Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Mr. King for his work on the Heartbeat Protection Act. It gives us an opportunity to reflect on some of those bigger issues that we have going on in our society.

This is personal to everybody. We all have our own stories of when we are in a family situation and somebody becomes pregnant. I certainly remember that when my wife and I had our first child. The first visit to the doctor when you got to hear the heartbeat was just amazing.

I remember also having a subsequent appointment where the doctor couldn't find the heartbeat. We were very concerned, very worried, so they sent us to the hospital. They wanted us to have another test. It is a small town we were in. The hospital was where they had the sonogram. My wife and I were praying all the way: Please, let this baby be okay.

Well, we got to the hospital and the technician did a sonogram, and, lo and behold, we saw the baby, we saw the beating heart, and we were just in awe at this new human life.

Mothers and fathers are forever changed when they first hear that heartbeat, that tiny pulse that reinforces the big and beautiful reality of a precious human life.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I rise in support of H.R. 490, the Heartbeat Protection Act. As a lawmaker, I took an oath to our Constitution to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. That is why I am cosponsoring this bill.

This legislation protects a pre-born baby's life when his or her heartbeat is detected. A heartbeat is a very basic sign of life. The pulse represents a unique person with inherent dignity and natural, human and constitutional rights that extend throughout the continuum of life through conception until natural death.

And where do these rights come from?

The Founders who signed the Declaration knew, for the Declaration itself says: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.''

That is interesting, Mr. Speaker, because the first unalienable right that is identified is the right to life.

Do you know who else knew?

President Kennedy.

President Kennedy reminded us in a different context, in the struggle against atheistic totalitarian communism. He said these words: ``And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.''

The right to life, defined in our Declaration, protected in our Constitution, and reiterated time and again by leaders across the religious and political spectrum, applies to every human life. It is easy to see who is human, if you look.

Twenty-six years ago, the late Governor Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, and others, including Sargent Shriver and Eunice Kennedy Shriver, signed onto a statement regarding abortion as true today as when it was published. Under the section of that document that was titled ``Without a Doubt, a Human Life,'' Governor Casey and his coauthors observed:

From the beginning, each human embryo has its own unique

genetic identity. Three and a half weeks after conception,

its heart starts beating. At 6 weeks, brain activity can be

detected. At the end of 2 months, the limbs, fingers, and

toes are complete. By 3 months, the baby is quite active,

forming fists, bending arms, and curling toes. At 4 months,

vocal cords, eyelashes, teeth buds, fingernails, and toenails

are all present. By 5 months, the baby is sucking its thumb,

punching, kicking, and going through the motions of crying.

By 6 months, it responds to light and sound and can recognize

its mother's voice.

The statement went on:

Advocates of unrestricted abortion do not want the public

to focus on these undeniable facts of fetal development,

but the facts cannot be ignored. They may claim that

abortion is a violent act, not against potential life, but

against a living, growing human being, a life with

potential.

Governor Casey subscribed to that belief.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Intentionally stopping a heartbeat is not healthcare.

H.R. 490 recognizes what science has already affirmed: that there is a baby growing in her mother's womb, one with her own distinct heartbeat.

Therefore, we have an obligation to protect the most vulnerable among us: to defend the defenseless.

How can our country continue to flourish and claim itself as a champion of human rights when we allow our society to rid ourselves of our own future generations?

That is why I came to the floor today to urge support for the Heartbeat Protection Act, to give our country a chance to reflect on some of the deeper questions and deeper values, to walk in solidarity with one another when one encounters a difficult situation, and to stand in each another's shoes with empathy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as Black History Month draws to a close, I wanted to recognize one of my constituents who left her own mark on history.

Just 2 days ago, on February 25, 2018, Beaver County lost one of its treasures. A Mississippi native and alumni of Viterbo University in La Crosse, Wisconsin, Maria Delitha Green, fondly known as Dee, received a registered nursing license from the St. Francis School of Nursing in 1954. In 1955, she moved to Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, where she was hired on at Providence Hospital as the first African-American registered nurse in Beaver County. Eventually, she was promoted to head nurse.

Dee faced many obstacles as an African-American nurse in the 1950s, such as the reality of segregated dormitory housing. However, she did not let those barriers discourage her, believing that people would accept her for who she was.

A trailblazer and diligent worker, Dee loved her job and continued her career as a nurse for 36 years, until she retired in 1990. She was a blessing to those with whom she came in contact and remained a caregiver until her health declined at the end of 2017. We are grateful for her decades of exemplary service and the outstanding model that she was.

May God grant her eternal rest, and may her family be consoled with many blessed memories.

Mr. Speaker, together with my colleague Representative Beatty, I am pleased to introduce today the State Insurance Regulation Preservation Act. This legislation will ensure that the regulation of insurance savings and loan holding companies reflects our state system of insurance regulation while protecting policyholders and depositors.

The Dodd-Frank Act brought insurance savings and loan holding companies under Federal Reserve Supervision for the first time. As such, these insurance companies are currently regulated by both the states, and the Federal Reserve. Consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act's reaffirmation that insurance should be regulated by the states, our legislation remedies the current structural inefficiency by allowing the Federal Reserve to ensure that the holding company is well capitalized, while leaving the day-to-day regulation to the states.

The bill accomplishes this providing that insurance savings and loan holding companies that meet state and federal capital standards are regulated day-to-day by the states. The Federal Reserve would remain the backstop regulator for these companies and would retain the ability to step in if capital levels were insufficient, and also would retain general emergency authority to step as the day-to-day regulator. The thrifts in these companies would continue to be regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Federal Reserve would retain the ability to examine material subsidiaries.

This legislation is important and helpful because Dodd-Frank did not provide specific instructions on how the Federal Reserve supervision should complement state insurance supervision for companies that are subject to both. We believe this legislation would create greater regulatory efficiency, without constraining the Federal Reserve's ability to fulfill its statutory mandate to protect the safety and soundness of these institutions.

As we developed this bill, both members of Congress and regulators identified potential improvements to ensure that the objectives of this bill are met. In particular, we are committed to preventing gaps in regulation, and ensuring that the Federal Reserve has adequate information and authority to step in when needed. Our objective is to pass a bill that embodies sound public policy and enjoys broad bipartisan support. We look forward to continued dialogue and hope our colleagues can support this needed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, just listening to some of this debate, it seems like some folks just want to find a way to vote ``no'' on this bill when there are many reasons to vote ``yes.''

I am pleased to rise today in support of Vice Chairman McHenry's bill, H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017. I also want to commend him for his hard work on this very important issue.

Under the valid-when-made doctrine, the interest rate on a loan that complies with Federal law when it is made will remain valid, regardless of whether that loan is transferred to a third party. This is an important principle, and it is essential to maintaining a vibrant secondary market and fostering continued growth in the online lending industry.

The Second Circuit's decision in Madden v. Midland, which challenged the valid-when-made doctrine, introduced significant uncertainty and risk,

threatening both the secondary market and fintech lending partnerships. This ultimately hurts consumers.

At the Financial Services Committee, we have extensively discussed the difficulty that many Americans face in getting credit. Madden v. Midland will only intensify that challenge for families and Main Street businesses as it jeopardizes the ability of banks to sell loans into the secondary market.

If banks find it difficult to sell debt to nonbanks, a common and healthy practice, they will be forced to become more restrictive in offering credit, and they may do so at a higher cost. Because of this, fewer consumers will be able to access the funds they need to build, invest, and innovate.

Throughout the course of the slow and uneven postcrisis economic recovery, we settled into a two-speed economy. The biggest and richest and best-connected firms have done just fine. They have a relatively easy time accessing funds. Small businesses, however, have been struggling to keep up. In fact, many haven't even gotten off the ground.

Researchers found that our economy is currently missing 650,000 small businesses; that is 650,000 fewer businesses that can innovate, create jobs, and invest in our communities. And those 650,000 businesses would have represented 6\1/2\ million jobs, 6\1/2\ million taxpayers, 6\1/2\ million people contributing to help Social Security and Medicare and helping to pay for our veterans' care.

Anyone who travels this country talking to small-business owners knows that access to credit is a major cause. By codifying valid when made, this bill will help to address one of the most pressing threats to our economic recovery and the resurgence of American small business.

As the OCC's former Acting Comptroller Keith Noreika noted, this ``proposal supports economic opportunity.''

H.R. 3299 will help to keep credit flowing through to those who need it, while ensuring that consumers are protected. This is a commonsense fix that provides the market with the clarity needed to support continued economic growth. I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act.

I also want to thank my colleague from Utah, Representative Love, for her hard work on this important issue.

We have extensively discussed the challenges that small banks face in the current regulatory environment, both on the House floor and in the Financial Services Committee, including, just yesterday, a debate on the Mortgage Choice Act.

These challenges contribute to the continued retreat of community banks from small towns and underserved communities across our country, including those that dot my district in the hills and valleys of western Pennsylvania.

This hurts families and Main Street businesses by depriving them of the access to financial services that they desperately need.

The Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act will allow more institutions to operate under the Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement, which will help them raise additional capital by issuing debt.

It will also make it easier for covered institutions to form new holding companies, fund existing holding companies, and make acquisitions.

Altogether, this is a smart, targeted bill that will help more small financial institutions grow and adjust to the changing economic and regulatory landscape.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 1153, the Mortgage Choice Act. As a cosponsor of the bill and the vice chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support its passage.

As we all know, community financial institutions continue to close or merge at an alarming rate. We just saw an article the other day that about 1,700 branches across the country have closed, and to go through some of the towns in western Pennsylvania where you see the only branch closed is striking.

As we all know, community financial institutions continue to close or merge at an alarming rate. Bit by bit, families across America are losing access to vital financial products like home mortgages. Regulations like the qualified mortgage, or QM rule, make it even harder for Americans to get a mortgage and realize the dream of homeownership.

For small mortgages, points and fees can often exceed 3 percent, which leads these mortgages to be designated as higher priced non-QM loans. This discourages financial institutions from lending to Americans with moderate incomes and first-time home buyers; that is why, because loans aren't there.

Chairman Huizenga's bill wisely addresses this issue by excluding several items from the calculation of QM

points and fees. The bill excludes charges paid to an affiliate of the lender for title examination or title insurance services and insurance premiums held in escrow.

By excluding these items from the calculation, the bill will allow more loans to qualify as QM, opening up more credit to potential home buyers, and it will facilitate one-stop shopping. This is good for the community financial institutions that many Americans rely on for their financial service products. It will help our constituents back home access the funds they need to accomplish the dream of homeownership.

Chairman Huizenga's legislation provides smart, targeted relief from the unintended consequences of burdensome regulations. Again, banks aren't making loans. We want to encourage those first-time home buyers, the moderate-income home buyers to be able to have access to mortgages. That is why I support this bill, and I again urge my colleagues to vote for the Mortgage Choice Act.

Madam Speaker, today is State of the Union day, and it is an opportunity for the Nation to hear from the President on the progress we have been making and the challenges that lie ahead.

One thing I am looking forward to is hearing about how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the regulatory reforms we have seen over the past year are causing our economy to roar back to life, creating more jobs and putting more money in people's pockets.

Fifty-five years ago, President Kennedy delivered a State of the Union that recognized the power of tax cuts that put money back into the private sector. Talking about the economy, President Kennedy said: ``To achieve these greater gains, one step, above all, is essential . . . a substantial reduction and revision in Federal income taxes.''

I am glad President Trump and Congress have followed President Kennedy's and President Reagan's model. The economic revival happening today is not only lifting incomes, it is what is going to generate the tax revenues that will help us meet the challenges that lie ahead. That is something for all Americans to celebrate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.

I have said it before and I will say it again:

Last summer, the House passed all 12 appropriations bills before the 2018 fiscal year started on October 1. In those bills, we appropriated the funds necessary to equip our servicemembers with the resources they need to defend this country in the face of threats from North Korea, China, Russia, al-Qaida,

ISIS, Iran, and cyber threats, just to name a few.

Yet our servicemembers have been routinely denied access to these resources as Senate Democrats have been holding back the full funding of our armed services. In doing so, they ask our servicemembers to go into battle with aging equipment and insufficient resources, risking their lives to defend America. Just 10 days ago, we had another helicopter accident and we lost two pilots who were in an Apache.

Our men and women in uniform haven't even had a modest pay raise in a very long time. It is time to deliver on this commitment.

Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity at times to visit our troops overseas. I had the opportunity at the end of last year to look into the young faces of our men and women over there. They are expecting us to do this.

I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle that our adversaries are on the move. Russia and China are expansionists now. North Korea and Iran fire off ballistic missiles at our allies, destabilizing those regions. There is no doubt that our inaction only emboldens them.

Mr. Speaker, we must rebuild our military before it is too late. The choice is easy: we either deter our enemies through superior strength, or we risk greater conflict by demonstrating weakness.

Let me be clear: what we spend on our defenses should not be a function of any other program. It should be a function of the threats our Nation faces and what we owe our servicemembers in the field.

Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues across the aisle to fund our military today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of this important bipartisan legislation, and especially the lead Democratic cosponsor, Representative Jim Himes from Connecticut.

The Federal Savings Association Charter Flexibility Act is a commonsense reform bill that will help to ensure that community banks, many of which have histories stretching back generations, can continue to serve the needs of Main Street businesses and families.

Specifically, this bill focuses on Federal savings associations, also known as thrifts. These institutions are similar to national banks in the sense that they are both chartered and regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the FDIC.

But these banks are constrained in their ability to pursue certain lines of business under the Home Owners' Loan Act, also known as HOLA. Specifically, HOLA subjects Federal thrifts to commercial lending limits.

Under what is known as the qualified thrift lender test, at least 65 percent of a Federal thrift's portfolio assets must comprise certain mortgage and consumer-related assets. These institutions are also constrained in their ability to hold commercial loans, paper, or corporate debt. In contrast, national banks enjoy the ability to engage in a much wider range of lending activities.

These restrictions originally made sense because thrifts also enjoyed advantages not afforded to national banks. But changes in law have eliminated or curtailed many of those benefits, and some thrifts have expressed frustration that these restrictions prevent them from being able to meet the changing needs of their local communities. Unfortunately, thrifts have not been immune to the industrywide trend of consolidations and closures that has accelerated over the last decade.

The Federal Savings Association Charter Flexibility Act provides these banks with additional flexibility to adjust to changing times and continue to serve their communities, despite these persistent headwinds.

Under current law, the only option available to Federal savings associations is a costly and complicated conversion to a national bank charter. This is a particularly burdensome process for mutually chartered Federal thrifts since it requires that they first convert to stock form before converting their charter.

The Federal Savings Association Charter Flexibility Act provides another, less disruptive option. Under my bill, Federal thrifts will have the ability to pursue a path that will allow them to operate with the same rights and duties as a national bank. But these banks will not have to go through the costly and cumbersome process of converting to stock form and then rechartering. Instead, the bill sets up a simple 60-day election process that will allow these institutions to become covered savings associations.

It will also require the OCC, which has been supportive of this legislation and has responsibility for regulating Federal savings associations and national banks, to establish an orderly and streamlined transition process.

This bill also includes important safeguards to prevent potential fire sales of assets and subsidiaries during the transition process, and it protects the OCC's ability to prevent firms from abusing the new structure.

Altogether, this effort will help to ensure that time-tested community financial institutions will continue to be able to serve their customers for years to come.

The Federal Savings Association Charter Flexibility Act has the support of the American Bankers Association and the Independent Community Bankers of America. It is also bipartisan, and it passed the Financial Services Committee with a 55-0 vote. Similar language has been included in the bipartisan Senate Banking Committee package, also.

In short, this bill represents the sort of reasonable, commonsense, across-the-aisle reform that our constituents want to see.

I want to briefly share some comments from the Pennsylvania Bankers Association, which represents a wide range of banks in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In their letter of support for this bill, they wrote: ``. . . this legislation represents sound, sensible regulatory relief.''

They also added that ``Federal savings associations are known for being responsive to their communities' needs, and this legislation will help them to expand and continue to do so.''

I ask that my colleagues support H.R. 1426, the Federal Savings Association Charter Flexibility Act.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I said, at this podium, that the resolution to the Schumer shutdown is simple: Senate Democrats need to vote ``yes'' on the short-term funding bill, and the government reopens, paychecks get processed for our troops, and the Children's Health Insurance Program is up and running. It is that simple.

Understand this: the Senate Democrats chose to shut down the government because they have more interest in creating a false deadline to address the DACA issues. The fact is the legislative process is already underway to address DACA.

I'm cosponsoring the Securing America's Future Act which not only addresses DACA but actually takes measures to make sure we actually solve the problem in the long term, including securing our borders, which is a big part of addressing the heroin crisis we have in our country.

Let's end the Schumer shutdown, reopen the government, and continue our work to address the critical issues facing our country.

Mr. Speaker, it is simple until you make it complicated. There is a poster in my office that says just that, and it kind of describes where we are at today.

We are having a lot of debate in this House about the current government funding situation, our military, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, which, by the way, House Republicans actually voted to extend more than 2 months ago and did again this past week.

Here is the simple part: the Children's Health Insurance Program can be reauthorized, the government can be reopened, and paychecks sent to our troops without delay if Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey and other Senate Democrats change their votes to make that happen.

The short-term funding bill and Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization is about as bipartisan and noncontroversial as you can get around here, yet Senator Schumer decided to make a crisis out of it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to ask Senator Schumer and Senator Casey: Would you vote to reopen the government today? Would it make a difference, if I said ``please?''

Mr. Speaker, last November, more than 2 months ago, this House passed the reauthorization for the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP.

The House again passed the reauthorization for CHIP this week, but last night, in addition to voting ``no'' on CHIP, Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats voted ``no'' on keeping the government funded, and here we are.

The funding that Senate Democrats rejected last night includes funding for our Nation's servicemembers, tens of thousands of whom are deployed throughout the Middle East, the Pacific, and Korea.

They could have voted ``yes'' to the families waiting for the Children's Health Insurance Program and ``yes'' to our troops, but they did not.

There is no excuse for this. The issues of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and securing our border are being negotiated separate and apart from this funding bill and CHIP, and there are serious proposals to address these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Senate Democrats to change course, end the Schumer shutdown, and do what is right for the American people: pass the government funding and Children's Health Insurance Program that we sent over days ago.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

This should not be a controversial vote. This bill should pass unanimously.

If a little girl is born alive, she should be protected. It is that simple.

Everyone in this House, everyone hearing my voice, was at a point of just having been born, and all of us had a right to live at that point, whether we were wanted or not.

I wonder what the great pro-life Democrats of yesterday would think of what we are hearing from the other side today, pro-life leaders like Eunice Kennedy Shriver; Sargent Shriver; Thomas Eagleton; and, of course, the late great Governor Casey of Pennsylvania. Their rhetoric reminds me of what Governor Casey said 25 years ago:

It is a bitter irony that abortion has found a home within

the Democratic Party, which claims to be a champion of the

poor, despite the fact that the interests of the poor are in

direct conflict with the interests and the agenda of the

abortion industry.

Madam Speaker, this is a simple bill. Please vote for humanity. Please vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, last summer, the House passed all 12 appropriations bills before the fiscal year started on October 1.

We appropriated nearly $650 billion to provide our servicemembers with the resources they need to defend this country in the face of threats from North Korea, China, Russia, al-Qaida, ISIS, and Iran. The House funded other Federal programs at nearly $550 billion.

For the past 3\1/2\ months, however, our military and servicemembers have been operating under continuing resolutions, also known as CRs, which means they are stuck at the funding levels they had last year. That is because Senate Democrats are holding back the full funding of our defenses so they can add billions of dollars more in other Federal spending.

The defense of this country, Mr. Speaker, is not some bargaining chip, and preventing our servicemembers from getting the resources they need, especially after we have seen servicemember deaths resulting from the lack of training and proper equipment, is unconscionable.

As Secretary Mattis told us last year: ``Long-term CRs impact the readiness of our forces and their equipment at a time when security threats are extraordinarily high. The longer the CR, the greater the consequences for our force.''

It is way past time for Senate Democrats to end their filibustering of our Nation's defense and to start helping our servicemembers in harm's way.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Chris Smith, for his long work in this endeavor.

This past Monday, our country observed Martin Luther King Day. I had

the privilege of participating back home in some events honoring Dr. King.

While reflecting on Dr. King's legacy at one of the events, I recalled decades ago when I first read the letter from the Birmingham jail.

Dr. King explained there are two types of laws: just and unjust.

Dr. King asked: What is the difference between the two?

He answered that a just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.

To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, Dr. King said: an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

Defending the natural law principles of the Declaration of Independence is one of the reasons I ran for Congress. The first right listed in the Declaration is the God-given right to life.

This Friday marks the 45th anniversary of one of the most somber days in our country's history: the day that the Supreme Court issued Roe v. Wade.

Associate Justice Byron White called this decision an exercise in ``raw judicial power,'' as the court invented a right to abortion that wiped out the laws of all 50 States.

To echo the words from Dr. King's 1963 address at the Lincoln Memorial, the Supreme Court stamped the promissory note of the rights in the Declaration of Independence with ``insufficient funds'' for the unborn.

As we observe this sad anniversary, let us, once again, restore the promise of our Declaration of Independence's right to life.

I look forward to greeting constituents at the March for Life.

Mr. Speaker, I, again, commend Congressman Smith for his tireless advocacy in defending the defenseless.