Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3978, the TRID Improvement Act of 2017.

H.R. 3978 has been dramatically expanded without input from Democrats to include several highly problematic and damaging bills. If enacted, this amended package of bills would ease the ability of high frequency traders to manipulate the stock markets undetected, encourage a regulatory race to the bottom in our Nation's stock exchanges, and harm investors and small businesses by weakening efforts to prevent accounting fraud at smaller public companies.

Taken together, this deregulatory package could significantly undermine market stability and gut investor and consumer protections at a time when our financial markets are already rattled.

Madam Speaker, from January 26 until last Thursday, the stock markets plunged just over 10 percent, becoming what the financial services industry calls ``stock market correction,'' and for the past two trading days, markets have rebounded the most since 2016.

Although market corrections are not new, what distinguishes today's volatility is that it is driven by complex computer strategies designed to buy and sell stocks and options millions of times a day. As many of us have witnessed, the Dow Jones Industrial Average may be up 500 points and then down 600 in less than a few minutes. For the average American who was hoping to one day retire with dignity by investing her hard-earned savings in the stock market, it can be distressing to see such wild swings always wondering whether the markets are truly fair or whether she is going to be fleeced. Unfortunately, the passage of H.R. 3978 would likely make those swings more extreme and increase the likelihood of problems going forward.

I am going to walk through each of the problematic provisions in this bill. Beginning with title IV, this provision is identical to H.R. 4546, the National Securities Exchange Regulatory Parity Act, which would weaken the standards for listing public companies for trading at U.S. stock exchanges. Today, exchanges listing standards set minimum requirements for a company's shares to be sold to the public without having to comply with State law. Exchanges can only revise these standards if the Securities and Exchange Commission first finds that new standards are substantially similar to the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange.

This bill would remove any separate analysis for changing the standards and, thus, automatically preempt State oversight. As a result, the bill would encourage a race to the bottom of listing standards as exchanges compete with each other to attract companies with less restrictions, even if the standards are beneficial to the investors.

I believe that we should be strengthening the current analysis to promote fair and rigorous listing standards and only preempt State law when companies meet high standards. This is why I worked with the cosponsors last Congress to strike a bipartisan compromise which passed the House unanimously to require the SEC to develop a core qualitative listing standard. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have reversed their position in favor of empowering the industry over the investing public.

Turning to title III which is identical to H.R. 1645, the so-called Fostering Innovation Act, this provision would eliminate the independent audit of a company's financial reporting controls for up to 10 years for newly public companies provided that they have $50 million or less in gross revenues and less than $700 million in outstanding shares. Passed in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom accounting scandals, the requirement that public companies conduct an independent audit of financial controls is one of the many accounting provisions required by the bipartisan Sarbanes-Oxley Act that directly benefits investors and public companies by improving the accuracy of their financial reporting.

In fact, companies that are not subject to such review by an independent auditor are more likely to issue corrections to their financial reports leading to investor losses and higher losses for the company.

Investors like these audits because they improve the veracity of the reports they rely on to make investment decisions. Today, truly small public companies--those with less than $75 million worth of shares--are already exempt from the audit requirement. But this bill would extend the exemption to large companies that are nearly ten times that size. The law already provides newly public companies with an exemption for 5 years. Extending it to a decade would harm investor confidence and all such companies, hurting the very companies the bill's supporters purport to help.

Title II of this bill is the same language as H.R. 3948, the Protection of Source Code Act. This bill bans the SEC from inspecting source code used by regulated entities to engage in algorithmic or computer-driven trading and other activities that impact the securities markets and investors without first obtaining a subpoena. This provision would severely hamper the ability of the SEC to effectively examine persons like high-frequency traders and to investigate market disruptions.

The recent stock market volatility, which has seen all of the major stock indices decline by more than 10 percent in less than 2 weeks, has been exacerbated by high-frequency traders using complex computer algorithms to determine when to buy and sell millions of trades per second by making it harder for the capital markets COP to detect and stop bad actors and rein in fraudulent trading schemes. This provision will inevitably harm everyday Americans and retirees who rely on fair capital markets to invest their hard-earned savings.

To make matters worse, Republicans added a provision to pay for the cost of the bill by taking $2 million from the Securities and Exchange Commission's reserve fund. As a result, our financial watchdog will have less resources to support its capacity to oversee the markets through investments in IT and to respond to unforeseen market events like the flash crash.

In short, this bill asks taxpayers to pay for the costs of diminished capital market oversight by taking away SEC's funding to respond to emergency market situations that threaten market stability. This provision doubles down on the irresponsible policymaking we often see by the opposite side of the aisle.

The bill before us today would also make two less significant changes which I believe the Republicans included to garner additional support for the legislation. Nevertheless, even with these provisions, the package should be soundly rejected.

Title I, which includes the version of H.R. 3978, TRID Improvement Act of 2017, that the committee previously considered, would amend a mortgage disclosure known as TRID or the know-before-you-owe disclosure that informs home buyers of the terms and conditions of their mortgage. Responding to the concerns of some in the real estate industry, this provision would amend the disclosure to account for the discounts paid to borrowers in States where simultaneous lender and buyer title insurance is issued. However, the revised form does nothing for bars in States that do not provide such special rates to home buyers, and the provision eliminates the Consumer Bureau's ability to fix this aspect of the form even if a problem arises in the future.

The final provision, title V, is identical to H.R. 2948, the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act. This title would ease the ability of individuals employed as mortgage originators to change employers by creating a temporary 120-day licensing regime so that they can continue to work at their new employer.

This bill would effectively treat mortgage originators who work for State registered firms the same as federally registered firms and was unanimously supported by committee Democrats. Unfortunately, because this legislation has been packaged with other deeply problematic and destructive bills, sensible relief to these individuals that has broad bipartisan support is being held hostage by Republicans' efforts to roll back as many safeguards as they can this year.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3978, as amended, threatens many of the important reforms Democrats made to restore investor confidence to our capital markets after the worst financial crisis in generations. As the stock markets continue to wobble ominously in ways that threaten the savings of hardworking Americans, Congress should be strengthening oversight of the financial system, not weakening it.

Not surprisingly, H.R. 3978 is strongly opposed by the North American Association of Securities Administrators who serve on the frontline combating securities fraud on the State level and by nonpartisan organization who speak on behalf of our Nation's consumers, investors, and unions, including Consumer Federation of America, Center for American Progress, Americans for Financial Reform, AFL-CIO, and Public Citizen, and so do I.

Madam Speaker, I urge everyone to reject this harmful package of bills and to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3978.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, given the extreme volatility in the stock markets over the past few weeks, I am particularly troubled by title II of this bill, which would make it easier for high-frequency traders to evade regulatory oversight of their potentially disruptive automated trading algorithms.

This provision is widely opposed by nonpartisan consumer and investor advocacy groups who recognize the impact automated trading has on our markets.

Let me read for you excerpts from a few letters from these groups that highlight the dangers of title 2.

Americans for Financial Reform--a coalition of more than 200 consumer, civil rights, investor, retiree community, labor, faith- based, and business groups--wrote: ``Title II would prevent regulators from inspecting not only their raw source code used in automated trading, but also any related intellectual property that `forms the basis for the design of' source code. Examination of such intellectual property would only be possible in an enforcement context pursuant to a subpoena. This implies that the SEC would have to wait until the damage was done through a `flash crash' or similar market disruption before taking any action, which would have to be retrospective.

``In light of the significance of automated trading to modern markets, and the potential risk of high-frequency trading, it makes no sense to tie the hands of regulators in examining detailed trading strategies and methods of high frequency traders.''

The Center for American Progress cautioned that: ``But in an era of fast-moving, `flash-crash'-prone markets, the SEC may have a wide range of regulatory reasons for why it may need to examine source codes, including approvals of new trading products or the supervision of trading venues. The SEC should only exercise that authority carefully and under the strictest protections for confidential information, but blocking it by law dangerously limits the SEC's ability to address the significant technology-based challenges to financial markets.''

The Consumer Federation of America, an association of nearly 300 consumer advocacy groups, similarly opposed title 2 because it ``would weaken SEC oversight of algorithmic trading and hamstring the agency from responding quickly to flash crashes or other market breakdowns.''

Further, the CFA wrote that: ``At a time when algorithmic trading is taking on increased importance in our capital markets, this bill would make it more difficult for the SEC to properly oversee such trading.

``The bill would require the SEC to first issue a subpoena before it could compel a person to produce or furnish to the SEC algorithmic trading source code or `similar intellectual property.' This would undermine the SEC's examination authority by creating a gaping hole in its ability to gain access to firm records relevant to the examination. It would also have a devastating effect on the agency's ability to respond quickly in the event of another `flash crash' or such events in the future. In order to oversee the markets effectively, the SEC needs to be able to accurately and efficiently reconstruct order entry and trading activity, including for algorithmic traders.''

Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group with over 400,000 members and supporters, wrote: ``Market volatility caused not by real events such as outbreak of a war, but by computers, including computer glitches, threatens to erase savings to some innocent investors and erodes general investor confidence. The recent swings in the markets attest to the need for robust and urgent supervisory inspection. The May 6, 2010 `Flash Crash,' where markets collapsed by more than $1 trillion in less than an hour, revealed that such a robust and urgent supervision has been lacking. The SEC required nearly a half year to investigate this incident before identifying a flawed algorithmic at one major trader. SEC oversight should be streamlined, not hampered. Trading instructions and records of human traders are already subject to inspection, so it should be no different for those instructions and records generated by a machine. Hiding source code from regulatory scrutiny will leave those responsible for mistakes as well as those attempting to manipulate markets unaccountable.''

These letters demonstrate the wide opposition to title II by groups that truly understand that robust oversight of algorithmic trading is necessary for the help of our makers.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters from these groups.

February 13, 2018.

Please vote NO on H.R. 3299 and H.R. 3978.

Hon. Member,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Hon. Member: On behalf of more than 400,000 members

and supporters of Public Citizen, we ask you to vote NO on

H.R. 3299 and H.R. 3978, which are expected to be considered

by the full House on Wednesday, February 14, 2018. Provisions

in these bills would expose borrowers to abusive loans,

investors to dubious securities, and Americans generally to a

riskier financial system.

H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act

of 2017, would allow predatory lenders to escape state limits

on high interest rates. The bill would nullify the Second

Circuit Court ruling in Madden v. Midland Funding. That

decision provided that a financial institution that buys

loans originated by a national bank could not benefit from

the National Bank Act's preemption of state interest rate

caps. While the Madden decision did not limit interest rates

that banks charge on credit, it does limit nonbanks from

evading state interest rate caps. This bill would pave the

way for payday lenders, financial technology (fintech)

companies and others to exploit that loophole and use a

``rent-a-bank'' arrangement in order to charge high interest

rates. Twenty state Attorneys General have written to oppose

this measure, noting that it undermines their efforts to

protect borrowers from abusive loan rates. We urge you to

oppose this bill.

H.R. 3978, the TRID Improvement Act of 2017, is actually a

package of bills that were considered separately in the House

Financial Services Committee. One of these is the Financial

Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act (formerly H.R.

4061). This measure would add numerous procedural

requirements for the Financial Stability Oversight Council

(FSOC) when it considers the designation or continued

designation of a nonbank firm as a systemically important

financial institution (SIFI). Current rules already make SIFI

designation a high hurdle. The case of MetLife, for example,

shows that firms enjoy more than ample methods to contest

designation. After FSOC designated MetLife as systemically

important, it contested it in court and the case is pending.

Increasing the government's burden for designation would

restrict its ability to apply enhanced supervision to major

institutions. However, the largest bailout of the 2008

financial crash went to AIG, a nonbank engaged in reckless

derivatives activity beyond the purview of banking

supervisors. We oppose this measure.

Another bill contained in H.R. 3978 is the Fostering

Innovation Act (previously H.R. 1645). This bill amends

Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) law by increasing

from five to 10 years the time that CEOs of firms with less

than $50 million in revenue must attest to the accuracy of

their financial reporting. Congress approved SOX in response

to the accounting scandals at the turn of the millennium. The

rules are designed to promote accounting accuracy to the

shareholders who have entrusted their savings to these firms.

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that

companies with inferior financial reporting controls have a

significantly higher likelihood of issuing a restatement of

their financial accounts. Firms that are unwilling to oblige

SOX should not be trusted with the capital of savers.

Extending the CEO attestation requirement from five to 10

years exacerbates the problem. From an investor perspective,

accounting safeguards are more important for smaller

companies, since larger companies generally attract a larger

and more sophisticated base of stock and bond holders who can

perform effective oversight. We oppose this measure.

A third bill that is part of the H.R. 3978 package is the

National Securities Exchange Regulatory Parity Act (formerly

H.R. 4546). This bill would eliminate state supervision of

securities if they are listed on an exchange, even if the

exchange has reduced standards compared with those of major

exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange. Under current

law, state supervision is pre-empted only if the security is

listed on exchanges with rules overseen by the Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC). Rules may differ between

exchanges, but they must be approved by the SEC to ensure

that they prevent fraud, serve the public interest and

protect investors. Moreover, exchanges must adopt and enforce

rules that are ``substantially similar'' to the major

exchanges, known formally as ``Named Markets,'' under current

law. The existing system deters a race to the bottom, where

an exchange may attempt to attract companies with weaker

rules. Conversely, this bill would actually promote that race

to the bottom by removing the requirement that the exchange

adopt rules that are substantially similar to those of the

Named Markets. We oppose this measure.

A fourth measure in H.R. 3978 is the Protection of Source

Code Act, (formerly H.R. 3948). This measure would impede the

ability of the SEC to conduct effective compliance

examinations of market volatility involving computer-driven

algorithms. The bill imposes a strict subpoena requirement

before staff could inspect otherwise routine business records

that involve source code. Market volatility caused not by

real events such as the outbreak of a war, but by computers,

including computer glitches, threatens to erase savings to

some innocent investors and erodes general investor

confidence. The recent swings in the markets attest to the

need for robust and urgent supervisory inspection. The May 6,

2010 ``Flash Crash,'' where markets collapsed by more than $1

trillion in less than an hour, revealed that such robust and

urgent supervision has been lacking. The SEC required nearly

a half year to investigate this incident before identifying a

flawed algorithm at one major trader. SEC oversight should be

streamlined, not hampered. Trading instructions and records

of human traders are already subject to inspection, so it

should be no different for those instructions and records

generated by a machine. Hiding source code from regulatory

scrutiny will leave those responsible for mistakes as well as

those attempting to manipulate markets unaccountable. We

oppose this measure.

Because of our opposition to these elements in H.R. 3978

and to H.R. 3299 we urge you to vote NO on these bills. As we

are marking the 10th anniversary of the Wall Street Crash,

it's clear that American consumers and investors deserve

stronger financial reforms, not weakened protections that

will make our economy more susceptible to another collapse.

Thank you for your consideration. For questions, please

contact Bartlett Naylor.

Sincerely,

Public Citizen.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to whether or not the chairman has more speakers?

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

Madam Speaker, it has become par for the course for the majority to recklessly advance harmful deregulatory packages like H.R. 3978. My friends on the other side of the aisle are moving forward with regulatory roadblocks at a furious pace, pushing dangerous bills through the House nearly every week.

It appears that they may have already completely forgotten a way that lacks financial regulation and allowed the crisis in 2008 to occur. That crisis badly damaged the whole economy and harmed all of our constituents. The impact was enormous: $13 trillion in household wealth was lost; 11 million people lost their homes to foreclosure; and the unemployment rate reached 10 percent.

Democrats responded by enacting Wall Street reform to ensure that consumers, investors, and our economy are protected from reckless actors and bad practices, but now Republicans cannot wait to take us back to the bad old days. It makes no sense.

As we have discussed, the package of bills now before us guts important financial protections at a time when markets are already experiencing turmoil. It would allow high-frequency traders to manipulate the stock markets undetected, encourage a regulatory race to the bottom at our Nation's stock exchanges, and harm investors by weakening efforts to detect accounting fraud at smaller public companies. This package of bills threatens important progress we have made to reduce risk in the financial system and return investor confidence.

In recent weeks, we have seen volatile markets that threaten the savings of hardworking American families. These circumstances should serve as a clear reminder that Congress should be strengthening oversight of the financial system, not weakening it by undermining or removing important protections.

H.R. 3978 is strongly opposed by our State's security cops, who are at the front line of combating fraud, and it is opposed by groups representing consumers, investors, and unions.

Madam Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge Members to oppose H.R. 3978, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters of opposition.

Center for American Progress,

Washington, DC, February 13, 2018.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The Center for

American Progress (``CAP'') is writing today to express

opposition to H.R. 4061, the Financial Stability Oversight

Council Improvement Act of 2017, which is included as Title

VI of the revised H.R. 3978 package. It is our understanding

that the revised H.R. 3978 package will be considered on the

floor of the House of Representatives this week, so we

welcome the chance to share our concerns regarding this

legislation with you and your Members.

In short, this bill erodes a vital new financial regulatory

tool implemented following the devastating 2007-2008

financial crisis. If enacted, the U.S. financial regulatory

structure will be less equipped to handle risks that build up

outside of the traditional banking sector--making the

financial sector as a whole more vulnerable to another shock

and economic downturn. Americans paid for the last crisis

with their jobs, homes, and savings, while banks and other

financial institutions were bailed out. This bill

inexplicably makes a repeat of that economic calamity more

likely.

The 2007-2008 financial crisis demonstrated that excessive

risk could build up outside of the traditional banking

sector. Nonbank financial institutions like Lehman Brothers,

Bear Stearns, and AIG did not face the type of oversight and

regulatory standards warranted by their systemic importance.

The failure or near-failure of these institutions threatened

the stability of the U.S. financial sector. AIG and Bear

Stearns were bailed out accordingly, while the failure of

Lehman Brothers brought the global financial system to the

brink of collapse. The crisis also revealed that no one

financial regulator had a system-wide mandate, meaning

individual regulators were only focused on their respective

segments of the financial sector. This left financial

regulators in the dark regarding risks that built up across

different parts of the sector or that emerged in

underregulated parts of the sector.

In the wake of the financial crisis, President Obama worked

with Congress to pass the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and

Consumer Protection Act--the most significant financial

regulatory reforms enacted since the Great Depression. One

important pillar of Dodd-Frank was the creation of the

Financial Stability Oversight Council (``FSOC''), a new

systemic risk regulatory body. The FSOC was created to bring

the disparate financial regulators together to identify and

mitigate threats to financial stability. The most important

tool given to the FSOC to fulfill this mission is the

authority to subject a nonbank financial company to enhanced

oversight and regulation by the Federal Reserve Board if

material distress at the company, or the company's

activities, could threaten financial stability. The FSOC has

used this designation authority sparingly and only after a

thorough, multi-stage review process in which the FSOC

communicates extensively with the company and the company's

primary regulators.

H.R. 4061 would add multiple additional hurdles to the

FSOC's already-rigorous designation process. The proposed

changes would add an estimated two years to the designation

process, meaning it would take roughly four years for the

FSOC to designate a nonbank financial company that could

threaten U.S. financial stability. The four-year estimate

does not even factor in the time it will take for the legal

proceedings to play out when a company challenges the

designation in court. The legal challenge by MetLife took

years, and likely would have taken longer if the Trump

administration didn't agree to stop pursuing the case. If

anything, this bill increases the procedural issues a

designated company could raise in court. H.R. 4061

practically invites a legal filibuster of the designation. It

renders the designation authority nearly useless. Hollowing

out this crucial post-crisis authority makes it far more

likely that an underregulated systemically important nonbank

will cause or aggravate the next financial crisis.

Contrary to critics of the FSOC, it is not a rigid body and

has in the past responded to legitimate process and

transparency suggestions. In 2015, after soliciting public

comment, the FSOC adopted 17 changes to its designation

process and transparency policies The current designation

process in place is rigorous and appropriately thorough. H.R.

4061 would add no less than nine new bureaucratic steps.

These proposed changes are excessive, and the intent is

clear: To prevent the FSOC from using this vital tool.

This legislation is even more concerning given the actions

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Chairman of the FSOC, has

taken since the start of the Trump administration. The FSOC,

under Mnuchin's leadership, has: (i) rescinded the

designation of AIG, the company that received a $182 billion

bailout during the crisis; (ii) slashed the FSOC's budget and

staff; (iii) dropped the legal proceedings regarding

MetLife's designation; (iv) signaled that Prudential's

designation may be rescinded this year; and (v) recommended

some deeply concerning additional changes to the FSOC's

designation process in a report published in late 2017.

Further restricting the FSOC's authority at a time when it is

being dismantled from within would be a grave mistake.

For these reasons, CAP recommends that Members vote ``NO''

when the revised H.R. 3978 package of bills, which includes

H.R. 4061, is considered on the floor.

If you have any questions about this letter or would like

to discuss these issues further, please contact Gregg

Gelzinis.

Sincerely,

Gregg Gelzinis,

Research Assistant, Economic

Policy, Center for American Progress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the current language of title II of H.R. 3978 would require SEC examination staff to obtain a subpoena before it could inspect any source code whatsoever, including, for example, computer code reflecting a firm's adherence to the SEC's cybersecurity regulations.

The amendment offered by Mr. Foster would narrow the requirement in title II to only apply to proprietary source code related to algorithmic trading. While I applaud Mr. Foster and the amendment's cosponsor, Mr. Scott, for narrowing the overbroad language of title II, the amendment cannot fix this untimely and ill-advised legislation. Even as amended, title II would undermine effective oversight of the high-frequency traders that simultaneously create and stand to benefit from the kind of extreme market volatility that we have seen in the past few weeks.

Let's not forget that, on May 6, 2010, in an event referred to as the ``flash crash,'' major U.S. stock indices inexplicably plummeted nearly $1 trillion in less than an hour before mostly rebounding. Alarmingly, market regulators took nearly 5 months to determine that the flash crash was caused by a combination of a flawed execution algorithm of one institutional investor and aggressive algorithmic trading by HFTs.

While it is too early to tell exactly what created the recent volatility in the U.S. stock market, market analysts have suggested that algorithmic trading has played a central role. In fact, just last Tuesday, the day after the Dow Jones Industrial Average saw its biggest one-day point drop in history, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin testified before the House Financial Services Committee that algorithmic trading ``definitely had an impact on market moves.''

Given the importance of algorithmic trading in our stock market, it makes no sense to obstruct the SEC's access to the information that enables such activity merely because it exists in an electronic format. Americans who have trillions of their dollars in 401(k) and other retirement and savings plans deserve the SEC's best efforts in investigating and mitigating computer-driven market disruptions. For this reason and for all of these reasons, and given my broader concerns that the bill would significantly harm investor confidence in our markets even if the amendment is adopted, I am urging a ``no'' vote on

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018. This bill is another Republican-led measure to roll back appropriately tailored policies to regulate the financial services sector that ignores the hard-learned lessons of the catastrophic 2008 financial crisis.

We have seen this same flawed approach in H.R. 10, which I called the ``Wrong Choice Act,'' last year, and we are seeing it again in the Senate as it considers advancing Senator Crapo's Wall Street giveaway, which includes a provision identical to the bill that we are considering today, along with several other harmful provisions.

The Federal Reserve's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement was first issued in 1980 to enable the transfer of ownership of small community banks by allowing small, noncomplex bank holding companies to operate with higher levels of debt than would normally be permitted.

The original policy statement established a threshold of bank holding companies with less than $150 million in assets, but this level was increased to $500 million in 2006.

The policy statement allows certain small bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies to hold more debt at the holding company level than would otherwise be allowed by capital requirements if the debt is used to finance up to 75 percent of an acquisition of another bank. Put another way, the policy statement is important because it allows small institutions like community banks and minority- owned insured depository institutions to access additional debt so they can continue serving their communities without compromising bank safety and soundness.

Thus, it is important that the threshold level be carefully calibrated so it cannot be abused by speculative investors. If the threshold is raised too high, it will encourage more mergers and acquisitions, riskier banking activities, and reduced banking services and credit availability to rural, low-income, minority, and underserved communities.

In 2014, Democrats worked with Republicans to examine this threshold and reached a reasonable compromise to raise the threshold to $1 billion. This change was implemented only after closely consulting with regulators to determine the appropriate threshold level to help community banks grow without making them targets for mergers and acquisitions.

The $1 billion threshold is sensible and reasonable in light of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's exhaustive study several years ago on the definition of ``community bank.'' While the FDIC factors in other considerations, their definition of a community bank includes a dollar threshold of banks with less than $1 billion in assets.

According to 2016 data from the Federal Reserve, 87 percent of all bank holding companies are covered by the current $1 billion threshold. This means that a large majority of the industry currently benefits from the adjusted 2014 threshold increase in the policy statement, including all truly small community banks.

Furthermore, it is worth highlighting that the bipartisan compromise reached in 2014 included other important safeguards, such as excluding any bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies with less than $1 billion that are engaged in significant nonbanking activities. It also gives the Federal Reserve the ability to exclude any bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies from the policy statement, regardless of size, if it concludes that the exclusion is warranted for supervisory purposes.

But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not hesitated to try and push the threshold higher. Last Congress, just a little more than a year after a bipartisan compromise to increase the threshold, Republicans pushed through the House another bill, H.R. 3791, that would have significantly increased the threshold from $1 billion to $5 billion. That bill faced a veto threat from the Obama administration, as it should have, and it went nowhere in the Senate.

Last year, Chairman Hensarling included a provision in H.R. 10, the ``Wrong Choice Act,'' to drastically raise the $1 billion threshold to $10 billion. Because the Senate now appears set to move a bill that raises the threshold, but to nowhere near that level, we now find ourselves back on the floor of the House today considering a new bill to triple the threshold from $1 billion to $3 billion.

While it is a slightly less drastic increase than the one in the bill Republicans pushed through the House last Congress, tripling the policy statement threshold to $3 billion so soon since the last threshold increase is still unwise. There simply has not been sufficient time to see what effect doubling the policy statement threshold from $500 million to $1 billion really means for community banks.

Congress should at least examine the data and understand the effects of the last change before making another one. We should not ignore the concerns raised by experts that this approach will allow small banks to take on more debt than they otherwise need and may actually promote mergers and acquisitions so that we have fewer community banks, not more.

While Republicans push bills like H.R. 4771 in the name of helping community banks, this is yet another proposal that would likely result in fewer, not more, community banks.

Even the Treasury Department under this President, President Trump, only recommended raising the threshold to $2 billion. So they are $1 billion even beyond what the President supports. That was in a report issued last year.

As I mentioned, H.R. 4771 is one of the many harmful provisions in Senator Crapo's financial deregulatory bill that is advanced in the Senate. Senator Crapo's bill also includes many other harmful rollbacks that would fundamentally weaken our framework. It would roll back certain stress testing requirements for megabanks like Wells Fargo and would exempt or weaken enhanced standards for many of the large banks in the country.

The Senate bill also would gut rules for foreign banks like Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse.

It would also eliminate a requirement that many banks collect and publicly report critical Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, or HMDA, data. HMDA data is used for many important policy purposes, including to identify mortgage lending discrimination against many Latinos, African Americans, and other minority groups.

I could go on and on, but the list is longer than the time that we have allotted. The bottom line is I strongly urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4771 and the other efforts by congressional Republicans and this administration to deregulate Wall Street and the banking industry and roll back the clock to a time not long ago when we had weak

oversight and few safeguards that protect consumers, investors, and taxpayers.

You can see what is happening. At one point, the opposite side of the aisle said: ``Let's jump to $5 billion.'' And then, Mr. Hensarling said: ``No, let's jump to $10 billion.'' This is done without any thought or consideration for what they are doing and the risks that they are placing on these little banks to be bought up and the mergers to take place.

You can see there is no real thought, no real review, no real consideration given when you say: ``Let's go from $1 billion to $3 billion to $5 billion to $10 billion, whatever we can get.'' We are saying: ``No, that is wrong. Don't do that. Don't do that to these community banks.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the other side wants. They want $5 billion at one point, they want $10 billion at one point, and now they want $3 billion. They just throw it up against the wall and hope something sticks, and we are saying: Don't put these community banks at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the vice ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to understand the support that community banks have gotten from this side of the aisle.

I know that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, oftentimes, advance the argument that they are the only ones who care about community banks and that we don't understand community banks. And, oftentimes, they have arguments that basically would have one conclude that we don't really advance the cause of community banks.

I would just like to remind my colleagues in this Congress of the work that we have done in support of community banks. We have supported, and successfully supported, less frequent exams for well- rated community banks with less than $1 billion. The exam cycle is now 18 months instead of 12 months for these strong small banks.

We took into consideration the concerns of community banks about the examiners coming too often, disturbing the banks, oftentimes, tying up the personnel in the bank. So we agreed to not have them come in every 12 months and to extend that so that 18 months will give some relief to the community banks so that they don't have to deal with the auditors in such a way that disturbs the bank.

We also moved successfully to eliminate an annual privacy notice for community banks and credit unions whose policies have not changed and the consumer has already notified. Well, we did that. We eliminated these annual privacy notices for the community banks and for credit unions who have not changed their policies, and there is no need to have to continue to insist that they have these annual privacy notices.

Well, we went further with less stringent SEC registration rules for small thrifts, providing parity with other banks; and access to credit for privately insured credit unions, allowing them to join the Federal Home Loan Banks program; improving mortgage licensing for community banks and credit unions by allowing regulator access to the nationwide mortgage licensing system and registry, while maintaining confidentiality protections.

I just cite this because it is so important to understand what we have done on this side of the aisle to ensure that our community banks are strong, that they are there for our communities, that they provide the loans, that they

assist in developing our communities. What we don't understand oftentimes is why our friends on the opposite side of the aisle, in the name of community banks, will come with proposals that hurt community banks.

We have pointed out that our friends on the opposite side of the aisle have gone so far as to try and get everyone to believe that we should increase this amount of debt that they could carry up to $10 billion. That is totally irresponsible, totally. And even when they attempted to go to $5 billion, totally irresponsible, down to $3 billion, because I guess they just say: Well, we have to try to get some more opportunities for small banks to carry this debt.

Well, they don't answer the question about what happens when these small community banks are burdened with debt that they cannot take care of, that they cannot pay. They don't talk about the fact that that is going to cause the community bank to close. And they certainly don't talk about putting them in a position where they will be brought up.

So I would simply say for those of us who have proven our support for community banks and who continue to engage with community banks about what we can do to ensure their strength, to ensure that they are there to provide the loans in the neighborhoods and in the communities that they serve, I think we have identified ourselves and we have defined ourselves. We would simply ask those who are listening to this debate to continue to know and understand what is happening between these different sides of the aisle, to look at what we have done, and to understand how we have been helpful in our support for community banks.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle that the community banks with $1 billion to $5 billion in assets already have sufficient access to capital markets and, as a group, are exhibiting help and resilience.

Raising a threshold to exempt banks with over $1 billion from important minimum leverage and capital requirements will do little more than encourage banks to take on debt--as I have reminded you time and time again today--endangering their soundness and potentially depriving their customers of much-needed banking services should the bank fail.

Setting the consolidated assets threshold at $1 billion was a bipartisan decision that struck a balance between allowing small banks to access capital to better serve their customers and ensuring their safety and soundness. Raising the threshold would be an unnecessary and risky change.

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

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

Okay. So we have heard it again. We hate Dodd-Frank. We hate Dodd- Frank. We hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We don't believe that Dodd-Frank should have created the reforms that they did.

Just forget about the fact that there was a subprime meltdown in 2008, that this country went into a recession, almost a depression. Throw all of that out of the window. Forget about what was happening when the big banks failed and we bailed them all out. Forget about reforms.

Oh, how much we hate Dodd-Frank. We just blame Dodd-Frank for everything.

Please. I think that, as credible legislators, we are beyond the point of wrapping up everything that we don't like and accusing Dodd- Frank reforms for causing problems to everything and everybody, including the community banks. The fact of the matter is, if we want to strengthen, preserve, and make sure community banks are available to our communities, we won't take on public policy that would put them at risk with having more debt than they can take care of, and we won't put them at risk of being bought up and these mergers taking place.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and I am prepared to close, so I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats support targeted, measured relief for our community financial institutions. We recognize that these smaller banks and credit unions intimately know their communities and how best to serve them. But we also know that changes to the rules that are designed to ensure that community banks are safe and sound can have unintended consequences.

While community banks did not cause the 2008 financial crisis, they were at the center of another crisis just two decades before. When I came to the Financial Services Committee, thousands of savings and loan holding companies were failing and causing serious harm to the communities they were supposed to serve. This was due, in part, to the fact that lawmakers thought it was wise to weaken safeguards on these savings and loan holding companies, allowing them to take on more leverage and offer riskier products. I fear that Congress will again pass legislation today that will ultimately cause harm to both the very community banks we want to help and the hardworking Americans that rely on them.

And now, Republicans are trying to raise the threshold as high as possible. In the chairman's ``Wrong Choice Act,'' he would raise the threshold tenfold, to $10 billion. At the end of last Congress, Republicans sought to raise it to $5 billion. A few months ago, the Trump administration recommended raising it to $2 billion, and now, a little less than 3 years after we reached a bipartisan compromise, we are inexplicably considering legislation to raise it to $3 billion.

I tried to tell you just a few moments ago, they don't know. They are just throwing it up against the wall: whatever we can get. Next they will be asking for $20 billion. No, you have moved away from $10 billion; you have moved away from $5 billion; now you are at $3 billion. Your President wants $2 billion. We say, leave it as it is.

Mr. Speaker, if you are listening to this and feeling dizzy, it is understandable. None of these levels are backed by the same careful consideration Congress gave to the threshold 2 years ago, and I am afraid it is exactly the kind of legislating that set the groundwork for the savings and loan crisis and left thousands of communities without access to banking services.

When I came on, Members of Congress were fleeing the old Banking Committee. They wanted to get out of there because they had been responsible for public policy that had put the S&L business at risk, and now that was all failing. They were fleeing it, and they were punishing people, all the new Members coming on, and making them go on this committee because they knew that they had nobody else to serve on it.

So I have been there. I have seen it. I have experienced it. I am a part of Dodd-Frank reforms. I served on the conference committee. I worked with Dodd. I worked with Frank. I know what we should be doing.

Before I close, I would like to remind my colleagues that this bill and many of the other one-off financial services bills Republicans are pushing should really be viewed as setting the table for the dangerous deregulatory package making it through the Senate. That package, which our committee has not even considered to thoroughly understand the interactions of all the rollbacks it contains, weakens oversight of Wall Street and the Nation's largest banks under the guise of community bank relief.

H.R. 4771 is one of the many provisions in the Senate bill that, when taken together, will risk further bailouts and harm homeownership in America. Every time this House passes another provision of that bigger bill, we make it more likely that critical safeguards and protections will be eviscerated at the expense of our Nation's homeowners and consumers.

I urge all Members to soundly reject H.R. 4771 today and to reject the larger Senate legislation if it comes to the House. I comfortably say, despite the fact that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are trying to frame this in a certain way, they really don't know what they are doing. Reject this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1153, the so-called Mortgage Choice Act of 2017.

Unfortunately, this bill is yet another attempt to undermine the strong consumer protections Democrats established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, taking us back to the days of the subprime bubble.

While some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have forgotten those days, I haven't. I remember how predatory lenders targeted unsuspecting home buyers by hiding fees and obscuring loan costs, tricking them into exploding mortgages and locking them into loans that they really couldn't afford.

Millions of home buyers were steered into high-cost, subprime loans even

when they qualified for prime mortgages, and lenders didn't even bother to verify whether or not borrowers had the ability to repay their mortgages. They weren't required to do that, so they didn't. The end result was rampant fraud on a massive scale to millions of foreclosures and a tremendous loss of generational wealth, particularly for Black homeowners. Some of my constituents are still struggling and trying to recover from the financial devastation that occurred during this financial crisis.

The last thing Congress should do is to open the door to a return to these fraudulent and harmful policies, yet that is exactly what H.R. 1153 would do. This bill seems like a technical fix to allow affiliated title insurance and settlement services firms to be excluded from the qualified mortgage rule's 3 percent cap on upfront points and fees paid by borrowers. But make no mistake, there is nothing technical about this. In fact, this bill would allow title insurance companies to jack up prices on borrowers and allow lenders to receive what would otherwise be illegal kickbacks.

Under this bill, lenders, including repeat offender megabanks, like Wells Fargo, would have new opportunities to reap huge financial profits at their customers' expense by steering them into costly title insurance policies that have no cap on fees whatsoever.

Prior to the enactment of Dodd-Frank, lenders were able to earn tremendous profits through lucrative kickbacks paid by their affiliates. The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA, prohibits giving a fee kickback or thing of value in exchange for a referral of business related to a real estate settlement service. But this kickback prohibition does not apply to affiliated companies of lenders, like a title insurance firm. To avail themselves of this kickback loophole, some lenders have bought or created businesses to enable them to profit directly from the relationship.

So Dodd-Frank established the responsible underwriting practice of requiring lenders to verify a borrower's ability to repay when they originate a loan. Dodd-Frank also enabled lenders to obtain some legal protections when making residential mortgages if those loans are considered a qualified mortgage or QM.

To be considered QM, a loan must have terms and conditions that are understandable to borrowers and not contain predatory features considered to be unfair or deceptive. QM loans, for example, can't be interest-only loans, longer than 30 years, or have balloon payments. Specific to the bill we are considering today, the amount of upfront points and fees on QM loans cannot exceed 3 percent of the total amount of the loan.

In short, QM loans are supposed to be low risk, prudently underwritten, and free from the type of features associated with those predatory mortgages that trapped borrowers in loans they couldn't afford and that led to the financial crisis.

The points and fees cap included under the QM definition includes, among other things, real estate-related fees paid to affiliates of the lender for services, such as property appraisals, settlement services, and title insurance. Fees paid to affiliates of the lender pose greater risks to borrowers since lenders cannot steer borrowers directly to their affiliates without open competition, and higher prices charged by affiliates directly benefit the lenders.

Affiliate title insurance is especially problematic. The title insurance industry is notoriously opaque. Due to a lack of competition and readily available information on terms and pricing, consumers do not shop around for title insurance as they might for other products and services. Megabanks, like Wells Fargo, have used title insurance to take advantage of consumers through illegal kickbacks schemes.

The Consumer Bureau took an enforcement action in 2015 against Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase, ordering those megabanks to pay more than $24 million in civil penalties and more than $11 million to consumers harmed by their kickback schemes with Genuine Title, a now defunct title company.

At the time, Director Cordray said: ``These banks allowed their loan officers to focus on their own illegal financial gain rather than on treating consumers fairly. Our action today to address these practices should serve as a warning for all those in the mortgage market.''

Madam Speaker, these kickback schemes continue despite Congress' efforts to shut them down, and would likely increase if H.R. 1153 is enacted. Because H.R. 1153 would remove fees that are charged by a lender's affiliate title insurance company from the QM fee cap, the bill directly encourages lenders to, once again, steer borrowers to their affiliates so they can extract even more money from them.

Now, supporters of the bill argue that, because individual States provide adequate regulation over the title insurance industry, it is unnecessary, they say, to have additional safeguards related to affiliated title companies and the fees they charge. However, research from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners shows that State laws do not, by themselves, offer robust protection to consumers with title insurance. More than half of all States don't even collect data from title agents. Some States have ``no particular standard'' for determining whether title insurance rates are adequate, and even a couple, like Illinois and Arkansas, do not regulate title insurance rates at all.

Congress should be strengthening prohibitions on kickbacks, not weakening them. We should enable borrowers to get the best price, terms, and conditions on mortgage loans instead of creating more ways for these megabanks, like Wells Fargo, to gouge American consumers.

When Congress considered this same measure last term, the Obama administration issued a veto threat, stating that the bill ``risked eroding consumer protections and returning the mortgage market to the days of careless lending focused on short-term profits.''

Madam Speaker, buying a home is likely the largest purchase most consumers will ever make. For this reason alone, Congress should absolutely reject proposals like H.R. 1153 that would permit residential mortgage lenders to take advantage of borrowers trying to achieve the American Dream.

Finally, a long list of groups, including civil rights groups, such as the NAACP and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, as well as consumer groups at the National, State, and local level, like Americans for Financial Reform, National Consumer Law Center, and the Center for Responsible Lending, all oppose this so-called Mortgage Choice Act.

So for all of these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1153.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the chairman.

He said that RESPA prohibits kickbacks. While RESPA prohibits paying kickbacks to third-party title agencies, the law does not prohibit payments to affiliated title firms. This incentivizes a title agency to be affiliated so it can gain the payment option without violating RESPA, including affiliated title insurance fees in the QM defines points and fees caps, provides important market pressure to control costs for consumers, and supports access to credits.

By the way, when we talk about RESPA, we are talking about the real estate settlement procedures that define all of this.

So let's be clear again that, while RESPA prohibits paying kickbacks to third-party title agents, the law does not prohibit payments to affiliated title firms.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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, for the life of me, I cannot understand why my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle would be in support of anything that would cause a home buyer to have to pay more money in fees when they are taking out a mortgage.

On a $400,000 mortgage, you are talking about you want to go beyond a $12,000 cap, which is 3 percent? Why would you want to do that to a homeowner?

What we are saying is, under QM and what we worked so hard to establish, was to put a cap on all of these fees so that the homeowners, the home buyers, would not be paying more than 3 percent of that mortgage.

We think that is fair.

Now you want to open up the flood gates so that these title companies can increase the amount of that they are charging and go beyond the 3 percent.

How much higher do you want it to go? Do you want them to be able to go up to 4 percent or 5 percent with these homeowners who are paying downpayments and who are trying to get into homes? Why is it you want to expand beyond a 3 percent cap on the average hardworking home buyer in this country?

I don't get it. I don't understand it.

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

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

I don't think I heard my colleague correctly when he said that this bill had something to do with encouraging first-time home buyers. It has nothing to do with encouraging first-time home buyers.

As a matter of fact, if we proceed with this bill that is before us today that they are supporting, it will discourage first-time home buyers and home buyers in general because what they are doing is they are increasing the possibility for more points and fees that have to be paid when we have a cap now at 3 percent, which any reasonable person would know makes good sense.

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

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

My friends on the opposite side of the aisle just dislike qualified mortgage. They dislike QM. And a lot of the arguments that you have heard had nothing to do, really, with this bill, itself, but more with the fact that they have always wanted to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who has the responsibility of implementing

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

Try as they may, they cannot explain to anyone why it is they want to open up the opportunity for these affiliated companies to charge more on these title loans.

As a matter of fact, again, I am going to keep reminding everyone who is listening that, under Dodd-Frank, under the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, under the qualified mortgage rule, all of the work that was done after this country found itself in a position of where we were in a recession, almost a depression because of what we had allowed to happen in this country from some of the biggest banks and financial institutions in the world, we discovered that there were all kind of exotic loans, all kind of different kinds of loans that were put together to entice consumers and home buyers to take out these mortgages.

We heard about all of them: no-documentation loans where they didn't even know where the consumer, the homeowner was going to get their money from; they did not vet them, they did not know their employment history, and on and on and on.

So the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is absolutely carrying out the work of what Dodd-Frank was intended to do, and that is to reform all of this and to make sure that consumers are treated fairly, to make sure that consumers are not ripped off, to make sure that consumers don't have a whole list of these fees and points before they can even get their downpayments, incredibly, and have to pay over 3 percent and more in these points and fees as they are trying to access a mortgage.

This is all about keeping the cap on the 3 percent for all of those points and fees. If you do what this bill is intended to do, you are saying that you are opening up the opportunity for these points and fees to be increased because of these affiliated companies that want to take the cap off. I don't know how better to explain that.

My friends on the opposite side of the aisle would charge consumers more with this bill. We on this side of the aisle are opposed with that. We are saying that it is not fair to consumers. What you need to do is let Dodd-Frank reforms work so that we can protect our consumers and not have them gouged and increase the amount of money they have to pay in these points and fees.

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

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

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

Allow me to just say that we continue on this most important legislation, H.R. 1153, and we have had the opportunity to yield time to Leader Pelosi, and while she certainly came in to oppose this bill that we have before us, having yielded 1 minute to the leader is the most profound 1 minute probably in the history of this institution, that 1 minute that ended up 8 hours where Leader Pelosi talked about the plight of DACA and the DREAMers.

And I am very proud that in yielding that 1 minute we had the opportunity to listen to Leader Pelosi deal with an issue and demand that we have an opportunity to have a real debate and a real discussion in the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we had that opportunity, and now let me just say, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, American consumers are under attack by the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress every day. We learn about either another effort to weaken guardrails, protecting consumers from predatory actors, or another Trump appointee refusing to hold bad actors accountable.

Trump supporters at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission have basically stopped enforcing our Nation's consumer and security laws.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is a lot of excitement here because of what took place in the last 8 hours, so I don't feel interrupted at all. I just feel very, very pleased that we had the opportunity to have that speech by our leader.

However, I will just continue. Let me just get to the fact that, again, Mick Mulvaney, whom Trump unlawfully appointed as Acting Director of the Consumer Bureau, is gutting the Consumer Bureau's Office of Fair Lending Equal Opportunity limiting the Consumer Bureau's ability to stop bad actors from discriminating against communities of color.

News reports also suggest that Mulvaney has slowed down the Consumer Bureau's investigation of Wells Fargo, the ultimate example of a recidivist megabank. Wells Fargo has publicly admitted to ripping off millions of Americans with fraudulent checking accounts, credit cards, forced-placed auto insurance, and much, much more.

But the Trump administration has a partner in its efforts to undermine consumer protections. House Republicans have been in lockstep with the President when it comes to rolling back consumer protections. Take the Consumer Bureau's rule on forced arbitration: Wall Street lobbied hard against this rule, and instead of putting consumers first, House Republicans passed a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal a rule that would have helped consumers who have been wronged by the big banks to join together to hold them accountable.

But that is just one example of how House Republicans have tried to undermine consumer laws. For years now, they have tried to cut the funding of the Consumer Bureau or to change its structure, and having failed in those attempts, they now have their inside man, Mick Mulvaney, who is working to destroy the Bureau from within. We shouldn't be surprised since the chairman of the Financial Services Committee has said he wants to ``financially terminate'' the Consumer Bureau.

The bill before us today should be viewed as one part of this long line of attempts by my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle to undermine the fundamental consumer protection. Home buyers should not be gouged or swindled just because they want to own a home. H.R. 1153 would legitimize predatory kickbacks through affiliated firms. Megabanks, including bad actors like Wells Fargo, and other lenders would be incentivized to steer their borrowers into more costly products simply because they can.

H.R. 1153 is a bad bill that will only line the pockets of Wall Street with the hard-earned savings of Main Street. But don't just take my word for it. Civil rights groups and consumer advocates all agree that this is bad for America.

So, despite all of the excitement that we have had here on the floor today with Leader Pelosi and the message that she brought to this Congress, I want all of our Members to simply reject President Trump's and House Republicans' attack on consumers. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1153 and support Leader Pelosi in calling for a debate in this House on the issue dealing with DACA and the DREAMers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary achievement of Elon Musk and SpaceX for the spectacular and historic launch of its giant Falcon Heavy rocket, now the world's most powerful operational rocket, from Cape Canaveral on Tuesday, February 6, 2018.

Besides the launch itself, which carried Mr. Musk's personal Tesla Roadster into space, SpaceX also achieved a second amazing feat by guiding two of the Falcon Heavy's rocket boosters back to Earth for an upright landing. This rocket launch has paved the way for faster, cheaper launches of satellites and cargo into space.

So, as the representative of California's 43rd Congressional District, this milestone is especially meaningful to me. SpaceX is headquartered in my district in the city of Hawthorne, California, and employs thousands of talented men and women in our community.

I congratulate Elon Musk and SpaceX for continuing the great tradition of achievement by aerospace companies in the South Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2954, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, which would undermine efforts to monitor trends in mortgage lending, combat discriminatory and predatory lending, and ensure that consumers who reside in low- and moderate- income communities have fair access to mortgage credit.

In 1975, Congress enacted the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, also known as HMDA, in response to concerns that despite their responsibility to provide adequate home financing to qualified applicants on reasonable terms and conditions, some lenders' failure to do so had contributed to a decline in housing conditions in communities of color.

HMDA data provide the only comprehensive picture of the rates at which American consumers' requests for mortgages are approved and denied. As a result, it has many important uses.

HMDA data provide information on mortgage lending patterns and trends that allow regulators, lenders, researchers, and the public to better understand and address redlining concerns by identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns, and monitoring compliance with and enforcement of statutes, like the Community Reinvestment Act; and Federal antidiscrimination laws, like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act.

Local governments also use HMDA data to determine which financial institutions are meeting the needs of their communities and should receive important benefits funded by the taxpayers of those communities.

For example, in Antioch, California, the local government uses HMDA data when selecting banks for contracts and participation in local programs.

HMDA data are also used by government officials to determine areas of disinvestment that are in need of targeted assistance. Take Flint, Michigan, for example. There, HMDA data has been used to target funds to remediate blight.

Communities also use HMDA data to identify discriminatory lending patterns and enforce antidiscrimination statutes. HMDA data, for example, were used in Chicago to identify discrimination and lending patterns in its neighborhoods, leading to a large discriminatory lending settlement.

It was precisely because of HMDA data that Congress learned during the run-up to the financial crisis that African Americans were routinely steered into predatory subprime loans, even when they qualified for prime mortgages, and they received these loans at higher rates than White borrowers.

Following the financial crisis, Congress updated HMDA when it passed the Dodd-Frank Act, directing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to close information gaps about mortgage lending patterns and practices that contributed to the 2007-2008 financial crisis, as well as other data that could better identify discrimination.

Accordingly, in 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rule that required sufficient information to shed light on predatory practices in the mortgage market, and it considered compliance costs and burdens imposed on institutions that collect, maintain, and report the data. Through this rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau added and

implemented additional data fields that must be reported in order to further close information gaps about mortgage lending patterns and practices.

The new data fields include basic loan facts, such as the address of the property, interest rate of the mortgage, and the borrower's credit score.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule only excluded truly small lenders; banks that originate fewer than 25 closed-end loans, like mortgages; and 100 open-end lines of credit, like home equity lines, because providing broader relief would negatively affect low- and moderate-income communities.

Specifically, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wrote: ``The loss of data in communities at closed-end mortgage loan volume thresholds higher than 25 would substantially impede the public's and public officials' ability to understand access to credit in their communities.''

Despite the harm posed to low- and moderate-income communities around the country, H.R. 2954 would permanently raise the threshold for new HMDA data for both mortgage loan-type data and lines of credit to 500 without a good understanding about the real impact of doing so.

At this level, 85 percent or 5,400 depository institutions and 48 percent of nonbanks or 497 institutions would be exempt. That is 6,000 financial institutions that would no longer report important lending data.

By prohibiting these important new data fields from being reported under HMDA, regulators would not be able to fully determine the extent of redlining, discrimination, and other harmful practices. This will make it harder for fair lending violations to be detected, as HMDA data are routinely used by the Department of Justice to identify and remedy discrimination in lending.

These new data fields are essential for shedding light on the kinds of discrimination, like age, that now flies under the radar. It is not surprising that over 170 civil rights, fair housing, consumer and community organizations across the country have come out strongly against this bill. These groups have stated that: ``The updated HMDA data will provide critical information about whether similarly situated borrowers in underserved communities are receiving equitable access to mortgage credit, data that we lacked a decade ago when the crisis hit.''

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the need for Congress to consider tailored and sensible regulatory relief to community financial institutions, but this bill is not that relief.

Financial institutions are already required to collect this data as part of existing mortgage regulations or as part of the mortgage underwriting process.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support H.R. 2954 because it undermines effective fair lending enforcement by reducing HMDA data. This bill will contribute to unequal access to affordable credit for people of color, low- to moderate-income families, and borrowers in rural areas.

History has repeatedly shown us that when financial institutions are merely trusted to operate in good faith, American consumers are left vulnerable to discriminatory and predatory lending, communities are stripped of wealth, and our economy is weakened.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this rollback of a key fair lending tool and to join me in opposing H.R. 2954.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota who described his district, he failed to mention that the China-Asia Economic Development Association and the Jewish Community Action group all oppose this bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ellison for the time he has spent with us today opposing this legislation. His history is such that everyone understands that he represents the least of these, that he represents working people, that he represents poor people. Whenever there is an opportunity to speak up for them, he always does.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to remember what this is all about, so let me state the facts.

HMDA data allows us to monitor mortgage lending patterns to identify underserved communities and populations to combat discriminatory lending.

HMDA data was used to determine when many of us suspected during the subprime bubble that persons of color, particularly African Americans, received predatory subprime loans at higher rates than White borrowers. They received these loans even when they qualified for prime mortgages.

The Department of Justice and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have used HMDA data to bring fair lending cases against banks for redlining, steering, and other violations of the Fair Housing Act.

It might be true that H.R. 2954 could provide relief to some financial institutions by exempting lenders from the updated HMDA reporting requirements. What is true is that the bill would likely also have far-reaching adverse consequences for consumers, particularly those in low-income census tracts and rural areas.

Equally disconcerting is that the reduced HMDA data could stop regulators' ability to identify and stop any emerging predatory or discriminatory practices faced by those consumers.

Borrowers who take out home equity lines of credit, the HELOCs, are at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure when property values decline. In fact, the expansion of HELOCs in the mid-2000s contributed to the foreclosure crisis that many communities experienced in the last 2000s.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau noted that:

Had open-end line of credit data like HELOCs been reported

in HMDA, the public officials could have had a much earlier

warning and a better understanding of potential risk, and

public and private mortgage relief programs could have better

assisted distressed borrowers in the aftermath of the crisis.

While I am a longtime advocate for community banks, this bill does not reduce burdens. All of the HMDA data points being discussed today will continue to be collected by banks because they need this data to originate mortgages for their customers.

I also understand that personal banking does not mean that discriminatory lending does not occur in smaller-sized institutions. In fact, the Obama administration's Department of Justice sued a community bank located in Chaska, Minnesota, with assets of $1.9 billion.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard the arguments. We are on the side of the people. I don't know who they represent over there. I simply ask for a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act of 2017.

Last year, Democrats on the Financial Services Committee joined our Republican colleagues in favorably reporting H.R. 3326 out of committee to support the bill's authorization of a U.S. contribution of $3.29 billion to multilateral development efforts and to enforce the importance of U.S. leadership at the international financial institutions, but the favorable report in committee came with clear conditions for the future of the bill.

Democrats made it clear during consideration of this bill in committee that our ongoing support for the measure would depend upon changes to provisions in the bill moving forward that put critical U.S. funding at risk. But here we are today and Republicans have not made any effort at all to address our very specific concerns.

Namely, the bill would cut up to 30 percent of the U.S. contribution to the International Development Association--IDA--in any year in which the Treasury Secretary does not certify to Congress that the World Bank has adopted or is taking steps to implement two sets of reforms mandated in the bill.

IDA is the arm of the World Bank that provides grants and other assistance to the world's 77 poorest countries, which are home to more than 450 million people living in extreme poverty. Cuts to U.S. funds to IDA would punish millions of children and other vulnerable people in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, who are living in extreme poverty, who are suffering from famine, or who are emerging from conflict.

Democrats do not believe that cutting U.S. funds for, and diminishing U.S. influence at, the international financial institutions is an effective approach to reform.

To remedy this problem with the bill, Representative Moore, who is the ranking member on our committee's Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade, had sought to offer an amendment on the floor to strike the provisions in the bill that would give the administration cover to cut U.S. funding from multilateral efforts aimed at alleviating global poverty. The amendment would have maintained both sets of reforms currently in the bill and directed the Secretary of the Treasury to actively promote these policy goals through advocacy and direct engagement with World Bank management as well as the World Bank's other major shareholders.

Unfortunately, the Rules Committee refused to make this amendment in

order, thus depriving the House of the opportunity to decide for itself which approach it prefers to take: reforming the World Bank by fiat with a threat to cut funding or reforming the World Bank through the exercise of U.S. influence and power at the World Bank based on the merits of the reforms themselves.

Mr. Chairman, the process by which this bill has come to the floor stands in stark contrast to our committee's long history of working together on issues relating to global economic governance.

For many years, the Financial Services Committee has worked in a bipartisan fashion to achieve a number of important reforms at the World Bank, including increased transparency, the creation of the inspection panel, more disclosure of information, and closer consultation with local communities most affected by World Bank projects.

We were able to successfully advance these policy goals through serious and direct negotiations and sustained engagement with both the Department of the Treasury and the World Bank itself, not by threatening to walk away from our commitments, but the Trump administration has consistently demonstrated troubling attitudes toward the role of the U.S. in the world.

In November of last year, in testimony before the Financial Services Committee, David Malpass, Treasury's Under Secretary for International Affairs, expressed the administration's view that globalism and multilateralism have gone substantially too far.

In December, the Trump administration refused to pledge any funds for the next replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, a small multilateral development bank that helps the poor in remote, rural areas where few donors operate. Of course, just last week, this President made ignorant, racist, and deplorable comments about Africa, where, as it happens, IDA focuses a great deal of its resources and energy.

Mr. Chairman, the more committed we are to our goals and to our ideals, the more morally obligated we are to do everything we can to advance those goals.

The legislation before us today, in its current form, fails to meet that test, so I will be opposing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. We can, and we should, do better.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas really has presented rather hollow arguments that have no place in this debate. This is about our humanitarianism and about our strategic position in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), the senior member of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the vice ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

In closing, let me say that Democrats did view this legislation as an important marker of international engagement from our committee, which has not in recent times demonstrated a great deal of interest in global economic leadership. We viewed this measure as an opportunity to reinforce the importance of global economic cooperation. Given that, it seemed to us a mistake to then reject the possibility of cooperation with our own Republican colleagues. So we supported the bill for that reason as well, and I regret we couldn't come to an accommodation.

On another matter, let me also say that I won't question the sincerity of my Republican colleagues' commitment to reforming the World Bank, but

I do wonder why, if these reforms are as pressing and as urgent and as critical as they say, why did they take so long?

Chairman Hensarling has been at the helm of our committee for over 5 years, and, during that time, the Obama administration requested legislation to authorize U.S. participation in three other replenishments, including the previous IDA-17. But the committee refused to act on any of these requests, not only shirking its oversight responsibility, but also missing a number of opportunities to press for reforms which presumably were as urgent then as they are now.

In fact, in November of 2014, near the end of the 113th Congress, I wrote to Chairman Hensarling urging him to turn his attention to the three pending authorization requests before Congress adjourned. I made a number of arguments in support of the multilateral development banks, the MDBs, which apparently did not persuade the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I include that letter in the Record.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, November 19, 2014.

Hon. Jeb Hensarling,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hensarling: I write to urge you to turn your

attention before Congress adjourns to the Administration's

requests for authorizations for U.S. participation in the

replenishments of three concessional windows at the

multilateral development banks (MDBs)--namely, the World

Bank's International Development Association (IDA-17), the

Asian Development Fund (AsDF-11), and the African Development

Fund (AfDF-13).

As you know, these concessional facilities provide grants

and low-cost development financing to the world's poorest

countries. They support projects that combat hunger and

poverty while promoting private-sector growth and global

stability. Well-designed multilateral aid programs help

create more equitable societies and more stable democracies.

It is also crucial to U.S. interests that developing nations

continue to grow. Exports have been the most rapidly growing

share of our economy, and exports to developing countries

have been an important part of that.

America is also fighting a war on terrorism, and while the

forces that give rise to terrorism are complex, poverty and

despair provide a fertile feeding ground. Moreover, U.S.

contributions to the development banks also provide

tremendous value for the money. Every dollar we commit is

leveraged many times over by contributions from other donor

nations, as well as from the internal resources of the

institutions themselves.

Today, we have another very important, and potentially far-

reaching, reason why the U.S. should promptly meet its

commitments to the MDBs. The last few years have

unfortunately seen a weakening of the commitment to

multilateralism by the United States, which has led to

widespread doubt about U.S. leadership on global economic

governance.

In response, a number of developing countries, led by

China, have begun to act independently, with initiatives

viewed as the first serious, coordinated effort to reshape

the global financial architecture and challenge western

dominance in the world economy.

Last month, China announced an agreement with 21 other

developing countries to create a multilateral development

bank called the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB),

which will focus on financing infrastructure development

projects in the Asia-Pacific region. A clear rival to the

Asian Development Bank, the AIIB will be led by China, its

largest shareholder, and headquartered in Beijing.

Separately, in July, the so-called BRICS nations (Brazil,

Russia, India, China and South Africa) announced plans to

launch an international development bank of their own, which

they hope will rival the strength and influence of the World

Bank. The ``New Development Bank,'' as it is called, will be

headquartered in Shanghai and focus on infrastructure

investment throughout the developing world.

Development experts agree that global infrastructure needs

in developing countries is tremendous, and there are many who

welcome the contribution that the new development banks can

make in helping to build sustainable economic infrastructure

both in Asia and elsewhere. But these new institutions also

reflect frustration by the world's major emerging economies

with the slow pace of governance reforms at the Bretton Woods

institutions, especially the IMF. In fact, the now-stalled

agreement to realign the quota shares at the IMF, negotiated

by the Bush Administration, was a critical effort to preserve

its legitimacy and keep emerging economies firmly anchored in

the multilateral system that the U.S. helped design.

U.S. inaction in meeting its commitments to the MDBs, as

well as its refusal to ratify IMF governance reforms, is what

led, in large part, to the creation of these new institutions

that will increasingly pose a challenge to the global

financial order created by western powers after World War II.

We should be mindful that a world in which countries such as

China and Russia are acting outside of the established

international financial institutions, or other global bodies,

is one that could drift beyond our control. Moreover, it

remains to be seen what values these new rising powers will

articulate and promote in their vision of a new global

economy.

I believe this makes U.S. leadership at the multilateral

development institutions today more important than ever. They

are directed at some of the most central challenges faced by

the U.S.--strategic, economic, political and moral--and, in

many ways, they are often our most effective means for

responding to those challenges.

I strongly urge you to take prompt action to affirm U.S.

support for, and U.S. leadership at, these institutions,

which have served both U.S. interests and the global public

good for so many years.

Sincerely,

Maxine Waters,

Ranking Member.

Nevertheless, here we are, at a historic moment when U.S. credibility on the global stage is in serious question.

We have the option of choosing to lead and show the community of nations that the hateful words of the President will not be followed by misguided and enabling actions by Congress.

Today, I speak on behalf of the world's poorest countries and their people. Today, I stand with Africa, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and its misguided, cynical approach to multilateralism.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation as a signal to the world that Trump doctrine is not the American doctrine or a broader sign of American unreliability and indifference.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to tell you what is being said about us from some of these countries and around the world.

From Haiti, Trump comments saying that they were ``based on stereotypes.''

``In the spirit of the people of Haiti, we feel in the statements, if they were made, the President was either misinformed or miseducated about Haiti and its people.''

From Laurent Lamothe, the former Haitian Prime Minister: ``It shows a lack of respect,'' he says, ``and ignorance never seen before in the recent history of the U.S. by any President.''

Let's see what Jessie Duarte, Deputy Secretary General of the African National Congress, has to say. He said, ``Ours is not a s----hole country, neither is Haiti or any other country in distress.''

From the Government of El Salvador: ``We have addressed a note of protest to the Government of the United States highlighting in this document also the high value of Salvadorans.''

From Salvador Sanchez, President of El Salvador:

The statement by the President of the United States hits

the dignity of the Salvadoran people. El Salvador demands

within the framework of the principles governing relations

among states respect for the dignity of their noble and

courageous people.

Hugo Martinez, El Salvador's Foreign Minister, said:

``It's always been a foreign policy priority of our government to fight for the respect and dignity of our countrymen independent of the immigration status.

``Our countrymen are hardworking people who are always contributing to the countries where they are living and, of course, also to our country.''

And according to the State Department, Senegal also summoned the U.S. Ambassador for an explanation. And so Macky Sall, President of Senegal, said: ``I am shocked by the words of President Trump on Haiti and Africa. I reject them and condemn them vigorously. Africa and the Black race deserves the respect and consideration of all.''

And then there is John Mahama, former President of Ghana. He said: ``Africans and Haitians come from s----hole countries? Isn't Trump demonstrating that he is nothing but a racist and pursuing a policy of `Make America White Again'? I congratulate Botswana for showing the way. Our AU Presidents must respond strongly to this insult.''

I could go on and on about comments that are coming from our friends and

our allies. Some of them may be poor countries but who have had respect for us in the past and who have stood with us in times of adversity.

I absolutely know that this country has demonstrated, time and time again, that we are humanitarians, that we understand the importance of giving support to the poorest countries in this world, and they appreciate us so much. They honor us, they have respected us, and they have done everything to show that they will stand with us when they need us to do that.

And here we are at a time when we are willing to put them at risk with a piece of legislation where we have some Members on the opposite side of the aisle who think they know better than the World Bank, who think they know better than all of the Members, Democrats and Republicans, who have worked together for years in our support of the World Bank; in our support of giving support to the 77 poorest countries in the world; and giving our support to the 450 million people, many of them who are living in abject poverty, many of them who don't know where the next meal is going to come from, and many of them whose lives are at risk every day.

How can we, the richest country in the world, turn our nose up at them, talk about somehow they are not credible, talk about somehow they are all corrupt? I reject it, and I ask the Members of this Congress to vote ``no'' on this misplaced, misguided piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Yes, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

While the amendment speaks to reducing government barriers to entrepreneurship, the real-world impact of adopting this amendment would be to enlist the World Bank in the business

of really what they are going for, diminishing labor standards.

The World Bank's prior ``doing business'' report is a prime example of why we must reject this amendment. The World Bank should be encouraging sustainable and inclusive growth, not policies that diminish workers' rights. So I would urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, though I do not intend to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, Representative Barr, would make changes to section 4 of the underlying bill dealing with opposing World Bank assistance for governments that fail to enforce U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea.

These changes are welcome and would bring this section of the bill in line with a provision that was adopted on a bipartisan basis in the Financial Services Committee as part of our commitment in the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions Act.

Just as the bipartisan measure that was passed through our committee included a clearly defined waiver authority, the amendment offered by Representative Barr would add, in this same waiver, provisions to the underlying bill. In doing so, the amendment not only makes section 4 of the bill consistent with the approach used in

other contexts, but, more importantly, it ensures that we allow the President to waive the withholding of assistance for countries that fall short in applying sanctions on North Korea when such failure is due exclusively to a lack of capacity of the foreign government and the foreign government is taking effective steps to prevent the failure from recurring.

While I do not believe the underlying bill should become law in its current form, I do believe we should take a consistent and thoughtful approach to cutting off World Bank assistance to the poorest countries that are unable to fulfill their U.N. Security Council obligations. This amendment would address this concern.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for giving credit to Ms. Moore for her work and her assistance with the work that was being done to deny North Korea any kind of assistance from any of our allies, as I understand it. This is not something that is done by the Republicans or the Democrats. This is truly bipartisan. We all feel the same way about North Korea, and we all feel that the sanctions should be honored. We all feel that no country, in particular those countries that we are supporting, in any way should do anything to give support to North Korea.

In saying that, let me also point out that we don't come to this floor with any kind of empty rhetoric, talking about all of those countries are corrupt and somehow all of these countries in Africa and other places that are very poor are somehow disregarding the fact that the United States is being of assistance to them. Most of them know that their lives oftentimes depend on our generosity. They love us and support us. They want to emulate us.

They get a little bit confused when we have people who charge them with being corrupt and irresponsible and noncaring and not having an appreciation for what the citizens of the United States are doing for them. That is not the kind of rhetoric that we need in order to enhance our posture or our image with our constituents and have them believe that we are saving them from these poor countries who are getting taxpayer money and don't care about them. That is not true.

I cringe when I hear that kind of rhetoric on the floor of Congress. I cringe when I hear us using our position, our influence, to send a message that somehow we don't trust, we don't believe, we don't honor, and we don't respect many of those very, very poor countries. We are talking about 77 of the poorest countries in the world.

You will see ads on television, from time to time, of nonprofit organizations that are trying to save the lives of little children who are dying from malnutrition. You see them every night, and they tell you: Send $21; send some money to this organization so we can save these children who are dying because they don't have clean drinking water, who are dying because they are victims of malaria, who are dying because they don't have any healthcare whatsoever, living practically outdoors. When we see these ads, many people are responding, joining in with their government to show our humanitarianism and helping the least of these.

I want us to take credit, but I want us be respectful. I want us not to join in calling names. I want us to say to the President of the United States: ``Don't keep doing this.'' I want to say to the Members on the opposite side of the aisle: ``You are better than this, and you don't need this for your reelection. You don't need this to send a message to your citizens that you are saving them from poor, corrupt countries.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4015, the so-called Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act, would create an untested, inappropriate, and burdensome regulatory framework for proxy advisory firms, making it much more difficult for shareholders to obtain unbiased research used to make well-informed voting decisions about the companies they own.

Institutional investors, like pension funds and mutual funds, typically invest money on behalf of hardworking Americans in a large number of public companies. In exchange for their investment, companies provide investors with shares of ownership and a say on important proposed changes to how the companies are run.

These proposals may relate to who sits on the board of directors, how much executives are paid, environmental practices, employee minimum wage, and nondiscrimination policies.

Shareholders often hire independent researchers called proxy advisory firms to help inform their voting decisions on the many proposals they consider each year.

H.R. 4015 contains numerous provisions that would undermine proxy advisory firms and the shareholders that rely on them for unbiased advice.

First, H.R. 4015 would essentially fulfill the wishes of corporate management by regulating proxy advisory firms out of existence. The bill requires proxy advisory firms to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and authorizes the SEC to deny applications on a whim.

Additionally, H.R. 4015 would force proxy advisers to publicly disclose their internal proprietary research methodologies and voting policies, which firms invest time and money into developing.

The bill would also require proxy advisers to hire a sort of compliance department dedicated entirely to the grievances of corporate management rather than the adviser's own shareholder clients.

These burdensome requirements would deter new proxy advisers from entering the market and squeeze out smaller, cost-sensitive firms. As a result, shareholders would be faced with ever-increasing fees to obtain research from a shrinking universe of advisers.

Second, H.R. 4015 would grant corporate management the right to review and weigh in on a proxy adviser's draft recommendations before the shareholder-clients, who pay for the recommendations, get to see a final report. If management raises a complaint that the adviser disagrees with, the bill allows management to get the last word by publishing its dissenting opinion in the adviser's final report. In other words, the bill is the equivalent of requiring that a teacher clear a report card with a student before sending it to his or her parents.

Finally, H.R. 4015 is unnecessary in light of existing Federal securities

laws. For example, some proxy advisers, such as the largest firm, Institutional Shareholder Services, are already registered and regulated as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. As such, they already owe heightened obligations to their customers; must make regular, comprehensive disclosures to regulators and the public; and are subject to periodic compliance examinations, among other legal responsibilities. Additionally, the SEC has already provided guidance on due diligence and oversight related to proxy advisers.

H.R. 4015 would replace this well-understood guidance with a harmful and inappropriate regulatory regime that undermines investors' ability to simply exercise their shareholder rights.

Tellingly, nothing in H.R. 4015 advances the bill's purported goals of ``fostering accountability, transparency, responsiveness, and competition in the proxy advisory firm industry.''

Shareholders hold corporations and their management accountable by casting well-informed votes on important issues of corporate governance, including issues of diversity. For example, a recent study by Ernst & Young found that corporate board diversity and gender pay equity were key themes in the 2017 proxy season. Specifically, Ernst & Young found that over half of the investors it interviewed included diversity as a board priority in 2017, and ``proposals asking boards to report on and increase their board diversity are among the top shareholder proposals submitted this year.''

H.R. 4015 would render these important accountability efforts ineffective, as the institutional shareholders driving governance changes would be less able to obtain the research needed to inform voting decisions.

Now, I can imagine that Americans listening to this debate may get confused that Republicans, who have been singularly focused on repealing important safeguards and protections for America's consumers and investors, are now claiming that they are seeking to protect investors with these new rules, but, Mr. Speaker, if this bill truly helped investors, why have so many from all over America written letters to Congress opposing H.R. 4015?

To name a few, the bill's opponents include public pension funds and government officials from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington. These investors joined a letter from Council of Institutional Investors stating that H.R. 4015 ``would weaken corporate governance in the United States; undercut proxy advisory firms' ability to uphold their fiduciary obligation to their investor clients; and reorient any surviving firms to serve companies rather than investors.''

Proponents of effective corporate governance, including Americans for Financial Reform, Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen, and Principles for Responsible Investment, have similarly written to oppose this bill. For example, the Consumer Federation of America wrote that H.R. 4015 ``would empower companies to bully proxy advisory firms into dropping their objections to management proposals or watering down their recommendations.''

Private institutional investors also agree that H.R. 4015 would leave shareholders reliant on biased information tilted toward the interests of company management. Sound corporate governance requires shareholders to have access to impartial information when voting on key corporate issues.

If our Nation's investors, who provide the capital for businesses to grow jobs and our economy, are unable to hold corporations accountable, they will be increasingly reluctant to invest. H.R. 4015 would, thereby, hurt the very businesses it purports to assist.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 4015.

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

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

It is not enough that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle just voted to give the biggest tax breaks to America's richest corporations. They are back here now supporting the control and the dominance of corporations over our investors who need protections. The difference between us and them, they are for deregulation of Dodd-Frank and protection for consumers to support, however they can give it, the biggest corporations in America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), an invaluable member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about what is happening in corporate America. They are dancing in the streets after that big tax cut that was just given by my friends on the opposite side of the aisle.

As to just a couple of companies--or too few companies--that are doing the advising for these investors, it was just a week or so ago that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle came here representing one company, Berkshire Hathaway, where they were asking this Congress to allow them to charge higher interest rates on the most vulnerable people in our population, with high interest rates and the terrible foreclosure practices all over this manufactured housing that Berkshire Hathaway is selling to these most vulnerable people in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee.)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the California State Teachers' Retirement System, the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, and the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems.

California Public Employees' Retirement System Executive

Office,

Sacramento, CA, December 18, 2017.

Subject H.R. 4015, The ``Corporate Governance Reform and

Transparency Act of 2017''.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leaders McCarthy and Pelosi: On behalf of the

California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), I

write to express our opposition to H.R. 4015, the ``Corporate

Governance Reform and Transparency Act of 2017,'' which is

scheduled to be considered by the full House this week.

CalPERS is the largest public, defined benefit pension plan

in the United States, with approximately $346.13 billion in

global assets, as of market close December 13, 2017. CalPERS

manages investment assets on behalf of more than 1.8 million

public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries. As a global,

institutional investor that invests in more than 11,000

public companies worldwide, we rely on the integrity and

efficiency of our financial markets to furnish the long-term

sustainable, risk-adjusted returns that allow us to meet our

liabilities.

Although we support the House Financial Services

Committee's focus on bipartisan ways to foster a system that

promotes capital formation and maximizes shareowner value, we

have several substantive concerns about H.R. 4015. Given the

large number of public companies in which CalPERS holds

voting shares, we use proxy advisory firms and other data

providers to assist us with analysis of management and

shareowner proposals and director elections. In providing

these services to CalPERS, these firms are guided by our

Governance and Sustainability Principles and proxy voting

policies to efficiently provide independent research and

analysis that helps to inform our voting decisions. While we

are certainly in favor of ensuring that proxy advisory firms

are well-regulated and transparent, we oppose efforts to

create an unduly burdensome regulatory regime in this area.

H.R. 4015 would create such a regulatory regime by

establishing conflict of interest management requirements

that are duplicative of existing Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC) authority. Currently, shareowners pay proxy

advisory firms through contractual arrangements, and this

provision of H.R. 4015 appears designed to fix a problem that

does not exist among contracting parties.

In addition, the bill would establish a process by which

corporations have preliminary access to the proxy information

that investors pay for under contracts with proxy advisory

firms. At the same time, corporations that do not provide

early access to their consultants' positions on items subject

to shareowner votes would not be required to register with

the SEC. The bill would also significantly increase proxy

voting costs for investors and create additional barriers to

entry for new proxy advisory firms. Finally, the bill's

definition of ``proxy advisory firm'' makes it unclear

whether the intent is to regulate the thousands of entities

that provide advice to institutional investors or only the

three or so that would be considered proxy advisory firms

under this definition.

Considering the SEC's limited resources and ever-increasing

responsibilities for addressing a broad range of emerging

challenges in our securities markets, it would be imprudent

to impose unnecessary requirements on the agency. As an

institutional investor that uses proxy advisory services, we

oppose H.R. 4015.

Thank you for your consideration of these views. Please do

not hesitate to contact me if we can be of any assistance.

Sincerely,

Marcie Frost,

Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. Speaker, they are frightened, absolutely frightened, that we could possibly be on the floor today negotiating with the opposite side of the aisle about investment advisers.

They can't understand why it is that we have Members of Congress who do not understand how important it is to have someone protecting the interest of middle class workers all over America.

You have heard the reference to the teachers, firefighters, garbage collectors, and on and on and on. These people work every day. They invest in their retirement and they expect their retirement to be taken care of, honored, and not to be basically undermined by corporate interests. So these investment advisers are extremely important to the investors of these retirement systems.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4015 is simply the latest effort by Republicans to check off every item on the corporate wish list before the holidays. The bill would empower corporate management at the expense of institutional shareholders, like our Nation's public pension plans, by allowing corporations to unfairly influence proxy voting recommendations.

Because of the size of their portfolios, public pension plans who may hold shares in thousands of companies must rely on proxy advisers to provide independent research and voting recommendations on the merits of proposals. Without the work of proxy advisers, institutional investors would, in practical terms, be left voiceless on corporate matters that are important to them, including governance, board

compensation, executive pay, and environmental sustainability.

H.R. 4015 would give corporate management the unprecedented right to interfere in the relationship between institutional investors and the proxy advisers they hire.

At its core, the bill is based on the false premise that shareholders blindly follow the recommendations of proxy advisers who themselves are beholden to activist interests. This belief is directly contradicted by reality.

For example, in 2017, the largest proxy advisory firm recommended ``no'' votes on less than 12 percent of say-on-pay proposals, which are nonbinding votes on executive compensation practices required under the Dodd-Frank Act. That means they sided with company management 88 percent of the time.

When it comes to director elections, the largest proxy firm voted ``yes''--``yes'' votes for 90 out of 100 directors. Proxy advisers understand that the vast majority of companies' proposals are good for shareholders, but not for all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this misdirected bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters:

Americans for Financial Reform,

Washington, DC, December 18, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans for Financial

Reform (AFR), we are writing to urge you to vote against H.R.

4015, the ``Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act

of 2017'', which will be considered on the House floor this

week. By placing an excessive and unnecessary regulatory

burden on proxy advisory firms, this bill would unfairly

disadvantage shareholders as compared to firm management, and

raise serious First Amendment concerns as well. AFR joins

major representatives of shareholders such as the Council of

Institutional Investors (CII) and the California Public

Employee Retirement System (CALPERS) in opposing this bill.

H.R. 4015 would establish a new Federal regulatory scheme

for proxy advisory firms. These firms provide institutional

investors, including pension funds, with the research and

information they need in order to exercise their voting

rights as shareholders. The regulations proposed in H.R. 4015

would require proxy advisory firms to provide the management

of public companies with detailed voting recommendations

relevant to their firms before these recommendations were

shown to shareholders who paid for proxy advisory services.

Advisory firms would also be required to resolve any

complaints from firm management, and employ an ombudsman to

ensure that such complaints were addressed. If complaints

were not resolved to the satisfaction of firm management,

then the full text of complaints from companies would be

included next to voting recommendations in proxy advisory

reports. Regulations would also mandate extensive disclosure

requirements for the details of proxy advisory methodologies,

reducing incentives to invest in developing such

methodologies. The costs of this regulatory regime would be

passed on to investors and pension funds that use proxy

advisory services.

The regulatory scheme is a transparent attempt to weaken if

not eliminate the independence of proxy advisory firms from

firm management by placing sharp restrictions on their

expression of opinions which differ from those of firm

management. Besides raising First Amendment issues, this

improperly restricts the ability of shareholders to obtain

independent views on how they should exercise their voting

rights.

This legislation cannot be justified, as some have

attempted to do, by any analogy to the regulation of credit

rating agencies. Proxy advisory services do not face a

fundamental conflict of interest in their business model

because they are not paid by securities issuers while

providing certification of securities quality to securities

investors. They also have not been implicated in massive

fraudulent behavior that contributed directly to a global

financial crisis. Further, proxy advisory services are

clearly recognized as providing opinions regarding voting

decisions, in a context where many other such opinions are

available, rather than being entities that certify the

quality of securities.

Any concerns about the independence of proxy advisory

services can be addressed by simply requiring such services

to register as investment advisors under the Investment

Advisors Act. The radical regulatory scheme laid out in H.R.

4015 goes far beyond anything even mentioned in the recent

Treasury Department report on capital markets, which examined

the issue of proxy advisory firms and recommended only that

regulators engage in ``further study and evaluation of proxy

advisory firms, including regulatory responses to promote

free market principles if appropriate.'' The regulatory

scheme in H.R. 4015, besides being misguided in other ways,

certainly does not promote free market principles.

The effort in H.R. 4015 to eliminate the independent voice

of proxy advisory services should be rejected. We urge you to

vote against it.

For more information please contact AFR's Policy Director,

Marcus Stanley.

Sincerely,

Americans for Financial Reform.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank Congressman Green for his leadership. He is a member of the Financial Services Committee, who is dedicated to the proposition that we can and should work very hard to implement Dodd-Frank.

He has done a wonderful job in representing all of the people of this country when it comes to this issue of whether or not we are going to allow the biggest banks in this country to revert back to the practices that they have been involved in historically, where it caused us to be into a situation that caused the recession in 2008 or whether or not we are going to honor the work of Dodd-Frank and the reforms that were instituted and be about the business of fairness and justice.

I want to thank Mr. Green for his work, for his leadership, and for managing this most important legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3312, the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act.

At a time when big banks are doing very well and the industry made record profits--more than $171 billion last year--and business lending has increased 75 percent since Dodd-Frank was signed into law, now is not the time to eliminate critical safeguards and reduce oversight of many of our largest banks.

H.R. 3312 will roll back the enhanced prudential standards that currently apply to the 30 of the largest banks with more than $50 billion in assets. These are some of the most important

rules in Dodd-Frank, like enhanced capital and stress testing that are critical to maintaining a safe and sound banking system that supports the broader economy.

Proponents of this bill argue that Dodd-Frank imposed a one-size- fits-all approach to any bank over $50 billion. But the law makes clear that the Fed should tier and tailor its rules to differentiate between even these large banks ``on an individual basis or by category, taking into consideration their capital structure, riskiness, complexity, financial activities (including the financial activities of their subsidiaries), size, and any other risk-related factors that the Board of Governors deems appropriate.''

There is no one-size-fits-all mandate and the Fed has indeed tailored these rules. For example, the prudential rules for a trillion-dollar bank are much tougher compared to those that apply to a $250 billion bank and considerably more so compared to a $50 billion bank.

Yet, after 18 months, this bill would exempt 30 of our largest banks from enhanced oversight, and it replaces the $50 billion threshold with a cumbersome, discretionary process led by the Federal Reserve along with the FSOC. We have a similar process for designating non-bank financial bank companies, like AIG, which have posed a systemic risk. So it is strange that Republicans are now pushing a similar approach after they repeatedly blasted the same FSOC designation process for being arbitrary, opaque, unfair, and unworkable.

Those designations were heavily litigated, if not blocked in court, as these new designations by the Federal Reserve and the FSOC would likely be. Currently, there is only one non-bank designated by the FSOC through this process, so we should expect there would be hardly any designations through H.R. 3312.

Who are these 30 massive banks that stand to benefit?

These banks collectively hold more than $5 trillion in assets or one- fourth of all banking assets in the United States. Of the 30 banks, 12 of them are foreign banks, including Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Credit Suisse, and UBS. These banks have violated a wide range of U.S. laws, including anti-money laundering and unlawful trading practices, so I have no clue why Congress should even consider doing those banks any favors.

For all the talk about helping out small community banks that serve our customers well in our rural and underserved neighborhoods, there is not a single provision that helps out these thousands of community banks and their customers. While some characterize this bill as helping ``medium-sized'' banks, the medium-sized bank has only about $200 million in assets or roughly 250 times less than the massive banks that benefit by this bill.

More troubling, instead of helping community banks, the bill would make it easier for the largest banks to acquire smaller ones, accelerating a 30-year consolidation trend.

Reasonable people can disagree on how best to dial up or down some of these enhanced standards and tier them more effectively--and I know my colleagues have good intentions--but this proposal goes way, way too far in reversing strong oversight of the Nation's largest banks. Even a Senate bill that resembles Chairman Hensarling's ``Wrong Choice Act'' is far less aggressive, raising the $50 billion threshold to $250 billion, although even that proposal would be damaging.

Let me close by emphasizing that H.R. 3312 represents one of the largest rollbacks of sensible rules for many of our largest banks, including a dozen foreign banks, at a time when the industry is making record profits, and such a bill would hurt and make it harder for community banks to compete.

For these reasons, I strongly urge Members to oppose this bill, H.R. 3312.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to talk about what is happening in this country with this administration at this time. It is so related to what we are trying to explain about what this bill attempts to do.

First of all, let me just share with you that committee Democrats have made repeated attempts to follow the Trump money trail and investigate the suspicious financial dealings of the President, his immediate family and his associates, including their possible involvement in illicit Russian financial schemes.

Since March, Democrats have written six letters--two to committee Chairman Hensarling, one to Deutsche Bank, one to Deutsche Bank CEO John Cryan, two to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, and another to Deutsche Bank's external counsel, requesting their cooperation in exposing the scope of Russian influence on the Trump administration.

I have also written two letters on my own--one to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, another to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, regarding the Department of Justice's investigation into Deutsche Bank's Russian mirror trading scheme.

On March 10, 2017, committee Democrats called on Chairman Hensarling to use the full range of the committee's investigative powers to examine Deutsche Bank's Russian money laundering operation and assess the integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice's ongoing investigation into the scheme, given the Trump administration's conflicts of interest in the matter and the revelations of Attorney General Sessions' communications with the Russian Ambassador. Chairman Hensarling failed to respond. We have heard nothing from our chairman.

On May 23, 2017, committee Democrats sent a letter to Deutsche Bank's chief executive officer, John Cryan, requesting information on two internal reviews the bank reportedly conducted, the first on its mirror trading scandal and the second on whether the accounts of President Donald Trump and his family members held at the bank had any ties to Russia.

Deutsche Bank's external counsel responded, stating that Deutsche Bank was unable to cooperate with the request, citing privacy concerns.

On May 23, 2017, committee Democrats all sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin requesting that FinCEN provide any records to the committee that detail President Trump's financial ties to Russia as well as those of his family, his family members, and associates. Secretary Mnuchin failed to respond.

It goes on and on and on. Letters were sent on June 21. We sent a follow-up letter to Deutsche Bank. On and on and on.

What is important about all of this is Deutsche Bank is known and has been fined for many things, including money laundering. So, knowing that, what we are doing here is lifting oversight on Deutsche Bank, one of the fallen banks that would be covered by this bill.

I think this is outrageous. I think people should know what this bill is all about and how it is going to put us at greater risk. We are dealing with limiting the oversight of banks like Deutsche Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct my chairman--I do not like to do this--however, I did check my mail, and I have discovered that when he responded to the August 11 letter, he let me know that he would not use his subpoena power to help us out. He did not respond at all to the March 10 letter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act.

Contrary to the bill's title, this bill is far from a technical clarification. So I want to be very clear about what this bill would actually do.

H.R. 2396 would reduce the meaningful and clear disclosures that financial institutions must currently provide to their customers every year, even if those companies share their customers' nonpublic personal information broadly with nonaffiliated third-party companies.

Unlike other privacy bills Congress has considered, this bill comes with no guardrails whatsoever to discourage the company from broadly sharing consumer-sensitive personal information.

While the bill provides several alternative mechanisms to deliver privacy reminders, one option would result in the customer receiving no written disclosure at all.

The current annual privacy notices serve as a reminder describing a customer's right to restrict the sharing of their nonpublic, personal information to nonaffiliated third parties and information about how to exercise this right if they so choose.

This privacy right was created in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was signed into law in 1999. I served on the conference committee, so I know firsthand that the initial and annual privacy notices in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act were enacted partly in response to public concerns about the sale of personal data for marketing purposes that were highlighted in a number of legal actions brought by State attorneys general at the time.

In 1999, for example, there was a settlement between the Minnesota attorney general and U.S. Bank resolving allegations that the bank misrepresented its practice of selling highly personal and confidential information about its customers to telemarketers.

These concerns are just as relevant today. In fact, I find the timing of the consideration of this bill very troubling, as it is being brought to the floor just months after the massive Equifax data breach.

In the Equifax breach, 145.5 million Americans had their Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and other sensitive financial and personally identifiable information exposed to thieves.

Equifax is not the only major credit bureau to experience a large data breach. About 2 years ago, Experian, one of the other three major credit bureaus in this country, had a breach that exposed millions of T-Mobile customers' information.

These breaches are on top of a long list of other breaches we have seen at other companies where sensitive customer information was compromised. Consumers have called on their Representatives in Congress to enact tougher laws that would strengthen their control over their personal information, not weaken it.

Consumers are increasingly wary about the unfettered sharing of their personal information by financial firms to nonaffiliated third parties that can result in consumer profiling, fraud, aggressive target marketing, and identity theft.

Unfortunately, this bill goes in the opposite direction. Instead of working to strengthen consumers' privacy protections, H.R. 2396 would ease obligations on financial institutions to provide notices to their customers describing their privacy practices and policies, and importantly, fully explaining to these customers their right to restrict the sharing of their information to nonaffiliated third parties.

This is commonly referred to as a consumer's right to opt out of having a financial institution share their information to companies that are outside of their common corporate structure or organization. These nonaffiliated third-party companies are generally not ones that the consumers have an existing relationship with, meaning that they have not received a product or service from the company in the past.

The proponents of H.R. 2396 may say the bill has nothing to do with Equifax, or that Equifax would not be covered, if the amendment being offered later today is agreed to. But the bill would roll back privacy notice requirements for many financial institutions that engage in vehicle financing, including megabanks like Wells Fargo, even if they broadly share their customers' nonpublic, personal information with other companies.

Let's discuss Wells Fargo and their auto lending practices and their work with nonaffiliated third parties. Earlier this year, the Democratic staff of the Financial Services Committee produced a report on Wells Fargo's egregious misconduct, which has consulted in extensive consumer harm.

For example, Wells Fargo charged over 570,000 consumers for automobile insurance policies they did not need, which resulted in at least 20,000 customers, including Active Duty servicemembers, having their vehicles inappropriately repossessed. These auto insurance policies were provided through a nonaffiliated third-party company called National General Insurance.

The bank has also demonstrated a clear pattern of misusing millions of their customers' information to open accounts in their name without their permission.

So why should Congress consider relaxing the privacy requirements for a recidivist bank like Wells Fargo?

Let me also address arguments that suggest customers don't read these notices anyway. That is a quote that we hear oftentimes.

As I have discussed, I think consumers are paying closer attention now after the Equifax incident. Proponents say that a company posting a link on their website isn't so bad, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau allowed for it.

But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau provided an alternative to the annual privacy notices for companies that do not share data in ways that trigger consumers' opt-out rights under the law. Over the last decade, Congress has heard repeatedly from banks and credit unions that if a company does not share personal information with an unaffiliated third party that allows consumers to opt out from having it shared, and if they do not change their privacy policies, they should be exempt from the annual notice requirements. In those instances, the customer does not have the ability to opt out of having the information shared.

After several years of research and debate, we made that targeted change in the last Congress. Since then, other companies, specifically captive auto finance companies, have made the case they should have more flexibility satisfying the annual notice requirement because they have a unique and close relationship with automobile dealers they work with that still requires them to send the annual notice.

This unaffiliated third-party relationship triggers a consumer's right under the law to opt out and not have their information shared. I offered an amendment in committee that would have granted this targeted relief, but it was rejected.

So, while I appreciate that H.R. 2396 provides flexibility to captive auto finance companies, the bill is not limited to them and goes much, much further. Mr. Speaker, over 30 consumer, community, privacy, and civil rights groups have publicly opposed this bill, including U.S. PIRG, and so do I. This is an area where more study is needed before policymakers craft sweeping changes.

The bottom line is that I believe we should not open the door too widely at this time to give this same degree of flexibility to all and every financial institution, including recidivist banks like Wells Fargo.

Furthermore, there needs to be more, not less, privacy protections and consumer control relating to personal information following the massive data breach at Equifax this year.

Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge opposition to H.R. 2396, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I have heard, more than once, Members speaking for consumers, saying: These privacy notices are not that important. Nobody reads them. They throw them in the wastebasket.

Well, I don't know how Members would know that, and I don't think that we should be satisfied that consumers are being represented that way with indications that they don't really care about these notices and the opportunity to opt out so that their information won't be shared.

But let me tell you what consumers are saying to us. I have, here, letters that have been sent by consumer organizations that really do care about what is happening with this bill today, and I would like to share that information with you.

Let me just tell you who these consumer organizations are and whom they represent:

There is Americans for Financial Reform. Americans for Financial Reform is a nonpartisan and nonprofit coalition of more than 200 civil rights, consumer, labor, business, investor, faith-based, civic, and community groups formed in the wake of the 2008 crisis, working to lay the foundation for a strong, stable, and ethical financial system, one that serves the economy and the Nation as a whole.

Then there is Allied Progress. Allied Progress is a consumer watchdog organization that uses hard-hitting research to stand up to Wall Street and powerful special interests and hold their allies in Congress and the White House accountable.

Then there is Center for Digital Democracy. The Center for Digital Democracy is recognized as one of the leading consumer protection and privacy organizations in the United States; and since its founding in 2001 and, prior to that, through its predecessor organization, the Center for Media Education, CDD has been at the forefront of research, public education, and advocacy, protecting consumers in the digital age.

Then there is Consumer Action. Through multilingual financial education materials, community outreach, and issue-focused advocacy, Consumer Action empowers underrepresented consumers, nationwide, to assert their rights in the marketplace and to financially prosper.

There is the Consumer Federation of America. The Consumer Federation of America is an association of nonprofit consumer organizations that was established way back in 1968 to advance consumer interests through research, advocacy, and education. Today, nearly 300 of these groups participate in the federation and govern it through their representatives on the organization's board of directors. CFA is a research, advocacy, education, and service organization.

Then there is Consumer Watchdog. Consumer Watchdog is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government, and politics, and they describe themselves as deploying an in-house team of public interest lawyers, policy experts, strategists, and grassroots activists to expose, confront, and change corporate and political injustice in every way, every day, saving Americans billions of dollars and improving countless lives. For decades, Consumer Watchdog has been the Nation's most aggressive consumer advocate, taking on politicians of both parties and the special interests that fund them.

Then there is the National Association of Consumer Advocates. The National Association of Consumer Advocates is a nonprofit association of more than 1,500 attorneys and consumer advocates committed to representing consumers' interests. Our members, they say, are private and public sector attorneys, legal services attorneys, law professors, and law students whose primary focus is the protection and representation of consumers. They have represented hundreds of thousands of consumers victimized by fraudulent, abusive, and predatory business practices.

As a national organization fully committed to promoting justice for consumers, NACA's members and their clients are actively engaged in promoting a fair and open marketplace that forcefully protects the rights of consumers, particularly those of modest means. NACA also has a charitable and educational fund incorporated under 501(c)(3).

There is another very prominent consumer organization, the National Consumer Law Center, working on behalf of low-income clients. Since 1969, the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center has used its expertise in consumer law and energy policy to work for consumer justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people, including older adults in the United States. This organization's expertise includes policy analysis and advocacy, consumer law and energy publications, litigation, expert witness services, and training and advice for advocates.

This organization works with nonprofit and legal services organizations, private attorneys, policymakers, and Federal and State government and courts across the Nation to stop exploitative practices, help financially stressed families build and retain wealth, and advance economic fairness.

Then there is Privacy Times. Privacy Times is the leading subscription-only newsletter covering privacy and freedom of information law and policy. It is read largely by attorneys and professionals who must stay abreast of the legislation, litigation, and executive branch activities, as well as consumer news, technology trends, and business developments. Since 1981, Privacy Times has provided its readers with accurate reporting, objective analysis, and thoughtful insight into the events that shape the ongoing debate over privacy and freedom of information.

Then there is the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a nonprofit consumer education and advocacy organization located in San Diego, California, their mission is to engage, educate, and empower consumers to protect their privacy. They engage in outreach, provide educational materials and services to individuals nationwide, and have an active media presence. The PRC uses the information we learn directly, they say, from consumers to form the basis of their advocacy work.

Then there is Public Citizen. Public Citizen has a team of researchers. They uncover the facts. Their staff brings their findings to the public through the media as well as one-on-one interactions. Their advocates bring the voice of the public to the halls of power on behalf of consumers.

Then there is Public Knowledge. Public Knowledge promotes freedom of expression and open internet and access to affordable communication tools and

creative works. They work to shape policy on behalf of the public interest.

Then there is Reinvestment Partners. Reinvestment Partners' mission is to advocate for economic justice and opportunity. They do this by providing direct services to people, revitalizing places, and advocating for just policies. Founded as a project of Legal Services in 1986 as the Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina, the agency has worked to ensure fair lending to underserved communities in order to build and protect wealth. In 2012, they changed their name to recognize the expanded diversity of their programs and their local and State and national outreach.

And then there is U.S. PIRG. U.S. PIRG is an advocate for the public interest, working to win concrete results on real problems that affect millions of lives and standing up for the public against powerful interests when they push the other way. They say: ``The problems we face don't care if you are liberal or conservative, if you live in a red or blue State. They affect each and every one of us.'' That is why, for decades, they have taken a nonpartisan, facts-driven, results- oriented approach to their work.

Mr. Speaker, I do not like hearing that our consumers don't care, that they don't need a yearly notification about their privacy rights, that they simply throw this information that describes their rights into the wastebasket; and I am so pleased that, over the years and through the history of this Nation when too many consumers have been ignored, taken advantage of, didn't know what their rights were, all of these organizations that I have taken time to share with you today work on behalf of consumers. They work not only in organizing and educating, but they send this information to their Members of Congress. All of these organizations have sent in this information not only about their backgrounds, but about this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

Again, it is interesting how my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle describe their consumers. These are people, they say, who don't want to be inundated with useless information. They are saying that the privacy information is of no use.

It is interesting that Mr. Loudermilk said he read his privacy notice, unlike most other Americans who don't read their privacy notice. I think that is very interesting to describe himself as someone who read his privacy notice, but able to speak for all other Americans who don't read their privacy notice.

What is very interesting also about his comments is he refers to the consumer groups as special interests, while he is representing the banks and the financial institutions, the real special interests.

Why is it Representatives who come to this Congress to represent people who vote for them somehow see their responsibility to protect the real special interests, such as the financial institutions who have lobbyists running up and down these Halls every day, who make contributions to Members of Congress, rather than the consumers who are represented by the kinds of groups that I have taken time to describe here this morning, because these individuals and the average citizen do not have paid lobbyists from financial institutions and banks representing them here.

So it is also interesting that Mr. Loudermilk talked about how many of these consumers are going to be buying automobiles because of the tax fraud bill that he is referring to that is being advanced by the opposite side of the aisle. The only thing that bill is going to do for consumers, which will hurt our economy, is create a $1.5 trillion debt.

Well, he said that consumers were going to be buying more cars. Yeah, the wealthy will be, the ones who are given the breaks in this tax bill. The wealthy may be buying more automobiles, but the very people who are represented by these consumers that I have shared the information on this morning, they won't be able to buy automobiles because they are going to be harmed. It is only the wealthy, only those who are making extraordinary amounts of money, and corporations, that are going to benefit from the tax bill.

I don't even know how and why he talked about it in the same breath that we are talking about our consumers being able to be respected with privacy information that they would get because we have laws that give them the right to have this information.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no other Members, so I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

It is very simple. The consumer groups that I took time to help people to understand who they are and what they do, representing the consumers, are the folks who are concerned about people knowing their rights. This is what they work at doing.

Those of us who align ourselves with consumer groups care about the average citizen. We care that the average citizen gets the kind of information that is going to make their lives much easier.

The people on the opposite side of the aisle represent banks and financial institutions. We are not opposed to business, and we work with businesses in various ways.

We are opposed to rip-offs. We are opposed to fraud. We are opposed to denying consumers the opportunity to know their rights.

But those Members of Congress who come here and basically mimic and mock the consumers by talking about those consumers who wait by their mailboxes for privacy information certainly are not representing the citizens of their district.

I can tell you this: When you take a look at who the real special interests are, who is representing the interests of the special interests, who in this House stands up for banks, financial institutions, and Wall Street and hedge funds, you look at the opposite side of the aisle, time and time again, and you will find them putting all of their time and their effort into representing those special interests.

For those of us who stand on the side of the average citizen, yes, we align

ourselves with consumer groups. No, we don't dismiss them as unnecessary people just messing around in the business of big business.

These are the representatives, again, of people who don't have fancy lobbyists walking these Halls and following the Members of Congress, getting into their area and influencing them.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today with our consumers. I applaud all of our consumer groups and I stand on the side of our consumers being able to know their rights and all of the work that went into providing this opportunity in law. I stand with them and I resist any effort by the opposite side of the aisle to deny the right of our citizens to be notified about their rights and their ability to opt out if they do not want their information shared with these unaffiliated groups.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud. I know that we are doing what our citizens want us to do, why they sent us to this Congress.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Clay's effort to make the bill better. He is absolutely correct, we have been attempting to work together to see if there was a way that we could deal with the issue at hand and absolutely ensure that our consumers not only have a right to information that explains to them what their rights are and how they can opt out when their information is being sold, really, to unaffiliated organizations.

Mr. Speaker, just in case people are not following exactly what we are talking about when we talk about opt-out rights, let me draw your attention to the fact that you oftentimes are receiving loads of mail in your mailbox, everything from somebody who is selling pet food to clothing, to services, to all kinds of products, and you don't know why they are sending you all this junk. Well, they are sending you this junk because somebody sold your information to all of these organizations because you didn't know that you had not opted out. You maybe didn't know what your rights are. But citizens have a right to have that information, and they have a right to be respected and not thought to be simply throwing it into the wastebasket.

It doesn't matter whether it is for all businesses in the United States or just for automobile dealers. It is about every citizen having the right to have their privacy protected and not having people sell their information to unaffiliated organizations that will cause them to be pressured or solicited over and over again and their mailboxes filled with information because their privacy information has been sold to one of those unaffiliated organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I think that Mr. Clay is attempting to streamline the bill. I appreciate the efforts that he has put into attempting to do this, but this does not correct the problem. This undermines the efforts of all of these consumer groups that worked for years to get these notices sent to our consumers.

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that we have tried and we have worked and we have listened to each other, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

My motion would prevent institutions that have engaged in a pattern or practice of unsafe or unsound banking practices and other violations related to consumer harm from being able to evade important consumer protections.

When companies repeatedly exhibit indifference to consumer protection and demonstrate that they are incapable of complying or are unwilling to comply with U.S. laws and regulations, they should not be allowed to benefit from those bad actions.

As I have already mentioned, under this bill, as amended, companies like Wells Fargo would be free to share or sell customer information with any company, with minimal reminders to their customers.

We all know that Wells Fargo has engaged in illegal student loan servicing practices, inappropriate checking accounts, overdraft fees, unlawful mortgage lending practices, overcharging veterans for refinanced loans, enrolled customers in life insurance policies without their consent, delayed mortgage closing dates until after the expiration of the borrower's interest rate lock to levy additional fees, and charged over 570,000 customers with auto insurance policies they did not need, which resulted in at least 20,000 customers, including Active-Duty servicemembers, having their vehicles inappropriately repossessed.

Companies like Wells Fargo are why I introduced H.R. 3937, the Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act, to make sure that lenders that have engaged in abusive practices face real consequences for their wrongdoing. It is time we truly hold companies that demonstrate a pattern of harming consumers accountable. These institutions must no longer be allowed to abuse hardworking Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of my motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us now, H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, represents what the Republican majority has become very good at doing, advancing bad public policy while claiming to advance the public interest.

H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, would require the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress on the estimated total assets under direct or indirect control of certain senior Iranian leaders and other figures, along with a description of how these assets were acquired and are employed, regardless of whether such individuals are subject to U.S. sanctions.

Although increasing transparency into corrupt regimes is a laudable goal, H.R. 1638 works counter not only to its own stated objectives, but also U.S. national security interests.

First, the level of scrutiny that would be needed to produce a credible report would place a very real strain on the Treasury Department, diverting significant resources away from Treasury investigators who are tasked with targeting conduct that is actually sanctionable; implementing existing U.S. sanction programs; and uncovering illicit conduct across the globe, including, importantly, efforts to identify the web of business interests that continue to enable North Korea to evade U.S. and international sanctions.

In addition to diverting scarce and critical resources, the bill's required report will have little use as a compliance tool, given that the most important parts would be classified, undercutting the legislation's own stated objective to help make financial institutions' required compliance with remaining sanctions more easily understood.

In fact, the creation of such a list, which would not be tied to any prohibition or legal action, would more than likely create confusion among the Office of Foreign Assets Control's regulated public and also mislead companies to believe that the Treasury list replaces the due diligence efforts that they should otherwise be doing prior to engaging in business in Iran.

Moreover, because the report would be largely classified, the bill would do little to draw the Iranian public's attention to the corruption and unjust enrichment of their leaders, which is another stated purpose of the bill. In fact, any classified portion would inevitably be rejected by both the Iran regime and its people as U.S. propaganda, and a predictable attack on the country's government by the United States.

The true purpose of this legislation is to create reputational risk for companies that might seek to do legitimate business with Iran. For this reason, the bill would be a strategic mistake, as its report would undoubtedly be seized upon by Iran as an intentional effort to discourage international investment in Iran, which would be viewed by Iran and likely by the major world powers who joined us in the JCPOA as well as a violation of the expressed U.S. commitment under the nuclear deal not to interfere with the full realization of the relief provided to Iran under the accord.

When a nearly identical version of this bill was considered last Congress, the Obama White House threatened to veto the bill, stating that it would, ``endanger our ability to ensure Iran's nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful.''

Moreover, the Obama administration cautioned that the report called for in the bill would also compromise critical intelligence sources and methods. On that score, I would also note that the reporting requirement in the legislation calls for information about how sanctions evasion and illicit conduct is practiced, and potential countermeasures.

It seems far from prudent to give tips to our adversaries about how we learn about their misconduct and how we plan to respond. This legislation would have very limited practical utility, despite the huge diversion of resources it would take to produce. It also fails to meet its own stated objectives, including serving any usefulness as a compliance tool.

Finally, the measure would also likely have a negative impact on the continued viability of the nuclear deal, which is clearly a central objective. I am hard-pressed to think of a single piece of legislation that works so strongly against every single policy goal it claims to advance. Few issues are more important to global peace and security than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This bill would do nothing to advance that goal. In fact, if enacted, it could do grave damage to the important progress that has been made.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee and who is my friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is a longtime supporter of diplomacy with Iran and a strong supporter of the nuclear deal.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like the author of this bill, Mr. Poliquin, and perhaps the chairman of our committee, Mr. Hensarling, to answer the question that I am about to propose, and that is this: We have allies with us in this agreement. This is an agreement that was worked on for a long time. We have Russia, China, Germany, England, and France. What are our allies saying about our attempt to interfere with the agreement?

What are they saying about whether or not we can be trusted to live up to the commitments that we have made?

What are they saying about our attempts to add to, lengthen, and create new, really, what have become obstacles to peace?

I would ask my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, as they talk about targeting certain leaders--I don't know what leaders they are talking about--and wanting to know about their assets and where their assets came from and how they are being used, I ask my friends on the opposite side of the aisle: Are you willing to do that for certain leaders in our own country?

I just heard from one of the speakers, I believe it was Mr. Royce from California, who identified the worth of one of the supposed leaders. It seems to me that it did not nearly match the worth of many of those who are in our Cabinet and who are in higher places in our government. And I wonder what we are trying to do.

First, answer the question, if you will, about what our allies are saying. And secondly, answer the question about disclosure as it relates to those at the highest office in our country and those who are serving in the Cabinet.

Also, when you talk about money laundering, answer the question about the relationship between the leader of this country and Deutsche Bank, that is known as a money laundering bank, that is involved with the President of the United States.

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

Mr. Chair, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin) will give some information that I think is very important to understand how this bill would work.

The gentleman who just spoke said that this has nothing to do with the agreement. Then what is it you are adding to? What is it you are trying to change or make better? If it has nothing to do with the agreement, then why are we doing it?

I yield to the gentleman from Maine to respond to that description of what this bill is all about.

Reclaiming my time, I thank you for wanting to talk about something else, but I yielded to you to see if you could help me with information about what was stated that the gentleman who spoke before you said that this bill had nothing to do with the agreement.

Is the gentleman prepared to respond to the question that I have raised?

If you are going to talk about what this bill has to do with the agreement, when the gentleman said it has nothing to do with the agreement, then I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Reclaiming my time, we know that there are individuals who are sanctionable in the deal.

What I thought you were attempting to do is to expand that and to identify more leaders and try and understand where the assets come from, what they use them for, whether or not they are involved in money laundering. But the gentleman said it had nothing to do with the deal.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have here a Statement of Administrative Policy from the previous President, where he advised us when this bill came before the House before that it would be vetoed by the administration.

I will read to you from one of the paragraphs in the veto message. He said, in addition: ``This bill's required public postings also may be perceived by Iran, and likely our Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, partners as an attempt to undermine the fulfillment of our commitments, in turn, impacting the continued viability of this diplomatic arrangement that peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.''

If the JCPOA were to fail on that basis, it would remove the unprecedented constraints on and monitoring of Iran's nuclear program, lead to the unraveling of the international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a devastating blow to the credibility of America's leadership and our commitments to our closest allies.

I think that is a very powerful statement. I do know that Iran is in compliance. We have a very strict and strong monitoring program, and they are in compliance.

So the questions become: If indeed they are in compliance, why would we interfere with the plan? Why would we jeopardize this plan that has been worked on with our strong allies in an attempt to try and find another way to say that Iran must be scrutinized?

Everything in this plan has to do with discontinuing the development of nuclear capability. I think we should respect the work that we have done with our allies and discontinue all of these attempts to undermine the deal that we have entered in with and caused our allies to distrust us.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the information that is being shared by my colleague, Mr. Poliquin. I am going to yield more time to him to explain to me: The missiles that he is describing in Iran, that are not a part of the deal, of the plan, are they similar to the missiles that are being fired with nuclear warheads from North Korea.

I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. Chairman, I said: The missiles that he is referring to, that he is concerned about with Iran, that are not a part of the plan, are they similar to the ballistic missiles that are being fired from North Korea with nuclear warheads possibly on them?

Are they more dangerous than the missiles from North Korea?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a statement from J Street that is in opposition to this legislation.

J Street,

December 12, 2017.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Members of Congress: J Street urges Members to oppose

H.R. 1638 and H.R. 4324, which would undermine or violate the

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran's nuclear

activities.

J Street again urges Members to oppose the ``Iranian

Leadership Asset Transparency Act'' (H.R. 1638). As we noted

in our statement opposing the bill when it was introduced

last year, it risks harming the U.S. Government's ability to

ensure Iranian and third party compliance with the agreement

and to counter Iran's dangerous non-nuclear behavior by

redirecting and tying up the very USG personnel and resources

charged with those tasks.

J Street also urges Members to oppose the so-called

``Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act''

(H.R. 4324), which is clearly intended to lead to a U.S.

violation of the JCPOA.

This bill would impose additional certification

requirements on the administration in order to carry out

current U.S. obligations related to commercial aircraft sales

under the JCPOA. These new obligations require the

administration to certify that Iran is not engaged in certain

non-nuclear activity, or issue a national security waiver

saying they'll allow the planes to be sold anyway. In other

words, it imposes new, unilateral terms for continuation of

the JCPOA that are unrelated to Iran's nuclear conduct.

It has been widely reported in connection with the

president's recent refusal to make the necessary

certification to Congress under the Iran Nuclear Agreement

Review Act that the president resents having to undertake

official actions to keep the United States in compliance with

the JCPOA. Proponents of this legislation clearly hope to

make use of the president's apparent resistance to taking

such steps by adding a new certification requirement that

they hope he will also fail to meet--thereby blocking the

sale of commercial aircraft and forcing a U.S. violation of

the agreement.

Anyone doubting that this is the point of the bill need

look no further than the first finding, which makes clear

that this bill is a gratuitously anti-Obama, anti-JCPOA

vehicle, and not a serious.

Mr. Chairman, I also include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy from the previous Obama administration, which I read a paragraph from.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 5461--Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act

The Administration shares the Congress' goals of increasing

transparency and bringing Iran into compliance with

international standards in the global fight against terror

finance and money laundering. However, this bill would be

counterproductive toward those shared goals.

The bill requires the U.S. Government to publicly report

all assets held by some of Iran's highest leaders and to

describe how these assets are acquired and used. Rather than

preventing terrorist financing and money laundering, this

bill would incentivize those involved to make their financial

dealings less transparent and create a disincentive for

Iran's banking sector to demonstrate transparency. These

onerous reporting requirements also would take critical

resources away from the U.S. Department of the Treasury's

important work to identify Iranian entities engaged in

sanctionable conduct. Producing this information could also

compromise intelligence sources and methods.

One of our best tools for impeding destabilizing Iranian

activities has been to identify Iranian companies that are

controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)

or other Iranians on the list of Specially Designated

Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) to non-U.S.

businesses, so that they can block assets or stop material

transfers. This process is labor-intensive and requires the

judicious use of our national intelligence assets.

Redirecting these assets to preparing this onerous public

report would be counterproductive and will not reduce

institutional corruption or promote transparency within

Iran's system.

In addition, this bill's required public postings also may

be perceived by Iran and likely our Joint Comprehensive Plan

of Action (JCPOA) partners as an attempt to undermine the

fulfilment of our commitments, in turn impacting the

continued viability of this diplomatic arrangement that

peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a

nuclear weapon. If the JCPOA were to fail on that basis, it

would remove the unprecedented constraints on and monitoring

of Iran's nuclear program, lead to the unraveling of the

international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a

devastating blow to the credibility of America's leadership

and our commitments to our closest allies.

As we address our concerns with Iran's nuclear program

through implementation of the JCPOA, the Administration

remains clear-eyed regarding Iran's support for terrorism,

its ballistic missile program, human rights abuses, and

destabilizing activity in the region. The United States

should retain all of the tools needed to counter this

activity, ranging from powerful sanctions to our efforts to

disrupt and interdict illicit shipments of weapons and

proliferation-sensitive technologies. This bill would

adversely affect the U.S. Government's ability to wield these

tools, would undermine the very goals it purports to achieve,

and could even endanger our ability to ensure that Iran's

nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful.

If the President were presented with H.R. 5461, his senior

advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to this bill not because we are not concerned about the security of our country and security of our allies in the Middle East. The Members on the opposite side of the aisle don't care any more than we care, but we respect when our leadership and our country gets involved and negotiates with another country, such as they have done with Iran, and they come to some agreements. We would like our country to live up to the agreement.

When we have included in that agreement a description of the monitoring that will be done, and when that monitoring is being carried out, and when it is represented to us by those that we have in charge of that monitoring that that country, Iran, is in compliance, we believe them. And when we trust our negotiators, when we trust our country, when we trust our leadership, and Iran is in compliance, there is no reason to try and undo the deal. There is no reason to come behind the agreement and what has been negotiated and begin to think of ways that they believe we ought to expand that agreement. We could, in the Congress of the United States, come up with a new idea every day. With all of the Members of this House, with all of the different thoughts and, possibly, ideas, and everybody thinking they are smarter than everybody else, we could come up with all kinds of plans to interfere with that agreement.

But I would advise the Members of this House and the Members on the opposite side of the aisle that they do not need to do this. This is a bad idea. I would advise them to put faith in the negotiations that have gone on and to accept the representations about compliance that we are being given. We are being assured that not only is the monitoring taking place, but Iran is in compliance.

So, again, I am so worried about our role in this country today and the fact that our leadership is being diminished day by day because of the way that our President and the White House is handling our relationships with other countries. As a matter of fact, we see a President that is endangering us and destroying relationships constantly.

I mention that we have in this deal Russia, China, Germany, England, and France. I asked the question: What are our allies in this agreement saying about our attempts to interfere with the agreement? Do they agree with them? Are they consulted? Are they unhappy about what is being done?

I suppose they could do the same in their countries every day. They could come up with new ways to interfere with the agreement. They could begin to ask questions about us and why we are doing what we are doing. They could even ask questions about why are we concerned about the assets of those who are not sanctionable when we are not concerned about the assets of our own President.

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Poliquin's bill. He wants to know about the assets of leaders in Iran.

Has he seen his President's tax returns? Does he know about his assets? Does he know about where they have come from? Does he know about how they are utilized?

I don't think so.

So I think it is very, very important for us to do everything that we can to have our allies trust us, to live up to the deals that we make, not to ask more of others than we are willing to do ourselves, no.

We are not sponsors of terrorism. We are a people who have always tried to avoid war. Unfortunately, we have engaged in it, and we know that it is not the best answer to trying to deal with the problems that we encounter around the world. I do believe that we honestly try to avoid war and that we work for peace.

This is working for peace, and peace in the Middle East is one of the most important goals that we should have. I see the opportunities for that eroding every day.

So I would ask Mr. Poliquin to think about what he is doing. I believe that his intentions are good, but I think it is a bad bill.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill. It is not needed. I think it creates problems with our allies, and they begin to wonder whether or not they can trust us. We are an honorable people and we are leaders in the world, even though it is being questioned more and more.

Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, would impose a new and unilateral certification requirement on the administration in order to meet current U.S. obligations under the Iran nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, with respect to the sale and financing of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran.

This certification requirement would call for the Treasury Secretary to consider factors that fall well outside the scope of the nuclear deal and beyond the specific conditions that the U.S. is allowed to place on the license of commercial aircraft to Iran under the nuclear accord.

By moving the goal posts on our commitments under the deal, H.R. 4324 clearly aims to force the United States into a violation of the agreement. Under the Iran nuclear deal, the United States is broadly committed to allow for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts and services to Iran. This involves licensing the sale of aircraft and related parts and services to Iran, including the financing for such sales.

Under the JCPOA Annex II, the only condition on the U.S. commitment is that licensed items and services must be used exclusively for commercial passenger aviation. Moreover, the only allowable conditions the U.S. can place on authorizations for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran apply to the licensed aircraft themselves and the use of such licensed aircraft, not on activities or services provided that have no relationship to the licensed aircraft or related goods or services.

Yet, H.R. 4324 would impose new conditions on the licensed sale of aircraft to Iran, including, notably, the condition that the recipient airline has not used nonlicensed aircraft for purposes other than commercial passenger aviation. That is, under this bill, the administration would have to certify that Iran is not engaged in certain activity unrelated to Iran's nuclear conduct but also unrelated to the use of the aircraft itself. If the Treasury Secretary is unable to make such a difficult certification, the Secretary must then report to Congress as to whether the Secretary intends to suspend, revoke, amend, or approve, notwithstanding such noncertification, any license facilitating the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran.

Supporters of the bill will likely note that the bill will not require the Secretary of the Treasury to suspend or revoke an authorization in the event that the Secretary is unable to make the necessary certification, but the obvious political conclusion is that the Secretary will be forced to revoke such license if the Secretary is unwilling to make the certification.

As we have now seen, the President detests the fact that his administration has to take affirmative steps to keep the deal in place, and he refused to do so. In the case of the last recurring 90-day congressional certification requirement, proponents of this bill undoubtedly hope Trump will react the same way to these additional certifications and block the sale of commercial aircraft, which is a key element of the deal.

In a break from reason and logic, this legislation plays directly into the hands of the President, who is desperate to find any pretext to say that Iran is in violation of the deal or to force Iran to walk away, and thereby, avoid having to take the blame for pulling the plug on the deal.

But let me be clear. By seeking to render impermissible that which is expressly permitted by the JCPOA, the legislation is clearly intended to undermine the nuclear agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a member of the Financial Services Committee, so he can clear up some of the information that we just heard.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I would like everybody to know we are not trying to shame anybody. If we were going to shame someone, we would shame them and that party about connection to Russia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), an ardent supporter of the Iran nuclear agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a letter addressed to the Members of Congress from a highly respected organization that is pro-Israel and pro-peace advocacy. I am a member, and I look to the recommendations, the advice, and

the assistance of this organization on all issues related to the Middle East and related to Iran and related to Israel. It is known as J Street, and I am a proud member and a proud participant.

J Street urges Members:

Oppose the so-called Strengthening Oversight of Iran's

Access to Finance Act, that is H.R. 4324, which is clearly

intended to lead to a U.S. violation of the JCPOA.

This bill would impose additional certification

requirements on the administration in order to carry out

current U.S. obligations related to commercial aircraft sales

under the JCPOA.

These new obligations require the administration to certify

that Iran is not engaged in certain nonnuclear activity or

issue a national security waiver saying they will allow the

planes to be sold anyway. In other words, it imposes new

unilateral terms for a continuation of the JCPOA that are

unrelated to Iran's nuclear conduct.

It has been widely reported in connection with the

President's recent refusal to make the necessary

certification to Congress under the Iran Nuclear Agreement

Review Act that the President resents having to undertake

official actions to keep the United States in compliance with

the JCPOA.

Proponents of this legislation clearly hope to make use of

the President's apparent resistance to taking such steps by

adding a new certification requirement that they hope he will

also fail to meet, thereby blocking the sale of commercial

aircraft and forcing a U.S. violation of the agreement.

Anyone doubting that this is the point of the bill need

look no further than the first finding, which makes clear

that this bill is a gratuitously anti-Obama, anti-JCPOA

vehicle and not a serious attempt to legislate on a

bipartisan basis on threats emanating from Iran.

No one who wants to see the JCPOA continue to be

implemented should support this bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Dylan Williams, the vice president of government affairs who signed this bill, said:

Congress just gave the administration powerful tools to

conquer other countries, support of the Assad regime when it

passed new sanctions on Iran, Russia, and North Korea a few

months ago that the President signed into law. Implementation

and assessment of the impact of that law should occur before

consideration of any new sanctions legislation.

Again, in addition to the supporters of this body who have worked very hard to try and convince the Members of this body to be on the side of peace, to try and get the Members to understand the seriousness of undermining the JCPOA, the Members of this body who work very hard for peace and who join with groups like J Street and advocate for peace are trying to make sure that the United States stands up to its agreements, understanding how this undermines our leadership in the world.

If we sit down and we negotiate with other countries, as we have done on the JCPOA, and they expect us to live up to the agreements and then they hear that we have various Members of Congress with ideas of their own putting together legislation that is supported by the opposite side of the aisle, coming in not with one piece of legislation, not with two pieces of legislation, but we don't know how many will continue if they are successful in passing the legislation that they are putting before us, if this continues, then I am certain that our allies will not trust us. They will not want to negotiate with us on other deals that are important to peace in this world. I would simply ask the Members on the opposite side of the aisle to pay attention to highly respected, credible organizations like J Street and take their advice about how to give support to the JCPOA.

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

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

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

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

On October 13, 2017, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency--that is, the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog that, since January 2016, has been monitoring and verifying Iran's implementation of its nuclear-related commitments--released a statement noting that, ``At present, Iran is subject to the world's most robust nuclear verification regime,'' confirming that Iran remains in compliance with its JCPOA commitments.

The same day, President Trump announced that he had refused to certify the national security value of the Iran nuclear deal, which gave Congress 60 days to fatally undermine the agreement by re- introducing some or all of the suspended sanctions; although, Congress did not do so.

Despite the fact that the President did not withdraw from the nuclear accord, his disdain for the agreement has always been clear. In a highly confrontational speech, President Trump forcefully denounced the Islamic republic and attacked the deal for failing to curb Iran's destabilizing regional activities, despite the fact the accord was never meant to address every aspect of Iran's maligned activities. It was always intended to focus on Iran's nuclear program.

As an arms control agreement, the deal has, so far, been successful.

Trump has threatened to upend the nuclear deal unless Congress amends it to make its terms more restrictive. The President is looking to find any rationale he can to walk away from the deal without having to take the blame. This legislation is precisely what he has been looking for.

But American unilateralism, at this point, would be a disaster and would make forging a common front against Iran nearly impossible in the future. That is one way of ensuring failure at the outset of a diplomatic effort to pursue a new multilateral agreement, would be to violate an existing one with the same partners.

The President's insistence on renegotiating the JCPOA to extend the duration of several of its constraints make inspections more intrusive and expand its coverage to missiles. It is dangerous and unrealistic, given that every other signatory of the agreement has objected to changing its terms while Iran remains compliant.

If Congress passes this bill, it would give the administration the path it needs to rip up the nuclear card without the constraints placed on Iran by the deal. The administration's hostile attitude towards Iran and stark absence of diplomacy will inevitably put the United States on a path of escalation with Iraq. There is an obvious link with North Korea here as well. Hopefully, at some point, the President may determine that diplomacy has a role in managing the North Korean nuclear missile challenges.

But America's ability to offer a credible, diplomatic path will be seriously undermined if we cannot be trusted to stand by our agreement dealing with Iran to destabilize regional activities. Its ambition to remake large swaths of the Middle East in its image entails a broad range of challenges. Without the JCPOA, however, those challenges become even more daunting.

I urge my colleagues not to give up on our best chance of containing Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons through peaceful means and to join me in rejecting this terrible bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Madam Speaker, for the past several days, there has been an organized attempt to discredit and undermine the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. I rise today to speak on behalf of many Members of Congress who believe Special Counsel Mueller is doing a great job.

At this time, I am circulating a letter, and other Members of Congress are joining me. This is a letter of support for Special Counsel Mueller urging that he not be interfered with and that he is allowed to continue this very important investigation in the interest of the security of our country.

I will be circulating this letter for another 24 hours. However, at this time, I would like to read the contents of the letter into the Record. This, again, is a letter in support of Special Counsel Mueller. The letter is addressed to the Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice.

The letter reads as follows:

Dear Deputy Attorney General,

We write to express our support for the work of Special

Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, and to urge you to ensure

that he be allowed to continue his investigation--unfettered

by political influence or threats to his authority--to its

natural and appropriate conclusion based on the law, the

facts, and the evidence.

The Special Counsel is Conducting a Methodical

Investigation, Yielding Results.

It is unimaginable that Republicans would seek to

intervene, discredit, obstruct, or terminate the special

counsel's investigation. Thus far, from every public

indication, it appears that Mr. Mueller is conducting a

thorough and methodical investigation. He and his

investigators have not sought, and instead avoided, the

public spotlight. His team has not leaked or hinted at

criminal allegations for which they have yet to develop

charges. Furthermore, the charges that have been filed to

date have been sufficiently strong and well founded as to

elicit guilty pleas from President Donald Trump's former

National Security Advisor, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn,

and a former policy adviser to Donald Trump's Presidential

campaign, George Papadopoulos.

The Appointment of a Special Counsel Was Necessary and

Proper.

As you know, pursuant to U.S. Department of Justice Order

Number 3915-2017, which you issued on May 17, 2017, Mr.

Mueller was appointed to serve as special counsel and

authorized to conduct an investigation into matters,

``including any links and/or coordination between the Russian

Government and individuals associated with the campaign of

President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may

arise directly from the investigation; and any other matters

within the scope of 28 CFR 600.4(a),'' which includes

``authority to investigate and prosecute Federal crimes

committed in the course of, and

with intent to interfere with, the special counsel's

investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice,

destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.''

Your decision to appoint a special counsel to conduct such

an investigation was necessary and proper, given the U.S.

intelligence community's assessment that ``Russian President

Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at

the U.S. Presidential election, the consistent goals of which

were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic

process'' and that ``Putin and the Russian Government

developed a clear preference for President Trump''; the

obvious potential that individuals, who had served on

President Donald J. Trump's campaign, as well as individuals

currently serving as political appointees in the Trump

administration, could be targets of, or witnesses in, any

such investigation; and Attorney General Jeff Sessions

recused himself from ``any matters related in any way to the

campaigns for President of the United States.''

The Selection of Robert S. Mueller III to Serve As Special

Counsel Was Very Much Appropriate.

Under the circumstances described above, your selection of

Robert Mueller to serve as the special counsel to conduct the

investigation was an appropriate and commendable decision.

Mr. Mueller has earned a reputation as a nonpartisan,

professional investigator, making him an ideal choice to lead

the investigation into the highly important, complex, and

sensitive matters to which he has been charged. Mr. Mueller's

record demonstrates that he would not allow bias, influence,

or other extraneous considerations to impact his

investigation, and any suggestion otherwise is just not

credible.

Mr. Mueller is a former Director of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, FBI, who was originally appointed by a

Republican President. He was vetted and, twice, unanimously

confirmed by the Senate. Specifically, when appointed in 2001

by President George W. Bush, Mueller was confirmed as FBI

Director by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate, and when Mueller

was nominated for a second term, in 2011, during President

Barack Obama's administration, he was again unanimously

confirmed in the Senate by a vote of 100-0.

Mr. Mueller has earned bipartisan support. Republican

Members of the Senate attested to Mr. Mueller's integrity and

professionalism during Mr. Mueller's confirmation hearings,

which took place on July 30 and 31, 2001. For example, with

regard to Mr. Mueller's nomination to serve as FBI Director,

then Senator, now Attorney General, Jeff Sessions stated:

``It is great to see Mr. Mueller, nominated to take one of

the most important positions in our country. It is a position

that requires, in my view, serious experience, great

integrity, and a proven record of accomplishment. And you

have all of those things, Robert Mueller. When I was in the

Department of Justice, Robert Mueller's reputation was known

throughout the Department of Justice, and he was known not

for any political reason, but because he was recognized as a

professional's professional, a man whose skill at doing the

job assigned to him was second to none. There is no doubt in

my mind that there is no more professional prosecutor, no

more professional person in America with experience in the

Department of Justice, ready to handle the job of FBI

Director than Robert Mueller.''

Likewise, Senator Mitch McConnell stated: ``I believe Mr.

Mueller will provide strong and effective leadership. Mr.

Mueller has both impressive management and law enforcement

experience. He is well-schooled in avoiding the problems and

pitfalls inherent in criminal investigations and

prosecutions. Mr. Mueller is not `of' the FBI, and therefore

I believe institutional loyalty will not blind him to making

the hard'' decision he needs to make.

Senator McConnell also expressed his belief that Mr.

Mueller's commitment ``to vigorously enforcing the law

without regard to politics or partisanship.''

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has also commented on Mr.

Mueller's lack of partisan bias. As reported in a July 24,

2017, Washington Examiner article, Speaker Ryan said: ``I

don't think many people are saying Robert Mueller is a biased

partisan. He's really, sort of, anything but.''

On October 11, 2017, Kenneth Starr, who was appointed in

1994 as the independent counsel who was tasked with

investigations involving President Bill Clinton and then

First Lady Hillary Clinton, commented on Robert Mueller and

the manner in which his investigation is proceeding. Mr.

Starr stated that Mr. Mueller is conducting his investigation

``aggressively and professionally.'' Mr. Starr also stated:

``We're not seeing `leaks' out of the investigation as far as

we know, and what we know of Bob Mueller and his background

is that he is someone of total, rock-ribbed integrity.''

Regulations Limiting the Removal of a Special Counsel Must

Be Followed.

Mr. Mueller must be allowed to complete his investigation

and should not be threatened with removal. However, a few

Republicans have indicated their support for Mr. Mueller, for

his ouster. Notwithstanding the overwhelming reasons for Mr.

Mueller to be allowed to continue and complete his

investigation, the rule of law demands that the Trump

administration follow executive branch regulations, which

restrict the circumstances under which a special counsel can

be removed. Specifically, 28 CFR 600.7(d) regarding the

removal or discipline of a special counsel provides: ``The

special counsel may be disciplined or removed from office

only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The

Attorney General may remove a special counsel for misconduct,

dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for

other good cause, including violation of departmental

policies. The Attorney General shall inform the special

counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her

removal.''

Since Attorney General Sessions is recused, you, in your

capacity as acting Attorney General--that is, Mr.

Rosenstein--regarding Special Counsel Mueller's

investigation, are the only individual empowered to remove

Mr. Mueller under regulation. Furthermore, the regulation

clearly states that Mr. Mueller may only be removed for good

cause, which has not been demonstrated. The administration is

required to follow its own regulations and not remove Mr.

Mueller from his investigation.

Politically Motivated Challenges of Special Counsel Mueller

and His Investigation Must Not Be Allowed to Threaten the

Investigation.

Despite Special Counsel Mueller's investigation of

integrity, as attested to by these Republican leaders, and

despite the clear progress that Mr. Mueller is making in his

investigation, the rightwing media, some Republican Members

of Congress, and Donald Trump, himself, have attempted to

advance a false narrative that Special Counsel Mueller's

investigation is biased--this is what they say--and some have

advocated for Mr. Mueller's removal. On June 15, 2017,

referring in general terms to the Russia investigation,

President Trump stated on social media: ``You are witnessing

the single greatest witch hunt in American political

history--led by some very bad and conflicted people.''

In Congress, four Republican Members, led by Representative

Matt Gaetz and including former Representative Trent Franks,

who has now resigned amidst an Ethics Committee investigation

into his own conduct, have cosponsored a resolution calling

for Mueller to step down. Those Members have attempted to

advance baseless claims of the existence of a conflict due to

Mr. Mueller's previous service as FBI Director. Those

arguments do not have merit, and appear intended, at best, to

redirect the public's focus toward matters that are wholly

unrelated to the investigation to which Mr. Mueller has been

tasked. At worst, those arguments are intended to stop or

preemptively tarnish the perception of the special counsel's

work. The issues referenced in that Republican resolution

pertain to allegations against former President Bill Clinton

and former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton related to

a 2009-2010 matter, which has nothing to do with Mr.

Mueller's directive to investigate ``links and/or

coordination between the Russian Government and individuals

associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.''

As quoted in a December 12, 2017, Politico article,

Representative Matt Gaetz stated that he told President Trump

that he was ``concerned'' that Mr. Mueller's investigation

``was infected with bias.'' Representative Gaetz said the

President responded: ``That's why you guys have got to do

your job.'' Representative Gaetz further stated that he

informed the President that you would be testifying--that is,

Mr. Rosenstein--before the House Judiciary Committee on

December 13, 2017, in response to which Representative Gaetz

said President Trump ``encouraged us to exercise our

oversight responsibilities.'' This conversation, as described

by Representative Gaetz, suggests that President Trump is

encouraging the ring leaders of the recent criticisms against

Mr. Mueller in order to pressure you to affect the

investigation through the congressional oversight process.

That is unacceptable.

Some have alleged that Mr. Mueller's removal of a member of

this team, Peter Strzok, over text messages sent by Mr.

Strzok that were critical of President Trump suggests bias or

a lack of objectivity on the special counsel's team. However,

upon learning of the text messages, Mr. Mueller immediately

removed Mr. Strzok from the investigation. In reality, this

incident and Mr. Mueller's swift response demonstrates Mr.

Mueller's integrity as well as his desire and commitment to

conduct an investigation that is beyond reproach.

You must not allow the targets of the investigation, or

issues being investigated, to escape thorough independent

inquiry through the removal, or hindrance, of the special

counsel. We thank you, Mr. Rosenstein, for your careful

attention to this matter, and we stand ready to support you

in upholding the rule of law.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the letter that I am circulating to Mr. Rosenstein. This is the letter that is being signed on by other Members of Congress. This is the letter that I will circulate for the next 24 hours so that we will give Members the opportunity to sign on to this letter.

This letter should be on your desk very soon.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Representative Marcy Kaptur, who signed up to speak here this evening.

Madam Speaker, I yield to Representative Jackson Lee.

Madam Speaker, I thank both of the Members of Congress who came down here this evening and shared in the information that we are going to forward to Rod Rosenstein because it is so important that we let him know that our special counsel has support. We appreciate what he is doing and we are going to stand with him.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3971.

Contrary to what is implied by its title, H.R. 3971 would not provide regulatory relief to community banks. Instead, this bill would allow a large number of mortgage services to drop important consumer protections and set the stage for a return of the harmful practices of the subprime meltdown and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Dodd-Frank tasked the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with implementing mortgage rules under the Truth in Lending Act that would restrict the types of practices that led to the financial crisis. This bill would harm consumers by raising the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's exemption threshold on escrow accounts requirements for higher priced mortgage loans. Mortgages are classified as higher priced if the annual percentage rate--or APR--exceeds the average prime offer rate by 1.5 percent, and higher priced mortgage loans often reflect riskier or subprime borrowers.

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued escrow rules that require borrowers with higher priced mortgage loans to escrow their homeowners insurance, property taxes, and private mortgage insurance for at least the first 5 years of their mortgage.

Escrow accounts are an important consumer protection mechanism, especially for higher risk borrowers, because they ensure that homeowners have funds for these expenses, thereby reducing mortgage default or loss of the property. In fact, before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued its final rule on escrow requirements in 2013, a Federal Reserve study from 2011 found that consumers with higher priced mortgages that did not have an escrow account in the first year after the consummation of their mortgage had higher instances of default.

Escrow accounts also keep homeowners from being blindsided by additional costs at the end of each year and provide a more accurate monthly cost estimate for homeownership when the loan is originated. That is why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rules are designed to ensure that homeowners understand and can meet the full cost of homeownership.

Even though escrow accounts are particularly important for these higher priced loans, they are certainly not unique. In fact, most homeowners escrow these funds. Loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture must have borrower escrow accounts, and conventional mortgages with a loan-to- value ratio of 80 percent or higher require them as well.

I have not heard a single convincing argument as to what is so burdensome about banks with $25 billion in assets ensuring that their borrowers have enough money set aside every month to pay their taxes and insurance.

Furthermore, banks with less than $2 billion in assets that serve rural or underserved areas are already exempt from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's escrow requirements, which reflects the Bureau's commitment to balanced and tailored regulations. This bill would make a dramatic leap from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's targeted relief and exempt banks up to $25 billion in assets, or over 98 percent of banks, from the escrow requirement. They would get this exemption regardless of whether they are serving underserved borrowers and without any evidence that this large exemption would increase access to credit for those who need it.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also addressed the fact that large servicers, especially servicers that serviced loans they did not own for an extended period of time, often did not adequately communicate with customers or appropriately track paperwork. During the crisis, this contributed to millions of unnecessary foreclosures and, later on, several billion-dollar settlements for abusive and fraudulent business practices.

In its rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also provides other flexibilities through exemptions to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act loan servicing and escrow account administration requirements to only small bank servicers, if they and their affiliates own the loans they service, and service no more than 5,000 loans each year. H.R. 3971 would increase this exemption by 500 percent, from 5,000 loans a year to 30,000 loans, allowing significantly larger bank servicers to avoid these important consumer safeguards, and only requiring the lenders to hold the loans in portfolio for 3 years.

So let's be clear, homeowners do not get to choose their own mortgage servicer, and the least we can do is ensure that they are adequately protected after they sign on the dotted line.

As we saw leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, servicers often choose profits over people, and that is why we need the Consumer Bureau to look out for the needs of consumers. The Consumer Bureau has continued to do its job in spite of the unrelenting Republican campaign to slow it down or eliminate it completely.

Simply put, H.R. 3971 would enable larger servicers, whose incentives are not aligned with the owners of the loans or the borrowers, to be able to revive the abusive practices involved with predatory lending that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. This is the second time in less than 2 weeks that I have come before you to discuss a bill that would erode vital consumer protections under the Truth in Lending Act for borrowers with high-priced mortgage loans.

I cannot support legislation that would keep consumers looking at high-cost mortgages from the vital protections and scrutiny they deserve. For all these reasons, I oppose H.R. 3971.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to realize that, in present law, community banks of $2 billion or less are exempted from requiring escrow accounts on higher priced loans if they serve rural and underserved areas. So we are talking about present law that gives this exemption. And not only does it exempt these real community banks of $2 billion or less, the banks are required to serve rural communities and underserved areas.

This is so important because, oftentimes, these are loans to riskier customers. These are loans where they are charging a higher interest rate. These are loans where they are taking more risk, and so when we hear those on the opposite side of the aisle talking about different ways to service the rural communities, this is one way that the law allows that kind of attention to rural communities and underserved areas. They say: Small community banks, you don't have to have escrow accounts, and so what we are saying to you is give your attention to these rural and underserved areas where they are higher priced loans, they are riskier accounts, and we are not going to require you to have to force upon these kinds of accounts the rules that will be forced upon different kinds of financial institutions.

If we adopt this bill, it would not be about community banks at all. And I have to disagree with my chairman of the committee who talked about this, in some way, enhancing community banks' ability to service rural and underserved areas. They are talking about expanding the exemption from $2 billion or less to $25 billion. That is not a community bank. We don't have any community banks that are worth $25 billion or more. I want everybody to be clear what this bill is attempting to do.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to further explain what this bill would do and why it could be harmful.

Under the present law, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act would require that the servicers handle no more than 5,000 or less loans. Why is this important? It is important because when you have servicers that are handling a relatively small number of these kinds of accounts, they can pay attention to them.

Don't forget, these are loans by community banks. They are riskier, they are higher priced loans, they are directed toward rural communities and communities that basically you have to pay a lot of attention to when you give out these loans. And now this bill would say: Yes, we know that when you are servicing a small number, 5,000 or less, that the services have to pay attention because they are under the rule of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and that act says not only do you have to pay attention and you have to contact your borrower when you are going to transfer the loan--and let me tell you how important this is.

This is so important because when you transfer a loan, if you don't give the kind of notification to the borrower that they will understand that the originator of the loan no longer has the servicing or has the same servicing contract that is now going to move to another servicer, then people, oftentimes, end up not sending their payment to the right place. And guess what, I have seen this go on for months, and then people end up in a situation where they are defaulting on the loan, and the new servicers are putting them in a position where now their homes are in danger.

So this contact, this oversight, this attention that you pay to these small borrowers is so important, and that is why the 5,000.

Now, with this bill, they want to take it up to 30,000. What does that mean? It means that we are going to see the kind of problems that we have seen in the subprime meltdown that we have gone through.

We have found that servicers caused us the most problems. Of course, they didn't service the loans adequately. They lost them. They had people applying over and over again.

First of all, we discovered that many of the servicers had no training, that they were literally hired off the street, and that they were basically saying to senior citizens, 75 and 80 years old: We lost your paper. Reapply again. Reapply again. We are sorry.

It has been just an awful situation that was created because the servicers could not handle the volume that they were contracted with, oftentimes, for the financial institution that they were supposed to be doing this work for.

So, here you have a bill that literally is not about community banks. This is about increasing the number of banks that can now have the kind of protection that we were giving to the very small community banks. So don't believe this is about community banks.

In addition to that, what you are doing is you are changing the rules and the laws under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act that protects these rural borrowers and these small, high-risk loans that are in these communities that need a special kind of help.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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.

It is important to understand why we have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and why it is the centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank reforms.

Prior to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we did not have anybody looking out for consumers, and so that led us into the crisis that this country experienced in 2008 that took us into a recession and almost a depression.

When I come before you with opposition to this kind of legislation, it is because I know and understand--and we should all understand--what we can do to protect our consumers and how we can work with community banks and what that means when we are talking about a bill like this, where real community banks of $2 billion or less are dealing with populations that I have alluded to over and over again in the presentation of my opposition to this bill: the rural communities and those communities that are underserved and where these are riskier loans and where they need not only the attention of the small community banks, but the servicers who service these loans, and knowing that the servicers who service a small number of loans can, in fact, pay the attention to them that is required by RESPA and make sure that the people are understanding, when there are transfers and they are in contact with them constantly--and this goes for everything from transfers to modifications--and how to deal with high-risk loans, who may need to modify those loans, who they would talk to, how they would talk to them.

I want to tell you, if you expand this, and you have servicers that are handling 30,000 or more, these borrowers are not going to get this kind of attention. So these escrows that we are talking about are extremely important, and we should know exactly who we are protecting and who we are not protecting.

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

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

I am paying special attention to this legislation, and I take pause when I see bills like H.R. 3971 that are just a small part of Republicans' relentless attack on the work of the Consumer Bureau.

The Consumer Bureau's work on high-cost loans and consumer protections for them was well thought through and the result of careful research.

Leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, many looking to fulfill the American Dream and purchase a house were convinced to take out higher cost loans without any regard for their ability to repay. They were sold false promises about the costs of their mortgage without adequate information and protections.

The Consumer Bureau took years to talk to experts, hear from advocates, and do the research to come up with a strong rule to prevent those types of abuses from occurring again, while also providing regulatory relief to banks that serve rural and underserved communities. So let me take pause and, again, focus everyone on rural and underserved communities.

I am oftentimes appalled by the fact that we have too many legislators who represent rural communities and underserved communities, but when it comes to looking out for their financial interests, they are not doing it. Yet they go back to these communities and they talk about all the other kinds of issues. They talk about people who are not saluting the flag properly. They will talk about freedom of choice issues, and they will rally folks around everything except their financial interests.

If rural communities are being hurt, oftentimes it is because the very people who say they represent them are

not, indeed, representing them, and we can see this in this kind of discussion.

So, again, we are focused on making sure that rural and underserved communities are served properly, that they are not thrown to the wolves and thrown into situations where they can't be paid attention to after they take out these loans.

When they take out these loans, they need servicers who are trained, servicers who are committed, servicers who understand why rural and underserved communities need special protection, and who will work with them, who will contact them, who will work with them to work out situations where loan modifications may be required or requested.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to oppose. I understand that there are others who would like to open this up, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is strongly opposed by all of the consumer groups: Americans for Financial Reform, Center for American Progress, Center for Responsible Lending, the National Consumer Law Center, and Public Citizen.

Why are they so opposed to this bill? This bill would, again, amend the Truth in Lending Act--that is TILA--and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act--that is RESPA--to widen the size of two exemptions that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has already provided for smaller sized institutions on escrow accounts for higher priced mortgage loans and servicing requirements for small mortgage servicers.

Under the bill, escrow accounts would no longer be required for riskier, high-priced loans at institutions with less than $25 billion in assets. Currently, the exemption applies to firms with less than $2 billion in assets. The smaller service exception for increased notification requirements to consumers would be increased, again, from servicers with 5,000 loans to those with 30,000 loans.

Why do all of these consumer groups oppose this legislation? Because it is obvious what is happening here. We are taking away the protection from those who need it the most. We are not doing anything for community banks. There are no $25 billion community banks.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my colleagues in this House oppose this bill. It goes in the opposite direction of what we have done to try and give protection to those consumers who need protection the most, and the Dodd-Frank reform has done this, and I would just ask opposition to this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's regulations address many questionable practices that contributed to the collapse of the housing market. Such practices were widespread in the mortgage servicing industry. The Bureau's servicing rules apply across the board, while providing a narrow exemption for small servicers.

This exemption minimizes the regulatory compliance burden on small and community banks. Expanding current exemptions to larger institutions, however, just opens the door wide to abuses by larger banks primarily doing business not in the communities, the rural

communities and the underserved communities, but outside of the communities where they are based, and by nonbanks, which still make most of the riskier subprime mortgage loans.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to ask opposition to this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to move now to say a word about what my colleague is attempting to do. I appreciate my colleague from California (Mr. Sherman), who is going to offer an amendment that would lower the extremely high exemption thresholds in the underlying bill.

I think that, having talked to him, I do understand that he believes that this is important to expand opportunity rather than to limit the ability for protection for certain of our consumers who come from these areas that I have described as rural and areas that are underserved.

This amendment that he is going to present would allow creditors, again, with less than $10 billion in assets, to be exempted from escrow requirements on higher priced mortgage loans if they hold loans in portfolios for 3 years and allow servicers that service 20,000 loans or less to be exempted from enhanced consumer protection requirements under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

His amendment changes it a little bit from $25 billion to $10 billion, that is still too much, and from 30,000 loans or less to 20,000 loans or less to be exempted from, again, enhanced consumer protection requirements under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Although I am pleased that this amendment would tighten up the language in the underlying bill somewhat, I remain concerned about the impacts it could have on many consumers. The bill is called the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act of 2017, and the title implies that it will relieve our Nation's smaller financial institutions from regulatory burdens.

Now, we all know that community banking is not purely a function of size, but when the Consumer Bureau conducted research for its escrow requirements rulemaking, it found that none of the entities it identified as operating predominantly in rural or underserved areas had total assets as of the end of 2009 greater than $2 billion.

And when the Consumer Bureau researched mortgage service and practices, it concluded: ``The problematic practices that have plagued the servicing industry, particularly in recent years, are, to a large extent, a function of a business model in which servicing is viewed as a discrete line of business and profit center.''

However, they also found that approximately 96 percent of community bank and small credit union services that only purchase a hold, mortgage service, and rights for mortgage loans, they actually own or originate service 5,000 or fewer loans. Yet this amendment would exceed the Consumer Bureau's research base that sets that threshold by billions of dollars and its carefully researched loan service and threshold by 400 percent.

So if the amendment is adopted, I must continue to oppose the bill because it would undermine the work of the Consumer Bureau and weaken consumer protections in homeownership. Congress should not be complicit in these acts by passing legislation that further erodes the rights and protections of America's consumers. We must continue to do all that we can to ensure mortgage loan borrowers are fully aware of the terms and conditions of their mortgage loans and how much they will owe in obtaining these loans.

If we are successful in convincing our colleagues today that they should not support this bill, I will be happy to work with my colleague, who I know has good intentions, to see what we can do to address what I think are some of his concerns. But for now, I must oppose the bill, and even with the amendment, it does not satisfy the concerns that I have addressed here. It does nothing to protect those in the rural communities and the underserved communities, and it does nothing to help community banks.

So I am opposed both to the bill and to the amendment, and I ask for a ``no'' vote.

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

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