in the postwar era.

They told us that it would end bank bailouts, but cynically, it codified them into law and backed it up with a taxpayer bailout fund.

They told us and they promised us it would make the economy more stable, but instead, the big banks have gotten bigger and the small banks have gotten fewer.

They told us and promised us it would help the consumer, but instead of helping the consumer, free checking at banks has been cut in half. Bank fees have increased. Has anybody within earshot tried to get a mortgage recently? They are harder to come by. They cost hundreds of more dollars to close. There are fewer credit card offerings.

What has happened here is, under Dodd-Frank, those who are seeking credit are now paying more and receiving less. This is hurting not only our families, but it has hurt our economy. Small business lending hasn't recovered, entrepreneurship is at a generational low.

So that is why it was so important that on Thursday of last week this body, this House, took action and passed the Financial CHOICE Act. The Financial CHOICE Act represents, for all of America, economic opportunity for all, bank bailouts for none.

It replaces the era of bank bailouts with bankruptcy for these large financial institutions. It replaces Washington micromanagement with market discipline. That is how we help to grow this economy. It will create more credit for more people.

There is a whole part of this legislation that is totally devoted to our small banks and credit unions because it is our small community financial institutions that help finance our small businesses. It is our small businesses which are the job engine of America. That is what has been choked off by this heavy hand of Obama regulation.

So I was proud to play a very small role in the House to bring the Financial CHOICE Act to the House so that we can indeed, as the acronym suggests, create hope and opportunity for investors, for consumers, for entrepreneurs. We want the animal spirits in the American economy to move again. We want that budding optimism that tomorrow can be a better day, that you can be your own boss, that you can start your own small business. We want that opportunity to flourish yet again in America. That is what we managed to do with the Financial CHOICE Act.

I am very happy that we have now sent it over to the Senate. We look forward to having the Senate act upon this. The American people can't wait to get this economy moving again.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for highlighting this for the American people, and I want to thank him again for his leadership of the Republican Study Committee. Without this august group, the Congress' largest caucus, the caucus of conservatives, this would not have happened, and I want to thank him for that.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Sergeant Joe Moss for his courageous service to our country. Sergeant Moss grew up in Kerens, Texas where he was drafted by the United States Army.

Sergeant Moss grew up in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, which I have the privilege of representing. After he graduated from Malakoff High School, he began his service in the infantry for the Army during the Vietnam War. During his brave and valiant service to our country he was severely injured. As the squad leader, Sergeant Moss' platoon came in contact with a land mine while on a maneuver. Two of Sergeant Moss' fellow soldiers were killed and several, including himself, were injured. Sergeant Moss lost both of his legs in the explosion, something that would dramatically change his life; it didn't however, change who Sergeant Moss truly was.

There is no doubt that his selfless service to our country saved many lives while in Vietnam. He has helped countless veterans returning from battle by selflessly giving his time and sharing his own experiences to mentor and support those who have fought for our country. While Sergeant Moss returned home in a wheelchair, he did not allow that to confine his tenacious spirit. Thirteen years after he returned, Sergeant Moss, along with a few friends who were also paraplegics, succeeded in climbing the rocky Guadalupe Peak--Texas' highest mountain which reaches 8,751 feet above sea level. The next day, President Ronald Reagan called to congratulate Sergeant

Moss. Sergeant Moss is an inspiration and deserves to be honored. I know Sergeant Moss and his fellow soldiers did not all receive the return they truly deserved. So for Sergeant Moss and others, welcome home and thank you.

Humbly, I echo the words of President Ronald Reagan, ``We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we will always be free.'' And humbly, I offer my sincere gratitude to Sergeant Joe Moss for his service and acts of bravery that allow us the freedoms we enjoy today.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Captain Jerry Lynn Tate for his courageous service to our country. While Captain Tate enjoys his retirement in Mabank, Texas, his exemplary military career leaves a far-reaching legacy of true, American exceptionalism.

Captain Tate joined the United States Army after graduating from the University of Oklahoma's Army ROTC. He was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in January of 1967.

Upon basic training and studies, Captain Tate was an instructor in the Armor School of Topographic Studies at Fort Knox. He went on to earn his Army Aviator Wings and received 18 Air Medals for meritorious achievement while participating in flight support for combat ground forces throughout the Republic of Vietnam. As a pilot as well as an instructor in the Grumman OV-1 Mohawk, Captain Tate flew 945 hours and 315 missions in combat. He also received both the 1,000 and 2,000 hour plaque from Grumman Aerospace, commemorating his accident-free flying hours. There is no doubt that Captain Tate saved countless lives during his outstanding service to our country.

His acts of bravery were commemorated with many awards and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal. Upon his release from active duty as an instructor pilot and flight commander at Fort Rucker, Captain Tate went on to have a successful career as a pilot for Delta Air Lines for 33 years.

Humbly, I echo the words of President Ronald Reagan, ``We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we will always be free.'' And humbly, I offer my sincere gratitude to Captain Jerry Lynn Tate for his service and acts of bravery that allow us the freedoms we enjoy today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 10, the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I proudly yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

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

Mr. Chairman, it has been 7 years since the Dodd-Frank Act was passed, a monumental triumph of ideology over compassion and common sense. All of the promises of Dodd-Frank were broken. They promised us it would lift the economy, Mr. Chairman, but, instead, we are still stymied in the weakest, slowest recovery in the postwar era.

They promised us that it would end too big to fail, but, instead, it cynically codified too-big-to-fail banks in the law and backed it up with a taxpayer bailout fund.

It promised us, Mr. Chairman--they promised us that it would lead to a more stable economy, but, instead, the big banks are bigger. The small banks are fewer. We are losing a community bank or credit union a day.

Our corporate bond market, a key component of financing of jobs, historic levels of volatility and illiquidity.

They promised us, Mr. Chairman, that it would help the consumer, but, instead, we see free checking cut in half at banks, bank fees are up. The ranks of the unbanked have increased.

For many creditworthy borrowers, they are paying $500 more for an auto loan. Have you tried getting a mortgage recently? They are harder to come by and cost hundreds of dollars more to close.

Every promise of Dodd-Frank has been broken. And, Mr. Chairman, we hear about it every day. I heard from Julieann, a banker in Massachusetts, and she wrote, `` `We have experienced a spike in loan declines to women,' for their investigation identified that women attempting to buy the family home to settle their divorce and stabilize their family were being declined at a high rate due to the Dodd-Frank Qualified Mortgage rules. . . .''

Dodd-Frank is hurting recently divorced women. I heard from Allen in New Hampshire who talked about his need for a new car, but he couldn't find a loan from a bank, and he said:

But for my local dealer's efforts on my behalf, there is no

doubt I would not be driving my current car, and this was a

desperate situation, for I am the sole income earner for my

family. My wife is ill, and we have two young children in

school. After my old vehicle broke down, I needed to find

reliable, replacement transportation so that I could get to

work and continue to provide for my family. Please ensure

that financing car and truck dealerships are not stymied by

Dodd-Frank's CFPB.

I heard from Maxine in Salt Lake City, who talked about her company. She said:

Last February, we were awarded a major catering contract

for all food services in the new performing arts center. The

new contract will require us to make a major investment in

equipment in small wares. We will be able to hire 50

additional staff. Unfortunately, red tape got in the way,

turned what should have been a golden opportunity into an

unbelievable headache. Three banks informed us that our

rating, according to new bank regulations imposed by Dodd-

Frank, disqualified us from consideration.

Mr. Chairman, we have letter after letter, email after email, showing how Dodd-Frank is harming working families, harming small businesses, crushing community banks.

Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, there is a better, smarter way, and it is called the Financial CHOICE Act. It is going to create hope and opportunity for investors and consumers, and entrepreneurs, and it stands for economic growth for all, but bank bailouts for none.

Contrary to Dodd-Frank, and what every Democrat will come here today--my friends on the other side of the aisle--and defend, we will end bank bailouts once and for all. We will replace bailout with bankruptcy. We will replace economic stagnation with a growing healthy economy. We will ensure that there will finally be pay increases, wage increases for working Americans who haven't seen a pay increase since Dodd-Frank became law.

We will replace Washington micromanagement with market discipline. We will ensure that we replace taxpayer money with private money because for every bank who will have a 10 percent simple leverage ratio, which is analogous to having a private insurance policy against bailout, we will let them have that Dodd-Frank off-ramp, and that is so important.

But, Mr. Chairman, we are also going to hold Wall Street accountable with the toughest penalties that they have seen, and no more bailouts. Perhaps that is one of the reasons they oppose the Financial CHOICE Act and support the status quo of Dodd-Frank.

We will make sure that there is needed regulatory relief for our small banks and credit unions, because it is our small banks who loan to our small businesses, that create the job engine of America, and make sure that the American Dream is not a pipe dream; but, instead, it is a dream and a vision where we will only be limited by our imagination.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), a real leader on our committee and chairman of the Financial Institution and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is a leader on our Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who is a fighter on our committee. She is the chair of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who is the chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), a gentleman on leave from the Financial Services Committee and one we proudly call our own.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), who is the chairman of the Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that perhaps the gentlewoman from California is unaware that the VFW has tweeted that it lauds Representative Hensarling for a commitment to protect veterans, and then:

We are so happy that the Financial CHOICE Act has been

endorsed by over 100 groups, including the Concerned Veterans

for America, because of what we do to protect their freedoms.

At this point, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), a proud member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, apparently the gentleman forgot that the big Wall Street banks also oppose this, according to the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and New York Times.

And I am now very happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), a member of our committee and chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), my friend and neighbor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), a real workhorse of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), an incredibly talented member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the Financial Services Committee whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), another hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), a new and very knowledgeable member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a new member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on either side?

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a new member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney), another new member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am now very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a huge fighter for freedom and a fighter against Federal price controls.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank both gentlemen for their steadfast leadership on this issue. Basic economics tell us that when government fixes market prices, consumer welfare suffers. So it is not a surprise that researchers have found that the Durbin amendment resulted in a net loss of perhaps $25 billion for consumers.

But in a larger sense, what we have is a legal dispute between two parties. This is an issue that belongs in the courts, not Congress, which is why we sought to repeal the Durbin amendment.

I remain hopeful that Congress will correct this mistake, and I will work towards that goal in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), a new member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), another new member of the committee.

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

We have now had 7 years of history with Dodd-Frank, and what do we know? We know that the big banks are bigger. We know that the small banks are fewer. The gentleman cites some statistics about lending, but what he left out is, we are losing a community bank or credit union a day, and they are not dying of natural causes. They are dying of the dreaded Dodd-Frank disease.

Our small businesses continue to suffer. It takes small banks to lend to small businesses. The job engine of America and small bank business lending isn't recovering, and it can't recover, as long as Dodd-Frank is on the rolls of the Federal Register.

I got to tell you, Mr. Chairman, it is time. It is time for a better way. It is time to help our struggling families. That is really what this is all about. We have had 7 years of Dodd-Frank, and yet working Americans haven't received a pay increase. Their small businesses can't get loans. Struggling families have not seen their savings recover from the great financial panic which, oh, by the way, was brought about by government in the first place, with dumb regulation to put people into homes they couldn't afford to keep.

And let's also remember that Dodd-Frank is actually hurting the consumers it claims to help. Free checking was cut in half. Credit cards, there are fewer of them. They cost 200 to 300 basis points more. Have you tried to get a mortgage lately? They are harder to come by. They cost hundreds of more dollars to close.

Instead, what we have is, Washington elites now making the decision on whether or not we get to put a credit card in our wallet, whether we get to put a mortgage on our home.

No, Mr. Chairman, there is a better way. It is why we must enact the Financial CHOICE Act. There will be economic growth for all, bank bailouts for none, and we will, once again, have an America that is only limited by the size of its dreams.

Mr. Chair, I encourage all to support the Financial CHOICE Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is purely technical in nature that addresses a few discrete issues in the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Specifically, it clarifies the noninsurance-related functions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union Administration subject to congressional appropriations.

This amendment will not--not--affect the ability of the NCUA to determine the appropriate allocation of expenses between their insurance and other functions for purpose of their overall funding, but it will, for the first time, give Congress the power of the purse--our constitutional power of the purse--over many of the FDIC and NCUA's operating expenses.

Additionally, the amendment revises the vesting of the appointment power for certain positions and clarifies congressional access to nonpublic meetings of the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to support the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I know that my friend and colleague from the other side of the aisle spoke about rhetoric. Unfortunately, that is pretty well all we have heard from my friends on the other side of the aisle.

I am absolutely fascinated, Mr. Chairman, how often Members on the other side of the aisle say: I care so much about community banks; I care so much about small business.

But, Mr. Chairman, do you know how many amendments that they filed on

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership.

Indeed, the whole issue of data security is so vital to our constituents, so many of them have been victimized by identity theft. So I appreciate his leadership on this issue, and I know that Chairman Luetkemeyer in our committee will be leading on this issue. I support this underlying amendment.

I do have some outstanding questions on what type of multifactor authentication would be required. I want to ensure that we do not specify the technology, that this is a sense of Congress provision. But I look forward to working very closely with Congressman Smucker to refine the concept as it goes forward, and I thank him for his leadership.

May I inquire how much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, the last time this body listened to the minority leader and enacted Dodd-Frank, permanent Wall Street bailouts were enshrined into law. That is what the gentlewoman represents, but somehow we did not hear that in her speech. The last time we listened to the gentlewoman from California, what we see is that working Americans have not received a pay increase. Their paychecks are stagnant and their savings remain decimated the last time we listened to the gentlewoman from California, the minority leader. Since we listened to her, we have seen that free checking has been cut in half, bank fees have gone up, mortgages are more difficult to come by and they are more expensive to close. That is the last time we listened to the gentlewoman from California, the minority leader.

Her counsel must be rejected, as should the Washington elitism that is represented by her philosophy must be rejected as well. It is why Dodd-Frank must be rejected and why the Financial CHOICE Act must be enacted.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment from the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have had many opportunities in my career to come to this House floor and speak about topics of great importance, but few are as near and dear to my heart as is Scouting.

So, one, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership and the gentleman from Texas for his leadership and keeping Scouting alive not only in their hearts, but in the heart of the House and in the hearts of so many young men in America today.

Mr. Speaker, as I think about my own life, I think how terribly blessed I have been. I think about the molders of my character, and, certainly, I thank the Lord for the blessing of being able to worship Him in the land of the free. And I think about the impact my church has had upon my life.

I think how blessed I am to have parents like Charles and Ann Hensarling, who raised me in College Station, Texas, and how proud I am to be my mother's son and how proud I was to be my late father's son. But I also think about what Scouting meant as a molder of my character.

Mr. Speaker, that is not what originally drew me to Scouting. I was originally drawn to the fun of it, to the high adventure, to the camping trips, to those Capture the Flag games that went on to the wee hours of the morning. Little did I know how long one could actually hunt for a snipe back in the early days of my Scouting career. And so I was drawn to Indian lore and canoeing and camping, and that was so exciting to me.

So when I think about my Scouting career, Mr. Speaker, I think about, you know, the fun I had. I think about the friendships. There are people I haven't seen for decades, but, you know, I think about a friend by the name of Dennis Gary, whom I haven't seen in decades. But if I saw him tomorrow, I would know him because I would know him through his heart, because we experienced Scouting together, and so many others.

I think about the many practical things I learned in my Scouting career. I hope I never fall into a hole and break an arm, but if I did, even today at my ripe old age, I could still tie a one-handed bowline. I still know how to do that.

I hope I am never lost in the forest for days on end, but, you know, Mr. Speaker, I know that, as distasteful as it would be, I could survive off of cattail root and dandelion leaves because that is what Scouting taught me.

So Scouting is about fun; it is about friendship; but it was about practical things that I learned. Mr. Speaker, there is even a far more important aspect to Scouting, and that is values, the values that we learned.

So even today, as a Member of Congress, I know how important it is to be prepared, to be prepared before I come to this House floor and try to convince fellow Members of this august body on actions that we should take in the life of a great nation.

As we deal with so many issues about the lives of a great nation, I also remember, for example, somebody who wasn't in the Boy Scouts--my wife. I know back in Dallas, Texas, almost every week of her life she is driving some indigent cancer patient to their treatments.

I reflected that, although as Members of Congress we deal with matters of great importance that impact millions and millions of people, I have got to tell you, my wife, back in Dallas, Texas, does a good turn daily. It reminds me that I learned in Scouting how important it is to help one human life at a time and to do a good turn daily.

When I look upon my colleagues here in Congress today, I think about a certain colleague, and I am not going to mention his name, but a colleague who at one time wasn't quite keeping up with his diet. He wasn't quite keeping up with his exercise. Although he had young children, he had a heart attack, and we almost lost this colleague, but he came back. It is a reminder how important it is to keep ourselves physically strong for our children, for our parents, for our colleagues, and for our friends. That is something I learned in Scouting, Mr. Speaker.

I think about another friend whose wife almost was lost when she was diagnosed with a very serious form of cancer, stage IV. But there was an oncologist here in this area, in the Washington area, who was on the cutting edge of cancer research that saved her life, and she was--the percentages against her, there was a 99 percent chance she wouldn't make it, but she did because somebody decided to be mentally awake. That is something else I learned in Scouting, Mr. Speaker, how important it is to be mentally awake.

And one day, when I leave this institution, some of the finest people I have ever met in life I know will have served in the United States of House of Representatives, but, unfortunately, a couple of them represent the worst. A couple of them have turned in their pin stripes for prison stripes because somehow they lost their way.

In Scouting, we are taught to orient a map with a physical compass, but we are also taught to orient the map of life with a moral compass. So I learned in Scouting how important it was to be morally straight, to have that internal compass to guide us at all times.

So I will admit, I am not proud of the fact, Mr. Speaker, but you know what? The words, over the years, occasionally they are a little rusty to me. I don't quite recite them as I once did. I don't always recite the words: ``On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to my God and my country, to obey the Scout Law, to help others at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.''

So, yes, Mr. Speaker, occasionally the words are a little rusty, but the principles are as alive to me today as they were almost half a century ago when I first entered Scouting and followed that career all the way up to Eagle Scout, something I am so, so very proud of today.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope anybody who is watching the proceedings at this time will, again, understand how valuable Scouting is to all of us. It is not just important to my own personal life. It is important to the life of a great nation.

Our first President, the Father of our Country, said that you cannot have a free society which is not a moral society. Scouting helps make certain we have a moral society.

So I think of the fun, I think of the friendship, I think of the lessons, but, most importantly, I think about that moral compass for the map of life that has guided me and, with Scouting to come in the future, will guide the life of this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Dallas for his leadership, I thank him for his friendship, I thank him for all he means for Scouting, and I thank him for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, a very destructive storm system moved across my home State of Texas, the Midwest, and the Southeast, killing 15 of our fellow citizens and destroying whole communities in its wake.

In Van Zandt County in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, which I have the privilege to represent, four constituents lost their lives in a series of four violent tornadoes that shattered homes, shattered lives, and devastated neighbors in the Fifth District and the Fourth District of Texas.

These storms also tragically killed seven people in Washington, Carroll, and Madison Counties in Arkansas; two people in Rankin and Holmes Counties in Mississippi; one person in Nashville, Tennessee; and one person from Billings, Missouri. Many more, Mr. Speaker, have been hospitalized.

Joining me here today are some of the Members whose communities were affected: Congressman Womack and Congressman Crawford of Arkansas, Congressman Harper of Mississippi, Congressman Thompson of Mississippi, Congressman Cooper of Tennessee, Congressman Long of Missouri, and my fellow Texan, Congressman John Ratcliffe--again, Mr. Speaker, all who represent communities that were tragically affected.

Mr. Speaker, our citizens who were lost have left a void in their families and left a void in their communities. Our hearts are heavy. Our prayers are sincere for the loved ones they leave behind and for those who recover from their wounds.

For many of us, in our faith, there is a time to mourn. Mr. Speaker, now is the time to mourn. But as we have, in our faith, a time to mourn, we also have faith, Mr. Speaker, that one day our citizens will heal and they will heal and rebuild their communities as well.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would ask the House to help us in honoring those who lost their lives in these deadly storms and the families and loved ones they leave behind by joining us in observing a moment of silence.

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan, not only for yielding but, more importantly, for his leadership in helping improve our capital markets and our economy here.

I want to thank all of the Republican and Democrat cosponsors of H.R. 1219, particularly our vice chairman of the full committee Mr. McHenry of North Carolina, for his leadership and also Ms. Velazquez on the other side of the aisle for her leadership on this issue as well. Both of these colleagues are senior members of the committee which I have the honor of chairing.

Madam Speaker, we know that while optimism and confidence in our economy are up considerably over the last few months, our Nation still has a way to go to experience the robust economic growth the American people have experienced in the past of which they also deserve.

One obvious reason that the economy continues to limp along is bureaucratic burdens imposed by Washington's top-down regulations on America's small businesses on Main Street.

I got a message from a gentleman by the name of Larry, a small- business owner in Mabank, Texas, who I have the privilege of representing here in Congress, and he summed it up fairly well. He said: ``So many businesses have to deal with regulations and taxes that didn't exist a few years ago. It is especially hard on smaller businesses. While large companies have their own staff of attorneys and the capital to comply with regulations, small businesses don't.''

So, Madam Speaker, as my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee know all too well, because we have had countless witnesses before our committee to attest to such, Washington has inflicted upon Main Street America a complex set of burdensome and expensive and confusing regulations.

Many were written, again, with the largest public companies in mind, but they burden small companies and hurt their ability to access capital. That is exactly what Larry of Mabank, Texas, has told me, and I believe it.

So, clearly, Congress should work, preferably on a bipartisan basis, to level the playing field while maintaining fair and efficient capital markets, protecting investors, and allowing small companies the chance to succeed.

We can make progress on these goals today by advancing this bipartisan bill, the Supporting America's Innovators Act. This bill was approved by the Financial Services Committee with the overwhelming support of Republicans and Democrats. The vote in committee was 54-2. In addition, a similar bill passed the House last year overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis.

Madam Speaker, these vote totals demonstrate that just about everyone--Republican and Democrat--agrees that this commonsense legislation will indeed help grow our economy.

H.R. 1219 specifically increases the limits on the number of individuals from 100 to 250 who invest in certain venture capital funds before those funds are forced to register with the SEC as ``investment companies.'' This change would permit angel and venture funds to better help accredited investors invest in small-business startups. These early stage investors play a vital role in helping many small businesses get their start. In 2015, angel investors deployed nearly $25 billion to 71,000 different startups across our Nation. In the first quarter of 2017, venture capital invested more than $16 billion in almost 1,800 startups.

If anyone here, for some reason, doubts the impact these investors can have on our Nation's economic growth, let me remind them that companies such as Amazon, Costco, Google, Facebook, and Starbucks were all first funded by angel investors. Let's also remember, Madam Speaker, that almost half of the people who work in this country own or work for small

businesses. They create nearly historically two-thirds of the new jobs in America. So clearly our economy works better for working Americans when small businesses thrive and have access to capital and credit they need to innovate, expand, and create jobs.

The Supporting America's Innovators Act modernizes a regulation to enhance the ability for startups and small businesses to receive critical funding and capital from the private markets and, in particular, angel investors and venture capital. Undoubtedly it will help today's small-business startups become the next great American entrepreneurial success story and, in doing so, help invigorate economic growth and help create more American jobs.

I urge the adoption of H.R. 1219.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 240, I call up the bill (H.R. 1343) to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise its rules so as to increase the threshold amount for requiring issuers to provide certain disclosures relating to compensatory benefit plans, 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 materials on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1343, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act. I also want to commend the Republican and Democrat sponsors of this important bill: Mr. Hultgren of Illinois, Mr. Delaney of Maryland, Mr. Higgins of New York, Mr. MacArthur of New Jersey, Ms. Sinema of Arizona, and Mr. Stivers of Ohio.

Their bipartisan efforts resulted in a bipartisan bill that will help small businesses, including startups, to successfully reward their hardworking employees; and, while doing so, this bill will allow small businesses to effectively deploy their capital to grow and to create jobs on Main Streets all across our country.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, that small businesses are the heart and soul of the American economy. In fact, they helped create more than 60 percent of the Nation's net new jobs over the past two decades. So if our Nation is to have a healthier economy that offers more opportunity to more Americans, then we must encourage small-business growth and small-business startups, and this starts with ensuring they have access to the capital and credit they need to grow.

Yet as we have heard from countless witnesses who have appeared before the House Financial Services Committee, community banks and credit unions in particular--the primary source of our small-business loans--are simply drowning, Mr. Speaker, in a sea of complicated and costly regulations. The same occurs with the maze of burdensome securities regulations that are written with the largest public companies in mind but end up hurting smaller companies.

Although small companies are at the forefront of innovation and job creation, they often face significant obstacles in obtaining funding in our capital markets. These obstacles often result from the proportionately larger burden that securities regulations place on small companies when they seek to access capital both in the public and private markets.

These small companies also face difficult challenges on how best they can deploy their limited resources and capital--to grow and thrive or to be able to sufficiently compensate their workforce, which is a critical component of their success.

Currently, the SEC allows private companies to offer their own securities to employees as part of written compensation agreements without having to comply with burdensome Federal securities registration requirements under what is called SEC rule 701. Now, unfortunately, one of the rule's thresholds has not been adjusted in two decades. What the bipartisan supporters of this bill are proposing is simply to modernize this SEC rule with a modest increase in that threshold.

Increasing the rule 701 threshold gives private companies more flexibility to reward and retain employees and permits private companies to keep valuable, skilled employees without having to use other methods such as borrowing money or selling securities. Updating this rule can encourage more companies to offer more incentives to more employees.

As one witness who testified before Congress said, this bill ``would support a valuable compensation practice that allows small businesses to hire the most highly skilled workers'' and better enable small, emerging growth companies that are at a competitive disadvantage with bigger businesses to attract and retain employees.

Allowing employees to become owners in the company also benefits those employees. As startups and small companies reach success, we all want their employees to also reap the benefits of that success. That is what is happening with companies that are able to offer stock options as part of their employee compensation plans.

For example, when Google was in its early stages, it hired someone to be an in-house, part-time masseuse and compensated her with both cash and stock options. That masseuse is now worth millions today. Another example is from an ad-tech company, MoPub. Thirty-six of its 100 employees became millionaires when the company was acquired by Twitter because MoPub's CEO set his employees up for success by offering them performance-based stock-option grants.

So, Mr. Speaker, shouldn't we want more American workers to have the opportunities like at Google and MoPub? Don't we want more Americans to have an opportunity to obtain an ownership stake in the places that they work? That way the workers can earn the large financial upside that comes when the company performs well, and the company benefits by being able to attract talented workers.

Unfortunately, again, Mr. Speaker, too many companies right now shy away from offering employees greater ownership opportunities because an expensive, bureaucratic, burdensome, top-down regulation in Washington hasn't been updated in nearly 20 years. Mr. Speaker, we can fix that today. We can fix that by passing this commonsense, bipartisan bill, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act.

We can provide American workers with more opportunities to share in the successes and profits of companies they work for. We can help to foster capital formation so more Americans can go back to work, have good careers, pay their mortgages, plan for a secure retirement, and ultimately give their families a better life.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. Speaker, tragically, I receive correspondence every week like this. I heard from Rita in east Texas, who writes me:

Since ObamaCare took effect, my insurance no longer covers

my colonoscopies as

preventative care. I now pay $1,000 and more out of pocket

versus $100 outpatient fee.

I heard from Frances in the Dallas area near where I live. A few years ago she was tragically diagnosed with tonsil cancer. The good news is she had a good policy; $600-a-month premium and a maximum out of pocket of $3,500. But thanks to ObamaCare, her insurance company dropped her twice, and she wrote:

They dropped me again because they are leaving the Dallas

market.

Her premiums and deductibles doubled. She lost her oncologist, and she writes that this is all because of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act.

I heard from Tonya in Van Zandt County, in my district:

We had five family members covered by insurance at around

$800 a month until ObamaCare. Our insurance premiums

skyrocketed to $1,500 a month, equivalent to a house payment,

with a $15,000 deductible, and we cannot see the doctors that

know our medical history. Repeal it. I should not be forced

to pay for something I cannot use. This has been a nightmare.

Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare has been a nightmare. It is collapsing as we speak. People are losing their coverages. Insurance plans are pulling out of States and counties. Tens of millions of our fellow countrymen have been forced to buy health insurance plans they cannot afford, they do not want, and that do not work for them.

Right here, right now, we have a choice: failed ObamaCare or the American Health Care Act that begins the process of providing Americans with guaranteed access to quality, affordable, patient-centered health care.

It clearly advances the cause of freedom, and all Members should support it and end the nightmare of ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 71, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 41) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to ``Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers'', 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 materials on the joint resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 41, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan, (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services.

This resolution disapproves a burdensome and controversial Securities and Exchange Commission rule that places an unfair burden on American public companies that is not applied to many of their foreign competitors.

Virtually every day we hear from many Americans about how this economy is just not working for them. It is just not working for working Americans like Keith from Dallas in my district who wrote me: ``I am 53. I have a grown son who lives with me. It seems like the cost of everything keeps going up, yet wages do not keep pace.''

The economic opportunities of Keith and millions of Americans like him are not helped by top-down, politically driven regulations that give many foreign companies an advantage over American public companies.

That is exactly what this Securities and Exchange Commission regulation that we are talking about today does. It forces American public companies to disclose inexpensive proprietary information that can actually be obtained by their foreign competitors, including state- owned companies in China and Russia. This is just one regulation out of thousands and thousands that are burdening our companies, our job creators, and are costing our households, by one estimate, over $14,000 a year, Mr. Speaker.

Even though this is a Securities and Exchange rule, section 1504 of Dodd-Frank has nothing to do with investor protection nor anything else we were told the Dodd-Frank Act was supposed to do. As the acting chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission has said, this rule ``neither reforms Wall Street nor provides consumer protection and it is wholly unrelated, and largely contrary, to the Commission's core mission.''

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the SEC estimates that ongoing compliance costs for this rule could reach as high as $591 million per year. It is just an outrage, Mr. Speaker. That is $591 million every year that could better be used to hire thousands more Americans in an industry where the average pay is 50 percent higher than the U.S. average. Literally we could be talking about 10,000 jobs on the line for this ill-advised rule. This is significant, given that millions of Americans, like Keith from my district, have not seen their wages increase while our economy has been stymied under the Obama administration.

Now, for those who claim that somehow by rolling back this rule, that this undermines anticorruption efforts, let me remind everyone that Mr. Huizenga's resolution, that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which the SEC and the Department of Justice administer, already makes it illegal to pay former government officials when it comes to winning or maintaining business opportunities.

To further prove the point, Mr. Speaker, just this year the SEC has brought enforcement actions or settled four separate cases for violations of this anticorruption law. So even without this SEC rule, fraud will still be fraud, corruption will still be corruption, and both will still be illegal. The SEC and the Department of Justice will still have the authority to vigorously pursue those who break the law and hold them accountable, as they well should. So no one, Mr. Speaker, should fall for this false argument of our opponents.

Let's also remember that this joint resolution does not repeal section 1504 of Dodd-Frank. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Rather, it vacates a flawed SEC rule that mimics a previous rule that was already struck down by a U.S. District Court. It is a rule that by the SEC's own estimates has taken 51 employees over 20,000 hours to promulgate, defend, and repromulgate. Fifty-one employees, 20,000 hours that could have been directed at rooting out Ponzi schemes, that could have been used to promote capital formation or make our capital markets more efficient.

Furthermore, this rule still goes far beyond the statute passed by Congress and mandates public specialized disclosures that cost more and more, and is more burdensome than the law requires.

So, Mr. Speaker, for those who religiously defend the Dodd-Frank law, they should be in vigorous support of what Mr. Huizenga brings to the floor today because the rule flies in the face of the Dodd-Frank Act. So when an agency exceeds its statutory authority, it is no longer regulating, Mr. Speaker, it is legislating. And all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, should be able to agree that when the executive branch acts in such a manner, Congress has a duty, a duty under article I of the Constitution, to check this executive overreach.

As such, this House should wholeheartedly support Mr. Huizenga's resolution. It simply tells the SEC to go back to the drawing board, comply with the Dodd-Frank Act, and come up with a better role that will not put American public companies at an unfair disadvantage and cost us jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of our Capital Markets Subcommittee and the author of H.J. Res. 41.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the sub-chairman of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have no other speakers at this time.

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, I certainly hope that the American people are watching this debate because it will certainly confirm their decision to deny Democrats control of the House, to deny them control of the Senate, and to deny them control of the White House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, their words may claim they care about jobs, but their policies don't. That is what we are here to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is jobs, and we are talking about a rule promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission that can cost $591 million a year and can cost us 10,000 jobs.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have been clearly tone deaf to the pleas of the American people. They want to go back to work. They are tired of part-time jobs. They are tired of stagnant paychecks. They are tired of decimated savings. That is why they have turned to the Republican Party, and that is why we are going to help give them a healthy economy with policies, including rolling back this foolish rule from the Securities and Exchange Commission, a rule that in a previous iteration has already been struck down by courts.

Now, you listen to the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, and you hear all this talk about corruption. It appears that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are ignorant that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is already in the Federal code. For those who do not know, I have done the homework for you: 15 U.S.C. 78dd-1. Look it up yourself.

So, Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with corruption. Rarely has more of a red herring come across the House floor. Let me tell you what this is really about, Mr. Speaker. It is about a radical, leftist, and elitist agenda that promotes narrow special interests and has declared war on carbon-based industry and energy and the industry and jobs that are represented by it. That is what this is really about.

By the way, why is the Securities and Exchange Commission involved in this? Why isn't this--listening to them--part of the Homeland Security Department or maybe part of the Department of Defense? What will they have the SEC do next, deliver the mail? Will they become our air traffic controllers?

Meanwhile, there are Ponzi schemes taking place in America. Meanwhile, we have markets that are not efficient creating the jobs that the American people demand.

Let's vote for jobs. Let's vote to get America back to work. Let's vote down this leftist, elitist agenda declaring war on carbon-based jobs. Let's vote for H.J. Res. 41.

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

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 H.R. 78, to improve the consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act.

I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) for leading this effort in the House.

This bill is technically about something called economic analysis or cost-benefit analysis. That may sound like Ph.D. economics, but it is really about kitchen table economics because, Mr. Chairman, it is truly about whether we are going to have a stronger economy--one that creates good-paying jobs so that parents can afford to raise their children today and these same children can have a brighter future tomorrow. It is about making sure we have an accountable government that expands personal opportunity, not government bureaucracy.

Mr. Chairman, I think we all know that small businesses are truly America's job engine. They create nearly two-thirds of all new jobs in our economy. Our economy works better for all when small businesses can focus on creating jobs and on serving their customers rather than navigating needless government red tape.

Unfortunately, for America's small businesses, bureaucratic red tape has no better friend than the Obama administration. It has issued more than 4,400 final regulations, with an astronomical cost to all of us of $1 trillion. Just since the election on November 8, the Obama administration had cynically issued 145 midnight regulations with a cost of more than $21 billion.

For anyone who believes that this doesn't hurt our small businesses, they need to listen to their constituents, because I certainly listen to mine. I heard from a small business owner named Chris, who is back in my district and who wrote me:

We have seen wave after wave of Federal regulations affect

our ability to grow. The costs associated with additional

reporting, auditing, and compliance are massive. The money

spent is significant and costs jobs and potential jobs.

Mr. Chairman, he is exactly right. The true cost of Washington red tape cannot just be measured in dollars. The true cost includes the jobs not created, the small businesses not started, and the dreams of our children not fulfilled. Ill-advised laws like the Dodd-Frank Act empower unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to callously hand down crushing regulations without adequately considering what impact those regulations have on jobs.

As one former SEC Commissioner testified before the Financial Services Committee, which I have the honor of chairing, these Washington elites have forgotten the key to sensible regulation:

The most appropriate regulatory solution should be the one

that imposes the least burden on society while maximizing

potential benefits even if that means choosing not to

regulate at all.

Although the Securities and Exchange Commission is one of the few Washington agencies that engages in at least some base level of economic analysis, putting this requirement into law is definitely preferable to current agency procedures. After all, the SEC's recent interest in economic analysis came only on the heels of numerous Federal courts throwing out some of its regulations because the Commission failed to adequately take into account, again, the true costs and benefits of its rules.

Passing this bill will erase any doubt that the Securities and Exchange Commission must conduct sound economic analysis. It must consider the impact of their rules on our jobs and our family budgets. That is what cost-benefit analysis is all about.

Mr. Chairman, we may hear today from the usual suspects--the opponents of this bill--that somehow this is meant to hinder the rulemaking process and encourage litigation against the SEC. You will hear these same people say, once again, that this is somehow dangerous. Mr. Chairman, what is dangerous is being ignorant of the impact the proposed regulations will have on our economy and on the American people's wallets before they get implemented. That is what is dangerous.

What is interesting, Mr. Chairman, is that Presidents, frankly, of both parties seem to agree. Even Presidents Clinton and Obama directed independent agencies to engage in, essentially, exactly the same procedures that H.R. 78 would make into law. Such irony, Mr. Chairman, that some Democrats will come to the floor today and oppose codifying into law Clinton and Obama policy. Again, the irony of it all.

I urge all Members to join me in supporting this bill because we must hold Washington accountable to the American people. We must build a stronger, healthier economy so struggling Americans can get back to work and achieve financial independence.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the author of the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act and the chairman of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 79, to clarify the definition of general solicitation under Federal securities laws, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 79, the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act, also known as the HALOS Act.

I remind all Members that the House passed this bill just a few months ago with overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats by a vote of 325-89, Mr. Chairman, almost 4 to 1. It is hard to get more bipartisan than that.

It has received overwhelming bipartisan support because then and now the HALOS Act will help create needed jobs and grow our economy. I think we all know, Mr. Chairman, from listening to our constituents, jobs in the economy continue to be the number one issue of concern of the American people.

I commend the bipartisan sponsors of this bill, Mr. Chabot, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, who we will hear from soon, and Ms. Sinema, who serves with me on the Financial Services Committee. I also thank the six Republicans and four Democrats who joined them as original cosponsors.

These Members reached across the aisle and produced legislation that is especially important to America's small businesses. Let's remember, Mr. Chairman, that half--half--the people who work in this country earn or work at small businesses, which historically create two-thirds of all the new jobs in America. So small business--small business--is the job engine of America.

Our economy clearly works better for working Americans when small businesses thrive and they can focus on creating jobs rather than navigating bureaucratic red tape, red tape that disproportionately hurts the small businesses and startup companies that we are counting on to create jobs for our constituents.

Burdensome regulations make it harder for entrepreneurs to access startup capital, and they place credit out of reach for many who wish to start up a small business. Many of these harmful regulations arise from complicated laws, like the Dodd-Frank Act. Overall, small business loans are at a 25-year low, in large part due to regulatory burdens on our community banks and credit unions.

Even the former Director of the Small Business Administration, appointed by President Obama, admitted as much when she said: ``Small banks have been laden with excessive costs and confusion from overlapping regulations, which are getting in the way of their ability to make small business loans.''

We simply must not allow our security laws to inhibit the free flow of investment capital to Main Street. The HALOS Act provides an important regulatory solution to make it easier for small businesses to attract investments and put both the ``open for business'' and ``we are hiring'' signs on their front doors.

The bill provides a clear path for startups to connect with angel investors and allows investors to make their own informed decisions. Angel investors, Mr. Chairman, have a huge impact on economic growth. Famous companies like Amazon, Costco, Google, Facebook, and Starbucks were all first funded by angel investors. That is just how important this matter is. Today, approximately 600,000 employees earn their paychecks from working for these specific companies.

Unfortunately, when Washington bureaucrats get involved, we often see the dreaded ``unintended consequences'' of red tape. Five years ago, Congress passed the bipartisan JOBS Act to make it easier for business startups to gain access to critical capital. But the Securities and Exchange Commission instead issued regulations on angel investors that have the complete opposite effect. This is a problem Congress can easily fix by passing a bipartisan HALOS Act, which will ensure that funding from angel investors remains available to small business startups.

Mr. Chairman, you cannot have employees, unless you first have employers. You cannot have jobs without job creators. And that is what this bill is all about--jobs. It is about helping small businesses overcome misguided Washington red tape so they can create jobs.

I urge all Members to support this commonsense bipartisan bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that hearings have been held in a markup in the last Congress on this bill and the 10 new Republican Members are anxious to vote on this. I am unaware of any new Democrat Members having been appointed to our committee as of yet.

I am now very happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), coauthor of the HALOS Act, a champion for small business because he is, indeed, the distinguished chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the distinguished chairman of the Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.