Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 1861, legislation to posthumously award the Congressional Gold Medal to Larry Doby in recognition of his athletic and civil rights achievements.

But I must say that we would not be here today but for Mr. Pascrell, who has been dedicated and committed to the proposition that Larry Doby should be recognized for his tremendous talent and for his tremendous contribution not only to athletics but to civil rights and other efforts that he was involved in.

Larry Doby became the first African American professional baseball player in the American League in July 1947, 3 months after Jackie Robinson had become the first African American professional baseball player in the National League. While the name, Jackie Robinson, is known in almost every American household, Larry Doby did not receive nearly as much media attention, though he is every bit as deserving.

Larry Doby played an integral role in breaking down the color barrier and in integrating the American League. Larry Doby signed with the Cleveland Indians in 1947, and at the time, was not even welcomed by his own teammates, several of whom refused to shake his hand upon meeting him for the first time. Outside of his own team, Doby faced racism and prejudice from opposing players and fans, having to endure racial slurs and death threats.

Despite the adversity he faced, Doby paved the way for countless African American players with dignity and class. In 1948, Doby became one of the first African American players to win a World Series championship when the Indians beat the Boston Braves. In game four of the series, he became the first African American player to hit a home run in World Series history. He also helped the Indians win a franchise record, 111 games, and the American League pennant in 1954, and was the American League RBI leader and home run champion.

After playing with the Indians, Doby had a long and successful baseball career playing with the Chicago White Sox, the Detroit Tigers, and the Dragons before retiring in 1962.

Following his retirement, he served as a manager for various teams and became the second African American manager in the majors with the Chicago White Sox. He also served as a director with the New Jersey Nets in the NBA. In 1998, he was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by the hall's Veterans Committee.

His athletic contributions to major league baseball are, without a doubt, impressive and admirable, but Larry Doby's tenacity, determination, and his role as a pioneer in the face of tremendous hardship to integrate baseball are deserving of the utmost recognition and respect.

I would urge all of my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation to recognize Larry Doby with the Congressional Gold Medal.

And let me just say, more than anybody, I think that my colleague, Mr. Pascrell, must again be commended and recognized for the fact that he insisted that this should take place, that this gold medal should be presented on behalf of Larry Doby, and so it is because of him that we find ourselves here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill, who has been tireless in his efforts to bring this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5749, which is a tailored, bipartisan solution to the problems facing our Nation's options markets.

Options are a type of derivative contract that provide investors with the right to buy or sell stock or other securities at some point in the future. According to the Chicago Board Options Exchange, which supports the bill, bank affiliates that clear options on behalf of large traders have been restricting their services because of the current bank capital calculation and resulting costs.

As a consequence, they argue that large options traders, known as market-makers, are not readily able to trade when investors need them to and are having to charge more when they do trade. There are also fewer market-makers overall and more trading activity concentrated among the top five firms.

H.R. 5749 would direct the bank regulators to consider this problem while still focusing on the benefits of bank capital to reduce systemic risk.

Now, I am aware that the Federal Reserve just proposed to significantly change banks' capital requirements, including through a rollback of the supplementary leverage ratio. If the Fed's proposals are finalized, FDIC-insured banks could shed as much as $121 billion in capital, making it more likely that one of the Wall Street megabanks will fail in a future downturn and cause untold damage to the economy.

On top of that, the President signed into law S. 2155, which will recklessly reduce capital and other requirements on the Nation's largest banks. I am very concerned with these developments and urge our regulators to ensure the safety and soundness of megabanks and our financial system.

H.R. 5749 would make sure that this is the case for bank capital associated with cleared options. Specifically, the bill would require the bank regulators to conduct a rulemaking after considering several important factors, including the safety and soundness of the financial system, financial stability, and the impact of the changes on the broader capital regime.

Unlike the introduced version of the bill, which would only reduce capital, the bill, as amended, would direct the regulators to increase capital for riskier derivatives.

It also would create a retrospective rule review so that, 5 years after implementation, the regulators would study the impact of their rule.

So I want to thank Representative Foster and Representative Hultgren for working together to promote trading in our options markets without sacrificing bank safety and soundness.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5749, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5877, the Main Street Growth Act, a new and innovative idea that will help our Nation's small businesses raise funds to grow by issuing stock that investors are able to easily buy and sell in the secondary markets.

Specifically, H.R. 5877 would create a venture exchange for investors to trade in the stock of emerging growth companies and early stage growth companies.

Unlike a similar partisan bill last Congress, H.R. 5877, as amended, would allow companies to create a venture exchange in a way that balances the needs of small companies and the protection of their investors in the secondary markets.

Most importantly, the bill would retain State regulatory oversight over these small unregistered companies, which are more prone to fraud and failure. For example, small companies that are not regularly traded are frequent targets of scammers that use pump-and-dump schemes to dupe investors into thinking the stock is worth more than it is by spreading fake news and hot tips and then selling the stock at artificially high prices.

So it makes sense for our State regulators, who are very familiar with these scams, to regulate and oversee these companies.

I am also pleased that the bill ensures that companies trading on a venture exchange have a minimum level of disclosure and ongoing disclosure, including annual and semi-annual reports, that detail the health of the company's finances, business, and management, as well as the company's related party transactions and share ownership.

This is important to investors buying shares on a venture exchange who may have little to no relationship to the company to otherwise have access to such information.

In addition, the bill would allow the SEC to establish additional restrictions on any over-the-counter trading that is not on a venture exchange.

If our goal is to centralize trading on a single exchange to make it easier for investors to buy and sell small company stock, then I think it makes sense for the SEC to have the authority to limit over-the- counter trading.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5877, and I thank Representative Emmer for working with Democrats to support our Nation's small businesses and their investors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Sherman, for working across the aisle to develop H.R. 5953, the Building Up Independent Lives and Dreams Act, or the BUILD Act, which will assist nonprofits in providing affordable housing to those in need.

Some nonprofit organizations, like Habitat for Humanity, help borrowers who would otherwise not be able to afford a home by offering zero percent interest mortgages with terms that ensure the borrowers have the ability to repay the loans while also taking care of other household expenses. Oftentimes, these nonprofits rely heavily on limited staffs or volunteer labor to underwrite mortgages for families in need.

Because of these unique dynamics, some smaller affiliates of these types of organizations have had a bit of difficulty adapting to the current updated disclosure forms that are used to inform mortgage borrowers about the material terms and costs of their loans. This bill would give those nonprofits the flexibility to choose whether to use truth-in-lending, good-faith estimate, and HUD-1 mortgage disclosure forms when originating a mortgage or the TILA-RESPA integrated disclosure, or TRID, forms.

Even though this very narrow exemption already applies to organizations that make five or fewer mortgages annually, I believe we are all in agreement that extending this flexibility to charitable nonprofits with a unique business model like Habitat is a positive change.

Nonprofits like Habitat for Humanity operate with different business models and traditional financing institutions. They are and they serve a different clientele. It is clear that the BUILD Act does not provide any opportunity for other types of lenders to take advantage of the carve-out in a way that could potentially harm borrowers. With that in mind, I support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

H.R. 4537, as amended, would ensure that international insurance standards or agreements are consistent with our domestic insurance system. The bill also encourages greater transparency, accountability, and congressional involvement in the development of international insurance standards and covered agreements.

H.R. 4537, the International Insurance Standards Act of 2018, is a product of months of bipartisan negotiations. I am pleased to be able to support the final compromise bill that is before us today.

Today's bill is a reflection of the work of the bill's sponsors, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Heck, and many others, including myself, to narrow and streamline the bill so that we do not intentionally weaken the United States' ability to negotiate strong rules internationally.

This is important. We cannot forget that, during 2007 and 2009, the United States faced the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression. One of the most notable events during the crisis was the near collapse of insurance giant AIG, which threatened the stability of the entire U.S. financial system.

AIG's rapid demise and need for a Federal bailout underscored the importance of consolidated supervision and appropriate prudential standards for certain types of nonbank financial institutions, including large, global insurance companies.

The Dodd-Frank Act helped us fill in these gaps. I would like to note that the core Dodd-Frank reforms, in this respect, remain intact in this bill.

Again, I would like to thank Mr. Duffy, Mr. Heck, and their staffs for working with me and my staff to improve the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a special moment to thank Mr. Duffy and Mr. Heck. They worked very hard to resolve the concerns and the differences that arose in trying to put together this legislation.

As Mr. Duffy has said, the world has changed, and we cannot be isolated in any way, just thinking about regulations that absolutely are impacted by what is going on internationally. I think, with all the hard work that was done by these two Members, we were able to figure out how to protect the work of the States and the laws that we have, but, at the same time, recognize that we are working in an international atmosphere. We must understand that gaps must be closed; I think we have done that sufficiently.

Again, I would like to thank them. Mr. Heck is just getting off the plane. He wanted to be here, because he has worked so hard on this legislation. He is not able to make it, but I want everybody to recognize that he did a tremendous job in helping us work through the difficulties of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate reality in our country that a child's ZIP Code can determine her future and that families often have limited options in choosing where to live.

Rigorous studies have demonstrated that giving a low-income family the opportunity to move to a lower poverty neighborhood can have a profound impact, particularly for young children.

For example, one study found that young boys and girls in families that used a voucher to move to lower poverty neighborhoods were 32 percent more likely to attend college and earn 31 percent more annually compared to their counterparts in families that did not receive a voucher.

However, families with housing choice vouchers continue to face significant challenges if they want to move to a better neighborhood. In fact, data shows that only one in eight families with children with a housing choice voucher used their vouchers to live in low-poverty areas.

H.R. 5793 will help reduce barriers to mobility for families with housing choice vouchers by establishing a demonstration program that would enable and incentivize public housing agencies to form regional collaborations that will enhance opportunities for mobility across jurisdictions.

This is a bipartisan proposal that was included in previous HUD budget requests under the Obama administration. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that this demonstration will allow more than 7,000 families to move to areas of opportunity.

I am pleased to support this legislation, and, of course, I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I would like to say that Mr. Cleaver and Mr. Duffy have worked very hard to get this demonstration. I am very pleased about that because it is well known that I have big concerns about HUD and HUD's ability to give the kind of support to the least of these and families that need it so desperately. But this may be an indication that we can get more positive action from HUD.

So, again, I am very pleased to support this legislation, and I would like all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), the ranking member of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee and the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this bill because we all must have hope. We all must have hope that we can get rid of poverty, that we can open up opportunities, that we can do something that would allow families who are locked into very poor neighborhoods be able to escape those neighborhoods and have better opportunities.

It is not always clear how that is going to happen, but given this legislation by Mr. Duffy and Mr. Cleaver, they certainly are attempting to put something together that may be able to move these families and give them better opportunities.

We know that we support housing with Section 8 and public housing projects, et cetera, and we know that we have people who have Section 8 certificates who have been desperately looking for a decent place to live and would love to be able to move into higher opportunity neighborhoods.

We have got to think in this collaboration that is going to be done about

how we are going to convince landlords to be more open to accepting voucher choice participants. We have got to think about what public housing programs can do. Most, of course, public housing is in poor neighborhoods. But certainly, if we have those who are in stronger neighborhoods, better neighborhoods, perhaps there can be the kind of collaboration that can see to it that people in some of the poorer neighborhoods and public housing would have an opportunity for moving into these better neighborhoods.

So, again, I think we must be hopeful. We don't always know how it is going to be done, but to give it a try is certainly worthwhile.

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, robust and regular disclosures by public companies, such as the detailed quarterly financial information filed on a form 10Q, make our markets more attractive to investors by enabling informed investment decisions and ensuring shareholders can hold corporate boards accountable for practices that may undermine the value of the company.

Standardized quarterly financial reporting on form 10Q also provides a means for regulators to conduct efficient and effective oversight of public companies and protect investors from fraud and other corporate misconduct.

When investors have faith in the integrity of our markets, they are more likely to entrust their capital to public companies, thereby providing opportunities for economic growth and job creation.

The benefits of quarterly reporting are well recognized by the investor community. In a June 2016 letter to the SEC's Division of Corporate Finance, the SEC's Investor Advisory Committee wrote, ``The current degree, quality, and frequency of disclosure for U.S. issuers overall is appropriate and a source of strength for the U.S. capital markets. The current system greatly benefits retirees, pension funds, endowments, and households that are directly and indirectly market participants.''

Additionally, in May and June of this year, investors and investor advocacy groups wrote to the Financial Services Committee expressing their support for the SEC's current quarterly reporting regime, including the form 10Q.

According to CalPERS, the largest public pension fund in the United States with more than $350 billion in global assets, ``10Qs provide substantial and important information and serve as a great historical resource. Any modification of standard quarterly filings should be preceded by significant study with ample opportunity for investor input.''

While some business groups have called for the elimination of the 10Q as a cost-saving measure for corporations, I agree that any attempt to alter the existing quarterly reporting requirements first requires a careful and balanced study that considers the impact of any changes on investors and our markets.

H.R. 5970, as amended, requires the SEC to conduct such a study, to include consideration of the benefits of form 10Q reporting to the SEC, public companies, investors, market researchers, and other market participants.

I support the bill as amended, and I thank Mr. Gottheimer and Mrs. Wagner for working together to develop a bipartisan approach to the study. I hope that the SEC takes this study as an opportunity to hear from investors about the disclosures they find important and ensure that our public markets and the companies which seek to access them continue to enjoy the benefits of comprehensive and standardized financial disclosure.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5841, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018. This bill represents a bipartisan effort to bring much-needed reform to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, which serves an important function in the national security area.

I would like to thank Chairman Hensarling, Chairman Barr, Ranking Member Moore, Congressman Pittenger, Congresswoman Maloney, and also Congressman Heck, who is here today, in particular.

Congressman Heck has, for the good part of a year, been working very hard to ensure that any legislation addresses key jurisdictional gaps in the current scope of CFIUS authority, and this bill does just that. I thank him for his leadership.

It is Congress' responsibility to ensure that CFIUS appropriately balances the benefits of our traditionally open investment climate with the need to protect our national security. And make no mistake, the national security threats we face today in this area are both serious and evolving. The world has become a much more complicated place since Congress last reviewed and reformed the CFIUS process a decade ago. The bill brings CFIUS into the 21st century.

H.R. 5841 would expand the jurisdiction of CFIUS with regard to certain types of transactions that have previously avoided scrutiny, and it reforms the national security reviews performed by CFIUS to address growing concerns that foreign entities may be using acquisitions of and partnerships with U.S. businesses to chip away at American technological leadership.

The primary concern here is that China's aggressive industrial policy and their efforts to invest in early stage, cutting-edge U.S. technologies with potential military applications, including artificial intelligence and robotics, in part to advance China's military modernization, will diminish America's technological advantage.

During the course of our deliberations on this legislation, despite some honest intellectual disagreements as to how best to counter this threat, at the end of the day, we understood that we have a responsibility to address these problems in the most effective and efficient way possible, in ways that do not undermine other important functions of government, many of which also contribute to our national security.

Importantly, this legislation also recognizes that, as the volume of cases and the complexity of transactions continue to increase, expanding the scope of CFIUS without additional resources would not only undermine CFIUS' mission, but it would also deplete other important government services and functions, both domestically and internationally.

So I am very glad that this legislation authorizes $20 million annually for the next 5 years to fund CFIUS' operation, as well as provide the authority for Treasury to impose a filing fee on the companies that file with CFIUS based on the value of the transaction, taking into account a number of other factors, including the effect of any given fee on small-business concerns.

The bill does not address everyone's concerns yet, including concerns by some entertainment industry stakeholders, which I share. As we move forward, I will continue to support ongoing refinements to the legislation.

H.R. 5841 deserves strong support in the House, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a member of the Financial Services Committee who has fought tirelessly on CFIUS reform and has been engaged in this process from the beginning, for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that all of our speakers have been eloquent in the way that they have described the work that was done on the bill. I am very pleased and proud that on this issue of national security that we were able to come together. I think that what we have done is certainly in the best interests of our country.

As the chairman said, some did not get everything that they would like to have in the bill, but we were able to work through the various concerns, I think, in a very honest and open way.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to say that I appreciate the bipartisan work of the bill's sponsor, Chairman Greg Walden, and, of course, Chairman Kevin Brady and our cosponsor Frank Pallone and cosponsor Richard Neal on this bill, H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose H.R. 5797, also known as the ``IMD CARE Act.''

H.R. 5797 allows states to use Medicaid funds to treat adult patients ages 21-64 with opioid abuse disorders in Institutions for Mental Disease (IMDs) with more than 16 beds. While expanding access to treatment for substance abuse disorders is an admirable goal, H.R. 5797 is not the way to accomplish this goal.

One obvious limitation of H.R. 5797 is that it only applies to opioid and heroin use disorders. It does nothing to expand access to treatment for other types of substance abuse disorders, including alcoholism and the abuse of other illegal drugs like methamphetamine, crack, and other forms of cocaine.

A second problem with this bill is that it only expands access to treatment in inpatient IMD

facilities. It does not provide Medicaid funding for substance abuse treatment services in an outpatient setting, nor does it require states to make such services available. Not all substance abuse patients need to be treated in an institution, and those that do will also need outpatient recovery services after they are released from an IMD.

Currently, states can already use Medicaid funds to treat patients in IMD facilities by means of a waiver from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In order to qualify for a waiver, states must take steps to ensure that patients are able to obtain substance abuse treatment and services in the community, as well as in institutions. Eleven states already have a waiver for this purpose, and eleven other states have waiver applications pending. Expanding access to inpatient treatment in states that do not provide outpatient services risks forcing patients into treatment that is ineffective and inappropriate for their situation.

Another option that is already available for states that want to expand access to substance abuse treatment services is to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Medicaid expansion would ensure that all low-income people, including those with substance abuse disorders, are able to obtain treatment for their medical conditions.

I submitted an amendment that would have required states to expand Medicaid pursuant to the Affordable Care Act as a condition for using Medicaid funds to treat people with opioid abuse disorders in IMD facilities. This amendment would have provided an additional incentive for states to expand Medicaid, which in turn would have expanded access to a broad range of treatment and services for patients with substance abuse disorders.

Expanding access to Medicaid will benefit patients with substance abuse disorders, regardless of the type of addiction from which they suffer and regardless of whether they would be best served by inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment, or a combination of the two.

It is especially ironic that this bill is being considered on the House floor the day after House Republicans unveiled their fiscal year 2019 budget proposal, which would cut $1.5 trillion from Medicaid. If the majority party cares about Americans suffering from an opioid abuse disorder, they would not rob them of the health care services thiey already have.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5797 and support a comprehensive solution to substance abuse disorders that will meet the needs of all people suffering from these tragic medical conditions.

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

Mr. Chairman, as I sat here and I listened to Congressman Hensarling, the chair of the Financial Services Committee, where I serve as ranking member, I thought to myself he was absolutely correct on many of the issues that he surfaced when he held the letter up in the air and he said that there are many Members of Congress who could tell similar stories or maybe have gotten similar letters. He is absolutely correct.

Even more than that, there are many of us who have watched the devastation of communities that we represent because of drug addiction over the years for a long time. Unfortunately, many of these stories ended in tragedy, and I am pleased that we are focusing time and attention on opioid addiction and abuse.

I am so absolutely thrilled that we are paying attention, and we are recognizing that this is literally a disease and that we can help people, that we can do rehabilitation, that we can provide resources to keep people from dying and being imprisoned and treated in ways that will not help deal with the problem in any real ways. I am pleased about all of that, and I think the intentions of many of our Members are very good, that they really want to do something because many of them are seeing this for the first time.

But let me tell you how many years I have been seeing this. Let me tell you about how many deaths I know about. Let me tell you about the imprisonment of those who were both addicted and dealing drugs. Let me tell you about those who have died not only from heroin, that you are seeing now, but crack cocaine and other kinds of drugs and the mixtures that we don't even know about that have caused so many deaths, so much devastation.

So I want to do everything that I can to share my knowledge with you, to share my experiences with you, to help in every way that I possibly can move to credible, reasonable, sensible, rehabilitation and support and assistance for those who are addicted.

We are trying, as I can see in many of the bills that are being produced, to do what we think is best, but much of it needs more consideration. It needs better understanding.

Today, we hear talking about a piece of legislation that I think the author of the legislation is absolutely sincere in what he would like to do. He is seeing drug addicted persons who have abused not only prescription drugs but all the way to heroin on the streets without jobs, laying in the alleys without support, without housing, no place to go, and that is what he is attempting to do. He is attempting to do everything that he possibly can to get them safe and secure places to live with the other resources that must go along with it, supportive resources in order to help them become the persons that they can be.

But you cannot do this on the cheap. You cannot do this without understanding that rehabilitation costs money.

So, while I absolutely applaud the attempt, I want to share with you that taking 10,000 vouchers from those who have been waiting in line for years--I am talking about single-family parents with their children who simply are praying and hoping that they can get a voucher so that they can get a decent place to live.

I am not talking about drug addicted people, necessarily. I am talking about people, some of whom work every day on minimum wages who cannot afford the first and last month's rent to get into a place. I am talking about those who, even if they could find a place, they would be paying more than 30 percent of their income to have a safe and decent place. I am talking about those who have been living in rental units that really need more than just rehabilitation. They are dangerous places that people are living.

They are places that still are not protected from wind and rain and all of those things that people should not have to experience trying to live in a decent place to live. I am talking about people who are living in apartments that the ceilings are falling in who are looking for a decent place. I am talking about people who call every day to check to see if in fact they are going to be the next person who is going to be allowed a voucher. I am talking about people who have been waiting 2 and 3 years and on and on and on.

So I support the idea that the new population of opioid abusers can have a decent place to live and resources, but let's not deny the people who have been standing in line, who have been praying, who have been hoping for a decent place. Let's not take 10,000 vouchers in a so- called demonstration project.

Really, we don't need a demonstration project. I can tell you, many folks in this House can tell you what they know and what they have experienced so that we can put together good, credible, sensible legislation. But it will cost some money.

It is not about taking from one and giving to the other. The old people call

that robbing Peter to pay Paul. We don't want to do that. We don't want to say to Ms. Jones with 3 kids out there waiting in line for 4 years, 3 years, 2 years, what have you: Sorry, we have a new population that we are going to serve. No, we are not going to vote for more money, for more resources. We are going to take from your opportunity. Sorry you have been standing in line all this long.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to be helpful to all of the folks who need our help. I understand the shock that many are going through who are experiencing this for the first time, but I want you to know about the many nights that I have gone to bed when I have heard about another death of someone who is addicted, who has not had a place to live, who has been on somebody's doorstep, who has been in an alley. I want you to know what I know and what I understand about that mother who has begged me to help find a bed in a unit, a rehabilitative unit that could be used.

So this is not the way to do it, and this is not about creating new nonprofits with no experience, no background, to be able to implement this program. This is about understanding all the people who have struggled with these nonprofits, who begged for money, who begged for resources to deal with the populations who are basically dying from this addiction.

So whether it is about the fact that there is not enough money here, or we should not be developing new nonprofits to do this because we have experience with our public housing entities that know how to do this, this is about us saying: Yes, we have a problem, and we are going to spend the money. We are going to put the time in on it to develop the good, credible legislation. We are going to be serious about it. We don't want to just look like we are trying to do something. We are going to be positive. We are going to be committed. We are going to do what it takes in order to help these people who are waiting and looking for just another chance in life.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I think we should have a little clarity in what is being presented by my colleague about whether or not vouchers will be taken away from anybody. The fact of the matter is nobody thinks that vouchers will be taken away from anybody. They will never get the voucher.

They are standing in line waiting for years to get Section 8 vouchers to be able to have a decent place to live. That means that you take 10,000 vouchers away from the people, and the families, and the children, who have been waiting in line all of this time and you give it to a new population of people. That is what this is all about. That cannot be denied, and that is a fact.

I am sure that my colleague who is proposing this legislation will agree with me, the fact of the matter is, that person who has been waiting for so long will have to continue to wait, because the voucher that he or she could have gotten is going to go to someone else.

Let me just talk a little bit about Mr. Barr's letter that he sent to the appropriators. First of all, I want to thank him for offering to send the letter. And I want to thank him for coming to me and asking me if I would sign on to the letter. What Mr. Barr is doing is--if I may correctly describe this--is having second thoughts about the fact that you need some money, you need some resources in this program. So the gentleman from Kentucky's letter to the appropriators is basically meaningless, because his own bill directly contradicts it.

And I pointed this out to him as we had this discussion. The plain text of H.R. 5735 states, ``No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of this act

and the amendments made by this act. Such requirements shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.''

Mr. Chairman, you can't have it both ways. You can't support language that specifically prohibits appropriators from funding your demonstration and then turn around and ask the appropriators to provide funding. This just doesn't make good sense. That is why I had to say that I could not sign on with him on that letter, knowing what the language was in the legislation.

So, if the gentleman from Kentucky wants funding for this demonstration, he needs to be consistent in his advocacy for that funding, and that includes petitioning his own leadership for a waiver of their rules preventing bills that cost money from being considered.

I would be happy to join the gentleman from Kentucky in requesting funding for additional vouchers to support people with substance use disorders. But I cannot support this unworkable demonstration. And I cannot lend credibility to his efforts to distract us from the fact that his bill would take vouchers away from families in need, who have been standing in line begging, waiting, and praying for a decent, safe and secure place for them and their families to live.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, yes, Mr. Duffy is absolutely correct, I care about this issue very deeply, and I want to do the right thing. I want him to know that while he was talking about the 2.8 million vouchers, does he know that there are 5 million people who are in need of these vouchers?

You cannot make the argument that there is more than enough to go around with all of these people standing in line. When they opened up the waiting list recently, just in Los Angeles alone, 600,000 people attempted to get access to these vouchers.

This is about whether or not you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. Either you are willing to pay for your demonstration project, or you want to take away the opportunities of those who have been standing in line, and we are talking about families with children. You don't tell me what is going to happen to them because you won't increase the number of vouchers, and you don't want to put any money into it, so you have to show how you care.

It is one thing for us to get up on this floor and talk and debate and explain what we would like to see happen, but it is another thing when we say that we are willing to put the resources that are needed to deal with the problem.

I will just say that of the 2.8 million people waiting, 5 million people are in need, and the average waiting time is almost 2 years. So what are you going to do? You don't need a demonstration. We have enough information, we have enough research, and we have enough stories about what has happened for so many years and how so many people have died because they have not had resources available to them to deal with the problem.

And, again, I am willing to spend as many hours as it takes to help you know and understand the history of this problem. It didn't just start with opioid abuse. It didn't just start with communities who never experienced this before. This has been going on for years and years and years.

I join with Members in wanting to do something about it. But I say to Mr. Barr, it is going to cost some money, and we should not rob Peter to pay Paul. We should not take from those in need. We should not tell the people standing in line, Too bad, stand in line a little bit longer because we have a new episode that we have to deal with.

Let's take care of everybody who wants to change their lives, everybody who wants to put behind them this addiction, everybody who is begging for just a second chance.

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

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

Again, I am so pleased that Members on the opposite side of the aisle are just being introduced to this crisis. I am so pleased that they are just learning about addiction. I am so pleased that they are willing to talk about it. But I am not so pleased that they are not willing to spend any resources on it. I don't know if they understand that the average cost of a voucher annually is $9,500.

Why can't they support that amount of money to deal with credible, decent housing for the very individuals that they say they are trying to give some support to. I don't know how much they know about addiction. And I don't know how much they know about the history of the war on drugs.

Have any of them ever visited a drug rehabilitation project? Let me commend them to one that they need to know about. It is right here in Washington, D.C. It is known as N Street Village. Please go. I want them to learn about what they do, or what the costs are, and how they struggle for more and more resources to help more and more people. They cannot legislate. They cannot come up with programs without having an understanding of, and an appreciation of, what has happened in this country and the many people who have died, and the families who have suffered.

It didn't just start now. The gentleman who just spoke talked about it is now a crisis. No, it has been a crisis for a long time.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

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

Mr. Chair, it is interesting that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle can come into this Chamber and talk about homelessness and talk about rehabilitation and talk about the need for housing.

I am the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee with every wish and every hope to be able to have this committee take up a bill on homelessness. I have not been able to get that done. We have taken up over 100 bills on the Financial Services Committee, but not once have we dealt with the issue of homelessness.

The gentleman from Minnesota who talked about homelessness and the fact that veterans are homeless is absolutely correct, but what are you going to do about it?

Are you going to come to the floor to try and convince the Members of this House that somehow a demonstration project where you take 10,000 vouchers from the existing vouchers that people are standing in line for is going to make a dent in this problem? I don't think so.

This problem has been around for a long time, and I really do want the Members on the opposite side of the aisle to understand what has not been done to help those people who have needed a lot of assistance and a lot of help.

I can recall, God bless her soul, when Nancy Reagan said to drug abusers, ``Just Say No.'' This is another piece of legislation that falls in that category: 10,000 vouchers in a demonstration project.

You have been hearing how huge this problem is. We don't need a demonstration project for a few people taking 10,000 vouchers from those who have been standing in line. We need to appropriate the dollars that are necessary, number one, to help fund those organizations that have been working on this problem for years that need more money, that need more beds, that need more resources.

We need more money not only to deal with the housing issue that is attempting to be addressed in this demonstration project, but whether it is helping to equip police departments with the necessary equipment to save lives of the people on the street who are overdosed that they encounter in their daily work. Some communities have that, a few communities have that, but every community experiencing this problem needs to have that.

In addition to that, we need more beds for rehabilitation. You can't get to supportive housing until you deal with the addiction so that when people are ready to go into transitional housing, they get the support that goes along with that. That is not just a bed and a roof, but it is the social services that go along with it.

It will cost money, and unless you are willing to put up the dollars, unless you are willing to work with our appropriators to do what is necessary to honestly and forcefully deal with this issue, we are just talking about it. We are just pontificating. We are just saying things that we don't even understand.

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

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

While I have this opportunity, I will refer to my bill on homelessness again. My bill is a bill that will end homelessness. It costs $13 billion, and I would dare say that we could have funded this effort when we were thinking about the tax cuts.

Some of those tax cuts benefit the richest people in this country. While we were reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, we could have easily spent $13 billion to deal with ending homelessness.

That tax cut was worth $1.8 trillion. $13 billion from that $1.8 trillion, what would that have done for homelessness in America? We could have been on the road to ending homelessness.

So the bill number is H.R. 2076. I am hopeful that the Members of the House and the Members of the Senate will take a look at this legislation so that they know that we have something that has been given a lot of attention, that has a lot of research, that understands what it takes to get rid of homelessness. So my bill, H.R. 2076, is a bill that I would ask my colleagues to immediately support.

Mr. Chairman, we have many Members of this Congress who want to do something about providing housing opportunities for those who are the victims of opioid abuse and drugs. I join with them, and I, too, am very concerned, and I know that we can do something substantive about this issue of providing housing opportunities.

But again, I will say over and over again, it should not be done in such a way that we have a little demonstration project that will take away 10,000 vouchers from the neediest of people who have been standing in line, in order to say or think or have anyone believe that we are doing something about this crisis in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of Mr. Hensarling how many more speakers he has.

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

Mr. Chairman, this week, we are seeing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle advance legislation focused on individuals with opioid use disorders. We are really talking about drug addiction. These are the people they used to call drug addicts, and I don't want us to hide behind any new language. We are talking about a serious problem of addiction here.

But something very important is missing from these bills and that is new resources and funding necessary to actually make a difference for those individuals.

H.R. 5735 is a clear example of this problematic approach. Rather than providing funding for housing assistance vouchers for individuals with disorders, individuals who are addicted, this bill takes away 10,000 existing vouchers that would otherwise go to people in need, many of whom have been waiting and waiting for years.

There are millions of people on waiting lists across the country, including families with children, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, and others in need. Redistributing these vouchers away from others who need housing is simply not a fair or reasonable step.

What we need is bold action to commit real dollars to tackling this public health crisis, and also to address the shortage of affordable housing in this country. Unfortunately, this bill falls short and commits no new funding for additional vouchers.

While H.R. 5735 has an important goal, the way it tries to get there is ultimately harmful and counterproductive.

For these reasons, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this bill. This will not begin to make a dent in the crisis. We

don't need a demonstration project. We need to move forward with a committed project with the funding that is necessary in order to deal with drug addiction.

We have drug addicts who are in the alleys and on the streets in communities who never saw this before, who never experienced this before.

Listen to someone who has seen it, who knows about it, who understands how many lives have been lost because of it, and let's do the right thing. It is not about a demonstration project. It is not about just a few vouchers. This is about real action.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, this manager's amendment is simply a last-ditch attempt to address significant administrative concerns and questions about the correct interpretation of the underlying legislation.

The fact that this amendment had to be revised three times before a final version was submitted past the deadline for consideration by the Rules Committee, is indicative of the hasty and haphazard nature in which this bill has been cobbled together.

For example, in response to a Congressional Budget Office score that interpreted the bill to create up to 50,000 new vouchers, resulting in a cost of $1.2 billion, this amendment would clarify that the intent of the gentleman from Kentucky was not to provide new funding, but, instead, to take vouchers away from people waiting in line for housing assistance.

And while this amendment resolves a few technical issues, it also creates new problems. In particular, this amendment would add broad authority for the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to waive requirements that would otherwise apply under the Section 8 program. This includes being able to waive basic tenant protections as well as the requirement that rents are affordable to residents at 30 percent of their adjusted income, which is known as the Brooke amendment.

In sum, this amendment does nothing to address the fundamental issues with this bill, including the fact that it prohibits new funding.

Mr. Chairman, I really do need to point out that perhaps it was not clear in Mr. Barr's presentation about this amendment that this amendment additionally reinforces his point that no additional funds would be authorized.

As a matter of fact, if you look at section 5 of the amendment where it says, ``No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of this act and the amendments made by this act. Such requirement shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated,'' which simply means taking 10,000 vouchers from people who are waiting in line, who are desperate for the need for safe and secure housing, and it makes sure that you understand that he does not want any more funds appropriated. Except, there is some kind of contradiction that can be confusing.

When he first introduced the bill--and I talked about the fact that he had not only asked me to sign on to a letter to the appropriators asking for more money, and I decided not to do that because of the fact that he still had this amendment that would say that there should be no additional funds spent on this.

What is my friend doing? What is he talking about? How can he send a letter to the appropriators asking for more money when, not only does he have in the bill, but in the amendment to the bill, very clear language that says there should be no additional funds appropriated.

Well, of course, that is confusing. And I am not so sure why the contradiction is there. But I do know this: I believe that the intent of my colleague is a good intent; that he really would like to do something about opioid addiction. I believe that most of the Members who have gotten involved in this issue and who are learning about it for the first time, and understanding that there is a crisis for the first time, want to do something about this issue.

But what they have not done is, they have not taken the time to construct legislation to truly deal with the issue, and spend the money, ask for the money, ask for the resources that are necessary to deal with what they say is a crisis.

They come here and they talk about homelessness, and they talk about the opioid abusers who are on the streets who need housing. Yes, they do. Just as all of those people who have been standing in line waiting for Section 8 housing need housing.

They talk about veterans who are homeless. They are absolutely correct. Some of those veterans have drug problems. Others don't have drug problems. They have come back from their service to their country without jobs, without a place to live, and here we are, talking about robbing the folks who have been standing in line and who are in need-- including the veterans on the street--robbing them of their opportunities because we want to take away 10,000 housing vouchers from them.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't think the amendment really does what the gentleman would like to have it do, but I am not opposed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the life and legacy of an American hero, Louis Zamperini.

Louis Zamperini was an Olympic runner who, while serving as an airman during World War II, was captured and held as a prisoner of war. Many remember Louis Zamperini as an inspirational symbol of resilience, athleticism, and service.

The city of Torrance and the residents of our community in the 43rd Congressional District of California are especially proud and inspired by Louis Zamperini.

Louis Zamperini was the son of Italian immigrants. He moved to Torrance, California, at the age of 3 and was a graduate of Torrance High School. It was during his tenure at Torrance High School that Zamperini's abilities in track and cross country first gained notoriety.

Nicknamed the ``Torrance Tornado,'' Louis Zamperini set the national high school record in the mile at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum in 1934. His record time of 4 minutes 21.2 seconds was unbroken for 20 years.

As a teenager, Zamperini qualified and competed in the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin, Germany, where he finished eighth in the 5,000-meter run. After the Olympics, Zamperini earned a scholarship to the University of Southern California, where he became one of the university's most celebrated student athletes.

Louis Zamperini enlisted in the United States Army Air Corps and served in World War II as a B-24 Liberator bombardier in the 372nd Bomb Squadron.

During a rescue mission on May 27, 1943, Zamperini's plane crashed into the sea. Zamperini spent 47 days adrift in a life raft fending off starvation and fighting to survive. The United States military believed he had perished in the crash and informed his parents of his death in June 1943.

In actuality, Zamperini was captured by a Japanese patrol boat and held as a prisoner of war. Over the next 2 years, he was regularly beaten and starved. Louis Zamperini was finally liberated following the Japanese surrender in September of 1945.

Zamperini became an evangelical Christian and gave inspirational speeches across the country. He also founded the Victory Boys Camp, a wilderness camp, to assist at-risk youth.

Louis Zamperini passed away on July 2, 2014, in Los Angeles at the age of 97 years old. Zamperini was married for 54 years to his wife, Cynthia, who preceded him in death. He was survived by his son, Luke, his daughter, Cynthia Garris, and his grandson, Clay.

People across the country are familiar with Louis Zamperini's story, which was told in the 2010 book, ``Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption,'' by Laura Hillenbrand, which rose to number one on The New York Times Best Seller list. In 2014, director Angelina Jolie released a movie about Zamperini adapted from Hillenbrand's book.

Because of his remarkable athletic abilities and heroic service to our country, Louis Zamperini will forever be remembered as a hero and favorite son of Torrance. That is why I am so very proud to announce that today, in collaboration with California's senior United States Senator, Dianne Feinstein, I have just introduced a resolution to rename the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1433 Marcelina Avenue in Torrance, California, as the Louis Zamperini Post Office Building. My legislation has the bipartisan support of the entire California delegation in the House of Representatives.

Over the Memorial Day holiday weekend, as we honor the memory of the brave military servicemembers who have given their lives for our country, let us all reflect on the legacy of Louis Zamperini and countless other American heroes who have sacrificed to protect our ideals, our democracy, and our country

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the remarks that I prepared, I think I had better share this information with my colleagues. The FDIC released its quarterly banking profile today for the first quarter of 2018, and reported that banks made more money than they ever have. $56 billion in profits in a single quarter represents a 27.5 percent surge compared to 2017. Some of these profits came from that so-called tax bill that we passed, which we know was the Republican tax scam law.

Democrats passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to prevent another financial crisis and protect consumers, investors, and our economy. The 2008 financial crisis resulted in 9 million people losing their jobs, 11 million people losing their homes to foreclosure, and the loss of $13 trillion in wealth. It was an economic catastrophe that must never be repeated. Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are determined to help this President dismantle reforms that are designed to protect us from that kind of devastation to communities.

Republicans are trying to pass this bill off as an effort solely designed to benefit small community banks. But the truth is, the bill is packed with poisonous provisions that benefit the megabanks like Wells Fargo and companies like Equifax. It also weakens critical mortgage protections to ensure borrowers can afford their loans, and prevent discrimination and fraud.

One of the most harmful elements of this bill is its weakening of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, referred to as HMDA, which is a key tool to detect and prevent discriminatory practices in the mortgage market. S. 2155 would allow 85 percent of depository institutions to avoid ever having to report new HMDA data required by Dodd-Frank, even though they are already collecting the data, badly undermining efforts to ensure fair lending.

But that is not all. This bill guts many of the protections Democrats put in place to reduce the risk of bank failures and bailouts and ensure that bank failures don't bring down the economy. It weakens stress tests and capital requirements for big banks, and undermines supervision of large foreign banks like Deutsche Bank.

There is more. Despite Equifax's carelessness in exposing the personal data of 148 million Americans, S. 2155 rewards Equifax and the other two national credit bureaus by funneling more business their way. It also takes away Active Duty servicemembers' rights to sue the credit bureaus, even if the bureaus fail to provide required free credit monitoring, or notify them of scams involving their personal information.

Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the many ways the bill would be harmful. Republicans have stacked the bill with provisions that have nothing to do with benefiting hardworking Americans and everything to do with helping out Wall Street.

Donald Trump and the Republicans already gave a huge gift to big corporations with the tax scam, which came at the expense of hardworking Americans. Now they are pushing this rotten giveaway to Wall Street and big banks that harms consumers and increases the risk of another financial crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat: The FDIC released its quarterly banking profile today for the first quarter of 2018, and reported that banks made more money than they ever have. I have to say this over and over again: $56 billion in profits in a single quarter represents a 27.5 percent surge compared to 2017. Some of these profits came from the tax scam bill that was passed.

These banks are just greedy. They will never get enough. They want to do away with Dodd-Frank because Dodd-Frank is protecting consumers from their fraud. Look how much money they are making. All they will tell you is this is all about community banks.

But let me just tell you that community banks, credit unions, and the economy are doing great with Dodd-Frank reforms in place. The banking industry keeps making record profits, an average of $167 billion in annual profits in the last 3 years. Banks have increased lending to businesses by 80 percent since 2010. Community banks are outperforming larger banks in increased lending. Credit unions are growing and have increased lending by more than 10 percent in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Mr. Speaker, what more do they want? How much more money do they want from consumers? What is it they would have us do? What is it they would have us get rid of in Dodd-Frank that is protecting the average consumer, everyday working people? What would they have us do so that they can make more money?

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

Mr. Speaker, some of the Senators are saying they wish that they had never voted for the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment of the Financial Services Committee.

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

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a very hardworking progressive leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), co-chair of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of Mr. Hensarling how many speakers he has remaining.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me again share with you what should be breaking news tonight: the FDIC released its quarterly banking profile today for the first quarter of 2018 and reported that banks made more money than they ever have.

Mr. Speaker, $56 billion in profits in a single quarter represents a 27.5 percent surge compared to 2017. Some of these profits came from the Republican tax reform bill that we have called a tax scam law.

The community banks, credit unions, and the economy are doing great with Dodd-Frank reforms in place. The banking industry keeps making record profits--an average of $167 billion in annual profits the last 3 years.

Banks have increased lending to businesses by 80 percent since 2010. Community banks are outperforming larger banks in increased lending, and the credit unions are growing and have increased lending by more than 10 percent in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Despite all of that, we have this pay of CEOs of banks that represents so many times more than the median salary in their banks. Specifically, Wells Fargo's CEO made $17.4 million in 2017, 291 times the company's median salary. This is in spite of the fact that Wells Fargo has a track record of consumer abuses while demonstrating that the numerous fines imposed upon the bank have not been a sufficient deterrent to stop its pattern of appalling practices.

Let me just identify some of those practices: opening 3.5 million fraudulent credit card and deposit accounts, for which they were fined $185 million. It was so bad that former Chair Yellen capped the bank's size until it cleans up its act.

In addition to that, they were found to have illegal student loan servicing practices; inappropriate checking account overdraft fees; unlawful mortgage lending practices, such as overcharging veterans for refinance loans; and charging customers for automobile insurance policies they did not need, which resulted in some customers losing their vehicles.

They were fined $1 billion, but it really doesn't make them any different. It is just a cost of doing business.

Yet we have my friends on the opposite side of the aisle who come and ask us to be lenient on the banks, to do away with the Dodd-Frank reforms, and to forget about what happened in 2008. Somehow it is all right for these greedy banks to continue the practices that they have. Despite the fact that Dodd-Frank reined them in, they are doing very well.

S. 2155, again, is not a community bank bill, and it certainly does not help consumers, so we should not pretend that that is the case. Instead of considering improvements to this Senate bill or advancing narrowly tailored relief, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are rubberstamping S. 2155 and advancing a Wall Street wish list that could jeopardize the stability of our country's financial system.

So, instead of considering a bill to address concerns raised by community banks, one that I am sure could easily pass both bodies with overwhelming bipartisan support, House Republicans have instead decided to take up a bill that is largely designed to fulfill the agenda of Wall Street's megabanks. Passing this bill with broad support would send the wrong message to regulators to accelerate their deregulatory efforts for Wall Street.

It is unfortunate that megabanks have once again piggybacked onto the substantial goodwill and support that exists to help ease the regulatory burden for community banks.

S. 2155 is a dangerous measure that weakens key consumer protections and will make it harder, not easier, to combat unfair mortgage lending practices. The bill takes advantage of people just trying to make ends meet for the benefit of the largest banks that are making record profits.

Make no mistake: I support our Nation's community banks and credit unions, and I support tailored regulatory relief for those institutions. That is a fact that I have made clear through my support of numerous individual measures which have advanced through this Congress, as well as through my community bank regulatory relief bill from last Congress.

I will continue to oppose any efforts to use regulatory relief for community banks as a vehicle to ram through deregulation for bad actors and megabanks.

If my words and the words of my colleagues here today are not enough of a warning, then I would urge Members to listen to the pleas of hundreds of consumer, civil rights, veteran, religious, and labor groups that strongly oppose S. 2155.

Though some of my colleagues in Congress may have short memories, the millions of Americans who lost their homes, their jobs, and their wealth during the 2008 financial crisis did not.

So I oppose this bill. I want the Members of Congress to stand up on this very important legislation and say to the greedy banks and the megabanks: No, you are not going to get away with these kinds of actions anymore.

Everything that you have done to try to undermine the Dodd-Frank reforms have resulted in more groups coming out to say: Congress, when are you going to stop these banks? They are making plenty of money. They are increasing their profits. Their CEOs are making high salaries. What more do you want from them?

I think that our consumers deserve better than any attempt to try and relieve them of those regulatory actions that would support our consumers. I would ask for a resounding ``no'' vote on this bill that would only feed into the greediness of the major banks of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Micronova Manufacturing, Inc., honored recipient of the 2018 President's E Star Award. The President's E Star Award is the highest honor given to United States exporters and export service providers in the nation. The award honors and recognizes persons or organizations that contribute significantly in efforts to expand U.S. exports. The 2018 President's E Star Award was presented to Micronova this morning, in a ceremony at the U.S. Department of Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 57, a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal a very important guidance on indirect auto finance lending that was issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau all the way back in 2013, in order to prevent discriminatory lending.

Indirect auto lenders are lenders such as banks that work with car dealers to finance car loans for consumers. Mr. Speaker, first let me say that this is an inappropriate and misguided use of the Congressional Review Act that sets a dangerous precedent. While congressional Republicans so far have been very active in using the Congressional Review Act to tear down important regulations that protect Americans, today they are expanding their harmful efforts even further to now go after regulatory guidance issued by the Consumer Bureau years ago. This is a clear overreach that goes way beyond how the Congressional Review Act was intended to be used.

This resolution is one part of a widespread Republican effort to make it more difficult to hold financial institutions accountable. The Consumer Bureau's 2013 guidance on indirect auto lending was issued to provide clarity to indirect auto lenders and protect auto loan borrowers from discrimination. This is a market where discriminatory practices have well been documented. Since its establishment, the Consumer Bureau has levied more than $140 million in fines and penalties against lenders for engaging in discriminatory auto lending practices.

Just this January, an investigation by the National Fair Housing Alliance found that, 62 percent of the time, highly qualified minority borrowers seeking purchase and financing options for a car receive more costly pricing options than less qualified White borrowers receive for the same vehicle. According to the same report, less qualified White borrowers were presented with more financing options 75 percent of the time.

The guidance issued by the Consumer Bureau simply clarified that indirect auto lenders would be held accountable for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, or ECOA, if they took part in discriminatory practices in the pricing of auto loans. Under ECOA, it is illegal for a creditor or a lender to discriminate against a person because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or receipt of income from any public assistance program.

So the issuance of this guidance, which also provided a number of steps to indirect auto lenders that they could use to ensure that they were in compliance with the law, was a commonsense action that has both protected borrowers from unfair practices and helped lenders stay on the right side of the law.

Proponents of this resolution say to the Consumer Bureau: Oh, you had no authority to regulate auto dealers. But that is not what is at issue here today. Let's be clear. The Consumer Bureau's guidance applies to indirect auto lenders, not automobile dealers.

This resolution would set back efforts to prevent discriminatory auto lending, make it harder for responsible businesses to follow the law, and harm consumers. It would not only repeal the Consumer Bureau's regulatory guidance on auto lending but could also prevent the Consumer Bureau from ever again issuing ``substantially similar'' guidance on the matter.

Furthermore, by setting this terrible precedent of repealing regulatory guidance, the majority is opening up a Pandora's box that could have deeply harmful consequences for the public and badly impede the important work of regulators, not just of the financial services industry but of all industries.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the resolution and urge Members to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is about discrimination. This is not about false accusations. It is documented that these car

lenders have discriminated against people of color.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, the chairman just said that junk science was used; however, Republicans put out a report called, `` `Disparate Impact' Claims Against Vehicle Financing Businesses.'' Here it is. And guess what. The Center for Responsible Lending said that was junk science.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and a tireless advocate dedicated to combating discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the gentlewoman to continue reading so that she can see, under the CFPB rule, that they have the ability to oversee the lending; and what she is talking about is the exemption of the automobile dealers, themselves, but not the lenders.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the vice ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a Member who has shown true leadership in speaking out against this harmful resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that in 2018 we are on the floor of Congress seeing the denial of some of my colleagues about discrimination in the auto lending business and defending the automobile lenders despite the fact there has been a study that shows that there has been discrimination.

The study should have included women, because they discriminate against women also. They think women are stupid and don't know how to negotiate a loan. Women have been taken advantage of too.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sitting here appalled at what I am hearing from the opposite side of the aisle, the fact that they would use the Congressional Review Act to attack guidance and then have the audacity to say in the resolution that they can never, ever again in perpetuity ever have anything like this again.

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

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

I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) to please not leave, because I want you to know that I am more offended as an African-American woman than you will ever be.

And this business about making America great again, it is your President that is dividing this country.

And don't talk to me about the fact that we don't understand. That is the attitude that has been given toward women time and time again.

I respect the Chair, but don't stop me in the middle when you didn't stop him in the middle. So I shall continue.

Don't you dare talk to me like that and think that somehow women don't understand what goes on on the floor of automobile dealers.

And I am saying that I will continue to do that. However, I don't appreciate that you did not interrupt him when he was making those outrageous remarks about him knowing more about discrimination than I know about discrimination. I resent that.

And I resent the remark about making America great again. He is down here making a speech for this dishonorable President of the United States of America.

Having said that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there are times on the floor of this Congress that we hear some of the most outrageous comments in defense of some of the most outrageous practices.

This resolution is yet another harmful piece of legislation from the majority that should be rejected. Week after week, instead of working to benefit hardworking Americans and protect the public from abusive financial institutions, Republicans have advanced legislation to undermine and remove consumer and investor protections, threaten the stability of our economy and financial system, and benefit bad actors in the financial services industry. They are taking our system of financial regulation in precisely the wrong direction.

Today, as we have discussed, the majority is putting forth a Congressional Review Act resolution that would repeal important Consumer Financial Protection Bureau guidance to prevent discrimination by indirect auto lenders.

This resolution would set back efforts to prevent discriminatory auto lending, harm consumers, and make it harder for responsible businesses to follow the law. It is senseless and misguided.

The resolution would also set a dangerous precedent by repealing years-old regulatory guidance, which is not how the Congressional Review Act was intended to be used. Opening the door to inappropriate uses of the Congressional Review Act like this one threatens the important work of regulators, not just of the financial services industry, but of all industries.

So I call upon my colleagues across the aisle to work with the Democrats on policies that strengthen consumer protections, rather than the harmful rollbacks like the one before us today. I urge Members to oppose the resolution.

And I want my friends on the opposite side of the aisle to know that we don't easily get up and talk about discrimination against minorities and people of color. We don't like to have to do this. We wish that we had come to a time in the history of this country where it did not happen.

But I am appalled when the opposite side of the aisle stands up in strong defense of discrimination. If they were really interested in working with the Democrats they would say we have a better methodology of determining whether or not there is discrimination. We want to work with you. We want to do whatever is necessary to ensure that no one is discriminated against, yet I hear from Members like Mr. Kelly who come to the floor talking about we don't know what we are talking about, we don't understand it, we have never been on the floor of a dealership.

Oh, yes I have. My husband was in the car business. I know a lot about it.

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