Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, due to an unforeseen scheduling conflict, I was unable to vote on the passage of S. 619. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 143.

Madam Speaker, I rise in recognition of the 100th birthday of one of North Carolina's greatest statesmen, Marshall Rauch.

Growing up in Gaston County, Marshall Rauch was my State senator. He served 24 years in the State senate, representing Gaston, Cleveland, Lincoln, and Rutherford Counties, all parts of my congressional district.

Prior to that, he was on the Gastonia City Council for 14 years. He was one of the most powerful elected officials in the State, serving as chair of the North Carolina Senate Finance Committee, and that was before our Governor had a veto. His service was also groundbreaking. Senator Rauch was one of the first Jewish elected officials in North Carolina.

But let's back up to where it all started. Marshall Rauch came south from his native New York City to play basketball at Duke University in the 1940s. That was long before anyone had heard of Coach K. In fact, he played for Coach Eddie Cameron in the first year that Duke Indoor Stadium was open, long before that legendary venue would be renamed for Coach Cameron.

Marshall's time at Duke was cut short by World War II, where he served bravely. However, he will always have Duke to thank for meeting his wife of 64 years, Jeanne.

After the war, they settled in Jeanne's native Gaston County, where Marshall started Rauch Industries, thus beginning his prolific business and political career. Rauch Industries in Gastonia grew into a leading manufacturer. I knew it well because I mowed the grass around his facility for a number of years.

Rauch Industries provided jobs to thousands and stood as a pillar of the civic and charitable community in Gaston County, and we are grateful for it.

It was not lost on anyone that this business owned by a leading Jewish citizen was one of the world's leading manufacturers of what, you may ask? Christmas ornaments.

Senator Rauch was recently quoted as saying: ``In Judaism, there are eight degrees of charity, and the highest and best charity you can do is to help someone in a manner that they don't need help anymore.''

Senator, you have done that in many ways for lots of people for a number of years, and we are all the better for it.

Remembering Walter Stine Isenhower

Madam Speaker, few people these days associate politicians with humility, but Catawba County in my district benefited from the service of one such person for many decades. Walter Stine Isenhower, known as Mr. Catawba County, passed away in January at the age of 95, and I rise today to honor his legacy and service to our area.

Stine was a lifelong Republican who served as chairman of the Catawba County Board of Commissioners and as a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives.

His impact is still felt in the community from many issues that he championed, including support for the local community college and the county hospital.

Stine was a veteran of the U.S. Army and a volunteer fireman, and he held various leadership roles with his beloved church, Concordia Lutheran.

His favorite saying was that a day out of Catawba County is a day wasted. We thank Stine for devoting his life to making our lives better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a North Carolina legend, former U.S. Senator and Congressman James T. Broyhill, who passed away on February 18 at the age of 95.

Jim Broyhill will be remembered as one of the political giants in the history of North Carolina, especially for those of us from the western part of the State that he so ably, with distinction, represented for over two decades.

A native of Lenoir, Broyhill served in several executive capacities at his family's furniture business, Broyhill Industries, prior to entering public service.

He was first elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1962 as a long-shot candidate. Broyhill, a Republican, pulled off a narrow 1-point victory at a time when North Carolina politics were dominated by the Democratic Party. He quickly won the hearts of his constituents and served the people of western North Carolina in this House until 1986.

Broyhill liked to tell a story from his first election, an occurrence that had an impact on him and taught him an

important lesson in dealing with people.

Table Rock is a beautiful and distinct mountain in Burke County, North Carolina, one that I am proud to represent and one that Broyhill could see each day from his home in Lenoir. Out on the campaign trail one day, he drove around to the other side of the mountain and stopped at a small country store. He greeted the owner of that little store and said: ``How are things on the back side of Table Rock today?'' to which the owner replied, ``Who says this is the back side?''

He said he learned that day the importance of meeting people where they are and that his perspective might not always be shared by someone else, a lesson all of us here in the House and Washington would be wise to hear and to learn.

Broyhill loved his constituents, and the feeling was mutual. He took a personal interest, acknowledging special events with a note or a phone call. He and his beloved wife, Louise, published ``The Congressional Club Cook Book'' with immensely popular recipes such as Capitol bean soup and heaven cake.

However, the real impact he made in Congress was as a landmark legislator. In the House, he sat on the Small Business Committee and the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, and for many years, he was the ranking member of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, which we now call the Energy and Commerce Committee.

President Reagan credited Senator Broyhill as being a key force in the 1985 tax reform package. His 1978 legislation that allowed cable companies to connect to existing utility poles led to the explosive growth in cable television and communication. In the 10th Congressional District that I am proud to represent, it led to a boom in fiber optic manufacturing jobs that communities are still benefiting from today. It was then coaxial cable, fiber today.

He always prioritized constituent service at home and was truly a pioneer in that regard. At a time when district offices were deemed to be of lesser importance to many on the Hill, then-Congressman Broyhill kept his district offices fully staffed by trained professionals who were always ready to help with whatever issues his constituents had with Federal agencies.

That is something that I learned from him. His district became North Carolina's 10th Congressional District in 1969, and I am only the third Representative from that district since then. His successor, Cass Ballenger, learned the art of constituent service from the Broyhill staff. I, in turn, learned from Ballenger's staff, some of whom still work in my Hickory district office today.

Jim Broyhill moved on to the United States Senate in the summer of 1986, serving out the unexpired term of the late Senator John East. After his time in elective office ended, Broyhill continued to work on behalf of the people of North Carolina. He put his extensive business experience to use by serving as North Carolina's secretary of commerce and the chairman of the North Carolina Economic Development Commission. The post office in his beloved hometown of Lenoir was named after him, a well-deserved recognition.

I could go on at length about his other accomplishments in public life and business and, certainly, his long record in philanthropy. Let me just say that he lived his life well, always in service to others, and our State and our Nation are much better for it.

On behalf of my constituents, the people of North Carolina, and a grateful Nation, I extend condolences to Senator Broyhill's family as they mourn.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 83, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 9) denouncing the horrors of socialism, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a simple one. It states that the Congress denounces socialism in all its forms and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States of America.

It is a statement that I would hope all elected leaders in the United States could support. Despite my Democratic colleagues' claims, there is nothing in this resolution about entitlement programs or banning social services or anything of the like.

In fact, I would encourage anyone who has doubts to actually go and read the resolution--it won't take long. It outlines the pain and hardship experienced by millions around the world who have suffered under a socialist regime.

This is something the sponsor of the resolution, Ms. Salazar of Florida, can speak to personally. Congresswoman Salazar is the daughter of Cuban exiles and was born in Miami's Little Havana.

H. Con. Res. 9 is not just messaging or a waste of time--as some of my colleagues across the aisle said--it speaks to people who have known all too well the atrocities of socialism, and it gives voice to their pain.

I thank Congresswoman Salazar for her work on this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), who is the chair of the Small Business Committee and an advocate for capitalism.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney), who is a great leader and a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), a great leader for agriculture issues and a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), chair of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), a great new member of the Financial Services Committee from the Hudson Valley.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have heard the most absurd argument just now on the House floor.

The contents of this resolution are very simple and very straightforward: A system that is borne out of freedom inevitably begets freedom and a liberation of people from tyranny. An economic system that is borne out of taking inevitably leads to the loss of human life and centralization and control by despotic people.

That is what this resolution speaks to. It does not speak to any programs here in the United States. It doesn't talk about our system of government. It doesn't speak of other systems, economic systems.

It is simply in the resolved that Congress denounces socialism in all its forms and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States. Period.

So rather than contorting themselves to vote ``no'' against a resolution condemning tyrants who use socialism to centralize their power, my colleagues are contorting themselves to speak against previous Presidents or a question of Republicans' views on domestic social programs.

That is not a part of this resolution. It is a part of other debates everywhere else in Congress.

Let's read the resolution. Let's stick to the terms of debate of the resolution, and let's figure out a way that we can actually come together and denounce socialism in all its forms here in the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one further speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to take a moment to thank my colleague for his fulsome defense of socialism and historical socialists. I think that was the most intellectually honest piece of debate we have had here on the House floor.

If this resolution were just simply to draw out my Democrat colleagues to just say, yes, they are in favor of socialism, maybe this is a worthwhile endeavor.

Again, this is not my resolution. It was reported to my committee. We are reporting out this resolution as Ms. Salazar of Florida presented and wrote because this is the early stages of the House. This came straight to the House floor rather than through the committee markup. It came through the Rules Committee.

What I would have preferred in this resolution was a fulsome defense of capitalism and the juxtaposition between that optimistic sense of freedom that is borne out of our property rights, our speech rights, and our individual liberties in this country that has deeply connected us with an economic system of freedom, the juxtaposition of that to the misery of socialism and what the taking of people`s individual liberty and centralizing it in government and government control does to economic progress, to the best of humanity, to social outcomes, to the health and welfare of the people, to the economic prosperity of the people, and the misery that it begets to those people suffering in those regimes.

What we have here is the history of international moments of terror begat by Putin. It is not in there. He doesn't currently call himself a socialist, but Lenin did, Stalin did, Mao Zedong did, Fidel Castro did, and the list goes on. Then, it talks about the loss of human life under those regimes from those socialist leaders.

The resolve clause, I have read before: ``That Congress denounces socialism in all its forms, and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States of America.''

I would be happy to work with my colleague on the type of resolution that I outlined, happy to have that come back to the floor, in time, on something that my Democrat colleagues would actually support, a proper denunciation of the miseries of socialism and a proper embrace of our economic capitalism here in the United States, but that is not what we have before us today.

I encourage my colleagues to look at what is in the resolution and judge it based off the contents of what is here, not what is omitted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), the Budget Committee chairman, to close on behalf of the Republicans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 500) to amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to postpone the date of payment or satisfaction upon redemption of certain securities in the case of the financial exploitation of specified adults, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 500, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act, a bipartisan bill that will help combat the financial exploitation of our seniors and other vulnerable adults.

I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the new chair of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, for her work on this bill.

Financial exploitation, particularly of seniors and other vulnerable adults, is a serious and growing issue. Consider this: The number of Americans age 65 and older is projected to nearly double from 52 million in 2018 to 95 million by 2060. At the same time, the 65 and older age group's share of the total population is predicted to rise from 16 percent to 23 percent. Right now, approximately 44 percent of households are headed by a baby boomer, and 30 percent of Silent Generation and GI Generation households own mutual funds.

As more and more investors transition into retirement, the risk of financial exploitation for older households will only increase. Right now, roughly one in five senior investors already fall prey to fraudsters, losing an estimated $2.9 billion annually. Those are just the cases we know about. Unfortunately, there is research that shows only 1 in 44 cases of financial abuse is ever reported.

This bill provides a tool to fight against this type of elder abuse.

Some mutual fund shareholder accounts are held directly with the mutual fund and serviced by the fund's transfer agent, otherwise known as direct-at-fund accounts. The transfer agent is typically responsible for opening and servicing the accounts, managing account records, and serving as the fund's point of contact with those shareholders.

Under current law, when a funds transfer agent suspects financial exploitation in a direct-at-fund account, it cannot lawfully delay the disbursement or redemption proceeds while an investigation occurs. This bill would codify a 2018 Securities and Exchange Commission-issued no- action letter that permits a mutual fund and its transfer agent to delay the redemption period of a security if it is reasonably believed that a request was made by exploited seniors or other vulnerable adults.

In many cases, this work is done by financial firms using technology. That technology is widely available across financial platforms, and this is enabling that technology to flag a question and give pause to the movement of funds, thereby protecting a senior's accounts.

Codifying this Securities and Exchange Commission no-action letter will provide our potentially at-risk investors with the protection they need to make sure they can receive the hard-earned savings that they have built up over the years.

This is an important bill. It takes the existing practice from the Securities and Exchange Commission and makes it law, giving it a stronger force of protection for our seniors.

It is a bipartisan bill. I am very proud that this is the first bill reported out of the House Financial Services Committee and that it has bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption and support of this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the chair of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), the newest member of the House Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I said to the ranking member that I was prepared to close. We have a Member that just arrived, and I am going to allow her to have a closing statement here.

I thank the ranking member, Mr. Speaker, and her staff working with the Republican staff of the House Financial Services Committee for being able to move these first pieces of legislation. We have three bills that are on the suspension calendar this evening that are bipartisan bills. One has a primary sponsor by a Democrat, and two have primary sponsors by Republicans, but all are bipartisan. I thank the ranking member for her willingness to work across the aisle to move bipartisan legislation.

In doing this, I recall the beginning of last Congress 2 years ago, and 2 years before that, when she reached out to Republicans in the then-minority and offered us the same thing. I am grateful for that outreach 2 and 4 years ago.

I have extended the same hand to the gentlewoman from California, and she has likewise extended the same hand to me. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the leadership of the ranking member and her willingness to work with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin), a new member of the House Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 582) to amend the Federal Credit Union Act to modify the frequency of board of directors meetings, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 582, the Credit Union Board Modernization Act.

Every day, consumers in each of our districts rely on their local credit union to help them with things like securing a loan to buy a home, saving for retirement, or even financing tuition. This means that credit unions need to spend their time working with their members, not wasting valuable resources and staff time checking the box on monthly meetings that may not be necessary.

This bill allows credit unions to do that important work. By updating the Federal Credit Union Act to reduce the frequency of required board meetings, certain Federal credit unions will have greater flexibility in meeting requirements. At the same time, the safety and soundness of the financial system will be protected.

Currently, Federal credit union boards are required to meet at least once per month. Under the bill's new requirements, Federal credit unions with a composite CAMELS rating of 1 or 2 will be required to meet at least six times annually, with at least one meeting held during each fiscal quarter.

What does that mean? It means entities with the strongest performance and risk management practices will be rewarded. That means, instead of checking the box on those monthly meetings, if they have high-quality performance and risk management, they will be relieved of some of those burdens.

To be clear, this is not a one-size-fits-all mandate. There is nothing in the bill that prevents those credit union boards from meeting each month or even more often, if needed, and they do. In times of financial stress, these boards meet quite frequently to assess risks and to protect their members' nest eggs.

This bill also acknowledges that new or poor-performing credit unions may require more regular meetings to ensure that they can provide the level of service their communities deserve. This legislation continues to require monthly meetings for new Federal credit unions during the first 5 years of existence.

In addition, credit unions with a composite CAMELS rating of 3, 4, or 5 must continue to meet once a month. These are the credit unions that need to improve performance and risk management practices to ensure the safety and soundness of our financial system.

Mr. Speaker, I will finish with this: This bill is a good illustration of how Members can come together to create bipartisan legislation to modernize outdated practices and policies for the benefit of our communities' financial institutions and for their members.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, for his good work last Congress and this Congress on this bill, and a bipartisan bill indeed this is.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I urge my colleagues' adoption and support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chair of the Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

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

This is the case on the House Financial Services Committee, when we see a challenge that has a commonsense solution, we try to tackle it and we try to tackle it in a bipartisan way.

I want to concur with Mr. Huizenga in his praise of Mr. Vargas. This was a bipartisan bill between Mr. Vargas and Mr. Huizenga last Congress, and it continues to be a bipartisan bill this Congress.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Vargas, for offering it, and I thank the ranking member for working with me and with my team to bring these three bipartisan bills before the full House in the opening month of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this bill's adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 298) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expand access to capital for rural-area small businesses, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 298, the Expanding Access to Capital for Rural Job Creators Act.

I thank Congressman Mooney and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their work on this issue last Congress and this Congress.

In the Financial Services Committee, we continually highlight the importance of capital formation for entrepreneurs and job creators in underbanked rural communities. That means their ability to get a loan, their ability to get investment capital. We want to enhance every American's ability to get access to capital to take their ideas to market.

I can speak from experience about the struggles emerging entrepreneurs face when starting or growing their own small business.

My father started a business in our backyard, mowing grass for other people. He and his buddy both had five kids. I am the youngest of five kids. My dad's business partner had five kids. They had plenty of free labor. What they didn't have access to was capital or investment capital. So his first piece of lending was done because he had a Toro, which was the best lawnmower you could get at the time. A Toro salesperson so wanted to make the sale that he let him use the equipment until my father and his business partner could get paid from the hospital where they were mowing the grass. That was the first piece of equipment they got, because the sales guy wanted to make the sale.

The second piece of equipment they got was a truck, to put that lawn mower in the back of, that they got using a Master Charge, which is now Mastercard. They used a credit card to buy a truck. They put a rope around this very expensive riding lawnmower in the back of this beat-up pickup truck.

That was the dream for both families that put five kids through college. Both families, five kids. Ten kids total put through college. Now, my brother runs that business that my father started in our backyard.

The question of access to capital, if you don't have friends that have personal wealth, it is very difficult in this country. It is in rural communities. It is in urban communities. We have areas of this country that are underbanked and resource starved. It doesn't mean that they have less good ideas because of where they are born. They don't. That is not connected with this. They are starved for capital.

What we need to do, in a bipartisan way, and what we have had conversations on in a bipartisan way on our committee, is how to fix that problem. We are trying because we have communities across this country that are being left behind. That is completely unacceptable.

This is a bipartisan bill that tries to get at that and help small businesses that are vulnerable in rural communities.

Research shows that after the last financial crisis, small businesses and startups were less likely to form in rural areas than in urban areas. Now, these same small businesses are facing record inflation and supply chain disruptions.

In recent years, the SEC's Small Business Advocate found that rural businesses that seek investor capital are raising higher amounts. However, rural businesses are still raising less capital than their urban counterparts relative to the size of the affected population.

But even the urban numbers misrepresent what is happening in urban areas in this country. Just because a big business is headquartered in an urban area doesn't mean they are serving the urban area or that they are employing in that urban area. So we have got huge challenges.

In rural areas, which this bill deals with, every small business and entrepreneur counts. They are the lifeblood of the local economy, and their success is critical to the success of their community. This bill is just one example of how Congress can help solve one of the issues that rural small businesses face: access to capital.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Mooney for his work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the words of the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the vice chair of the Financial Services Committee and the chair of the Digital Assets Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for her words and comments here. It is true we have worked together on capital formation initiatives in previous Congresses and I would hope that we will be able to do the same.

I know of her upbringing in Missouri and her career in California. She has both rural and urban experiences that she can bring to this and I, likewise, have mainly rural upbringing to bring to this, but I think together we can craft a smart agenda, address the needs of the American people, and that is my intention with a focus on capital formation across the country, with the needs of a modern economy to digitize so many of our processes in the world of financial services, and the need to give architecture to a new range of assets that are in the financial services world around cryptocurrency and digital assets.

There is a lot that is happening here that we have to embrace and allow that prosperity to be spread across the country. Working together, I think we can do that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today, I come to the floor to honor a member of my team who has devoted the past 18 years to serving the constituents of North Carolina's 10th Congressional District, serving it with integrity and honor, especially for veterans and servicemembers.

It is my true honor today to pay tribute to my friend and my lead veterans

and military caseworker, Joanna Rowe, who is retiring at the end of the year. Joanna has been with me since the beginning of my service here in the House in the beginning of 2005. Since day one, anyone who encountered Joanna instantly knew her passion for our veterans.

We had veterans line up just to go sit down and talk to Joanna and have a conversation with her because of her warm spirit and what a wonderful person she is, and everyone understood that very quickly.

The numbers tell that story about her passion for our veterans. During her service, Joanna has handled just shy of 6,000 veterans' cases and 362 Active-Duty military cases. She has helped 106 veterans obtain medals they were due for their service. She played an important role in helping establish the VA community-based outpatient clinics in Hickory and in Forest City, North Carolina, and was a key resource to county veterans service officers in 17 different counties during her service.

Susan Hall, the veterans service officer in Rutherford County, said of Joanna: ``Joanna's commitment to serving the veterans of our community is exemplary. I will miss her greatly. The Congressman, as well as the people of Rutherford County and the great State of North Carolina have been blessed with the service of Joanna Rowe.''

Joanna will be missed and will be missed by so many, not just the veterans, but her coworkers who love her dearly. And not just her coworkers, but me. Being able to work with her and to call her a friend and to learn from her has meant a great deal to me and to my wife Julia, as well as my kids.

So we want to thank her for her service. I thank her for her loving spirit and the strength of her faith.

It seems like just yesterday that she and I and her husband, Freddy, sat down for lunch in the fall of 2003 to talk about politics. I learned a lot during that first election to Congress from Joanna, and I thank her for her service and thank her for her friendship.

Joanna, we know you won't be a stranger. Thanks so much. We love you.

Mr. Speaker, in 2015, I spoke here to pay tribute to the wonderful place in Gaston County, North Carolina, called Holy Angels. Then it was being recognized for its 60th year fulfilling their mission of ``loving, living, and learning for the differently able.''

Today, I am here to honor the leader of this organization, Regina Moody, who, after 40 years as president and CEO of Holy Angels, is retiring.

I have known Dr. Moody for most of my life. In fact, prior to her work at Holy Angels, she was my principal at St. Michael's School in Gastonia, where she spent a lot of time with my two brothers in the principal's office.

Dr. Moody has been a visionary leader for Holy Angels. Under her leadership, the organization has greatly expanded its level of full- time resident care, as well as physical therapy, day, and vocational programs. They also opened several local businesses to serve the community and give their residents occupational experience.

I wish Dr. Moody and her family the very best as she begins a very well-deserved retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise, along with Republican Members of the Financial Services Committee, Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets--Rep. Bill Huizenga, Rep. French Hill, Rep. Tom Emmer, Rep. Alexander X. Mooney, Rep. Warren Davidson, Rep. Trey Hollingsworth, Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, Rep. Bryan Steil and Rep. Van Taylor, to express our serious concerns with H.R. 8520, the Countering Untrusted Telecommunications Abroad Act. Although this bill was referred to the Financial Services Committee, the referral was waived without understanding the bill's impact on U.S. capital markets.

We believe that H.R. 8520 implicates securities disclosure obligations in a way that runs counter to our existing principles-based disclosure framework. As such, H.R. 8520 risks setting a precedent in support of policies that run counter to our free-market principles and are harmful to the competitiveness of U.S. capital markets.

In particular, we are concerned that H.R. 8520 requires publicly traded companies to make certain disclosures to the Securities and Exchange Commission to advance foreign policy and national security objectives. As we have stated on several previous occasions this is ineffective. Sanctioning is the most effective way to achieve foreign policy and national security objectives--not our securities laws.

Hijacking U.S. investment disclosure rules to accomplish extraneous policy goals compromises the strength of American capital markets, disincentivizes companies from going or remaining public by increasing compliance costs and reduces investment opportunities for retail investors and retirement savers. Moreover, the SEC is not the appropriate entity for advancing our Nation's national security or foreign policy agenda. Such issues should be handled by agencies with expertise in overseeing more effective tools like sanctions and export controls.

Similarly, H.R. 8520 inappropriately considers all information of a certain kind ``material,'' in this case information related to contracts for--or usage of--telecommunications equipment or services from certain providers. Currently, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, public companies are required to file annual reports with the SEC that are made public to disclose company information that investors would find material to making investment decisions. It is not Congress' job to tell public companies what information is and is not material. Instead, it is up to the individual company to make that determination on its own. Otherwise, companies will be forced to increase costs and regulatory risks to comply with disclosure obligations that do not materially influence investment decisions.

Moreover, this bill is mandating compliance with a disclosure regime that requires disclosing information that is likely unknowable. Specifically, the bill requires that publicly traded companies disclose if they or ``any affiliate'' used or entered into contracts to use covered telecommunications equipment or services. Inexplicably, the bill does not define ``any affiliate.'' Still, in many instances, it will be impossible for many companies to know whether their affiliates contracted for or used such services. To make matters worse, when companies attempt to disclose this impossible-to-discern information in a manner that later turns out to be mistaken, they would be liable for securities fraud.

The flawed approach set forth in this bill sets a dangerous precedent. H.R. 8520 should have been marked up in the Financial Services Committee prior to floor consideration in order to fully debate the policy implications. Ultimately, this bill will limit choices for everyday investors, encourage public companies to go private, and weaken the health of U.S. public markets.

For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 8520.

Mr. Chair, the report accompanying the FSGG appropriations bill includes ``an increase of $6 million above the budget request for USPS to carry out pilot programs to modernize its current postal banking services, including surcharge-free automated teller machines, wire transfers, check cashing, and bill payment.''

This ``Postal Non-banking Financial Services Modernization Pilot Program'' is yet another attempt by progressives in Congress to expand the U.S. Postal Service's core mission into the financial system. This concept is ultimately harmful to American consumers because it will crowd out private sector financial innovation to reach underserved communities.

That's why Rep. Luetkemeyer and I offered an amendment to prohibit funding in this bill from being used to carry out the Postal Non- banking Financial Services Modernization Pilot Program. Unfortunately, our amendment was not made in order to the bill we're considering today.

Democrats have long called for USPS to be able to offer consumer banking services such as checking and savings accounts and extensions of credit to consumers and small businesses. These functions are beyond the Post Office's core competencies, will subject taxpayers to potential losses, will undermine the private sector's ability to compete with taxpayer-subsidized banking services, and pose a threat to consumers' privacy when it comes to financial data.

In 2018, the previous Administration created a special task force to specifically review the Post Office and identify necessary reforms. The Treasury Department was directed to release the Task Force's recommendations, which it did in its report, ``United States Postal Service: A Sustainable Path Forward.'' The Task Force's recommendations were clear: ``given the USPS's narrow expertise and capital limitations, USPS should not pursue expanding into new sectors, such as postal banking, the USPS does not have a demonstrated competency or comparative advantage, or where balance sheet risk would be added.''

Moreover, the Post Office agreed. In response to a widely criticized and highly unusual report by the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Post Office made clear that despite any recommendations to the contrary from the OIG, the Post Office's core mission ``is delivery, not banking.'' Postmaster General DeJoy reiterated this position.

Progressives argue postal banking is needed to address the decreasing number of bank branches and the rise in the number of people without access to a checking account or short-term credit. Democrats automatically believe that means that the government should provide these banking services, including through the Post Office. What Democrats fail to acknowledge is financial institution branch closures and consolidations result from overly burdensome government regulation, which won't be reconciled using more government.

Postal banking has been tried before. From 1911 to 1967, the United States had the ``Postal Savings System,'' run by the USPS' predecessor. The system provided savings accounts with interest rates set by the USPS and funds deposited in national banks near depositors' post offices. The system failed. Postal banking couldn't compete with private sector banking institutions. It did not have the flexibility to meet the needs of customers.

Moreover, American consumers demonstrated recently that they are not interested in banking with the USPS. Just last year, the USPS took it upon itself to create a pilot program to offer check cashing services in the form of gift cards. According to documents submitted to the Postal Regulatory Commission, only six gift cards were issued under the pilot program and total fee revenue was $35.70. The failure of the pilot program demonstrates the fact that it was not designed in response to customer demand and that consumers are not interested in banking with the federal government, including USPS.

Private sector financial institutions are highly regulated and operate competitively and flexibly in a market-based system. The ensures

consumers' demands for innovative financial products and services are met, and they receive the best pricing for them. Congress should not stifle private sector innovation by financial institutions and fintech firms that have already shown promise for reaching underbanked and rural consumers.

The USPS should remain focused on its core mission. The fact that only six people used the postal banking pilot confirms that consumers remain supportive of the free market and look to private firms for technological solutions to meet their banking needs.

Postal banking is harmful to the financial system and ultimately harmful to consumers. It will crowd out private sector financial innovation and ultimately fail to reach the very underserved communities Democrats claim they want to reach.

The USPS should remain focused on its core mission, not creeping into the provision of consumer financial services.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2543, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This week, Democrats have a bill on the floor to ``address inflation and help bring costs down for Americans.''

Just last week, President Biden stated that inflation is his ``top domestic priority.'' So, let's talk about inflation if we are going to talk about the Federal Reserve. Let's look at the numbers. Let's look at the stats.

The President announced that his focus is going to be on the economy this month. To kick it off, his Treasury Secretary, Secretary Yellen, finally admitted that she was wrong when she called inflation transitory last year.

To the Biden administration and congressional Democrats, I would like to say to you: Welcome to the party. You are a year late. The American people have been feeling this pain of inflation, and I am glad you are coming to the realization that we have to do something about it. Republicans welcome the conversation.

Inflation has surged to a 40-year high. Stats across the board are terrible. Everyday goods and services are more unaffordable today, especially for low-and middle-income Americans and those on fixed incomes. Skyrocketing consumer prices are outpacing wage gains. U.S. households will spend an extra $5,200 this year compared to last year for the same basket of goods and services they normally buy.

The national average for the price of gasoline has reached a staggering $5 a gallon. If that weren't bad enough, our economy is now shrinking. The U.S. GDP came in at a negative 1.4 percent in the first quarter of this year. That is problematic. That is bad.

Democrats want to blame everything from Putin to so-called corporate profiteering for the inflation crisis. They are still looking for who did it. Well, guess what, folks. The call is coming from within the house. They are the ones that put this on the American people.

This is all the result of Democrats' bad economic policies, and this crisis is of their own making. The American people know it. They see it. They feel it. They experience it.

In a recent poll released by The Wall Street Journal, 83 percent of respondents rated current economic conditions as poor or not good. This is the result of Democrat economic policies. Since they control the fullness of the Federal Government, they have put their economic policies into place, and we are living with the bad consequences. All across the board, inflation is way up.

In another poll released by RealClearPolitics, 60 percent of the American people disapprove specifically of President Biden's handling of the economy.

What is the Democrats' strategy? It is to distract struggling families with this bill that we have on the floor today, a bill that might sound good but does nothing to bring down consumer prices or help struggling families.

Let's talk about the contents of the bill. Republicans support improving diversity in financial services, but H.R. 2543, this bill, misses the mark. Committee Democrats had the opportunity to work with Republicans on a bipartisan legislative package to achieve that goal. In fact, five of the bills that make up this package received some Republican support, either in markup, in committee, or on the floor in previous Congresses. But instead of working with Republicans, committee Democrats injected this package with another eight partisan poison pills.

First, this bill blatantly politicizes the Federal Reserve. In fact, it tasks the Fed with a third mandate, and that third mandate is to close socioeconomic disparities instead of focusing on what we have asked the Fed to focus on, which is price stability and maximum employment possible. So much for the President saying he is not going to politicize the Fed or he is going to respect the Fed's independence. This bill goes completely counter to that.

This bill will make credit more expensive and less accessible to those who need it the most.

This bill will also pile regulatory costs on small businesses, forcing them to divert resources from business operations to report on diversity and inclusion metrics outlined in this bill. Currently, businesses can self-assess the makeup of their workforce. This bill would impose a one-size-fits-all mandate on all job creators, regardless of size, geographic location, or business model.

This bill is a boon for litigious trial lawyers, and it is a boon for them because it expands ECOA, and it opens businesses up to new lawsuits. This creates uncertainty in the credit markets, ultimately increasing the cost of credit and making it more difficult to assess credit risks for financial institutions and businesses.

Finally, while Americans are reeling from higher prices, this bill will make it more expensive for families to purchase a home. This bill will impose additional costs on creditors and servicers, which will inevitably be passed on to those applying for loans.

The bottom line, this is just another attempt by House Democrats to divert voters' attention from the big issues of the day, and that is their dismal economic record that they have foisted upon the American people.

If House Democrats are serious about addressing inflation, as the Biden administration has claimed and as the President has specifically said he is focused on this month, if they were serious, they would abandon a partisan messaging bill like the one we have on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), my colleague and friend and the ranking member of the National Security, International Development, and Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), the ranking member of the Fintech Task Force on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), my friend and colleague, and a leader on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), a leader on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a longtime member and leader on the Agriculture Committee and the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a great leader on the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of Americans say inflation is the most important issue facing the country, that is according to ABC News/Ipsos poll. We can't get 80 percent of the American people to agree on anything in our political discussion, but they agree that this economy and this inflation are problematic.

We have been given our marching orders. Congress must act to address skyrocketing prices and provide relief to struggling families. That is what the American people are telling us we should be focused on.

Instead, here we are debating a messaging bill that stands no chance of becoming law.

I have already run through a long list of bad things in this bill. I did that in my opening, so I would rather spend the rest of my time discussing what western North Carolinians are most worried about, what my constituents are most worried about.

In the core part of my district known as the Catawba Valley, the cost of housing alone has increased more than 15 percent since last year. Where I live in the Lake Norman region, local food banks are struggling to keep up with the surging cost of food and increased demand stemming from those costs.

One food bank operator said: ``We are out of staples.''

That is a frightening thing.

They also added: We are tired of high grocery bills. We are tired of gas prices

going up. One of my constituents from Winston-Salem said that on a local Fox affiliate.

North Carolinians are fed up. The American people are fed up. They don't like what they see economically, and they deserve real answers and real solutions to address that core problem--the core issue of inflation.

So let me be clear. There is no mystery of why we have runaway inflation. It is Democrats' reckless spending that is the driver of this. They have managed the fiscal house for a year and a half, and they have managed to drive our economy into the ditch.

So we have got to get it out of the ditch. We have got to get it back on the road. We have to be in the right direction with a growing economy, not a shrinking economy, and with wages increasing more than the cost of the goods that people need to live.

So instead of addressing this crisis of their own making, Democrats would rather distract Americans with a bill that does nothing to bring down costs. This is yet another attempt to distract the American people from that basic challenge and that basic fact of high inflation.

But to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: you aren't fooling anyone. The American people are on to who caused inflation, who started inflation, and who is driving up the cost of energy bills, both at home and in their car. They understand why, and there are real consequences for not addressing the needs of the American people.

Thankfully, I have faith in the American people to get this right. I hope our elected officials will follow suit. We, on the Republican side of the aisle, are hearing this loud and clear, and that is why we are trying to return to fiscal stability and fiscal sanity and return to sound money. That is our focus.

Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't address the core problems the American people are telling us we should address, and that is why we should reject this bill that does nothing to answer the call the American people have made.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment en bloc. We know that Democrats' reckless spending and bad economic policies are hurting the American people.

Let's look at the inflation numbers. You have fuel oil, gasoline, used cars, groceries, and public transit all dramatically up.

Inflation is the big issue. Inflation is at a 40-year high of 8.6 percent--a 40-year high. Food is up 10 percent, gas 50 percent, shelter 5.5 percent from just last year. This is a result of Democrat policies.

The American people will pay $5,200 more this year than last year for the same goods and services. This is a direct result of bad economic policies.

Instead of working with Republicans to address these crises, Democrats are jamming through a partisan messaging bill that stands no chance of becoming law. This is bad policy. It is bad politics, bad process, the whole thing. The en bloc is more of the same.

Now, I will say that there are a few of the amendments that Republicans could support. I will give you an example.

Ms. Garcia offered an amendment that focused on onerous HUD regulations or unfair funding formulas. Committee Republicans and House Republicans agree that HUD should not get in the way of local public housing authorities' ability to provide assistance to the homeless.

A recent Government Accountability Office study examines--well, there is a request in the bill that we have a study to examine and report on the impediments that HUD is putting in place so that we can actually better serve the very people that we intend for the Housing and Urban Development Department to serve and for public housing authorities to serve.

But rather than work with committee Republicans on this issue, Democrats poisoned the well with partisan amendments to score political wins with their progressive base.

For example, in this en bloc, Democrats want to further politicize the Federal Reserve by adding a third mandate to address socioeconomic issues. This will divert the Fed's attention from its dual mandate of maximum sustainable employment and price stability. It will also threaten the stability of the monetary policy authorities we have given the Fed and add uncertainty and risk to the Fed's responsibilities.

The Federal Reserve is independent for a reason. It ensures that it is accountable to the American people and long-term economic growth, not to political whims or serving one party here in Washington. Even President Biden acknowledged the importance of the Fed's independence in his so-called plan for fighting inflation.

Additionally, this en bloc continues Democrats' government-knows-best approach. For example, it directs HUD and Treasury to create another interagency task force to focus on the state of housing in this country. Housing doesn't need another task force. It needs results.

To be clear, HUD's mission is to ``create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.''

After 50 years, and nearly $2 trillion in spending, this amendment says that HUD is not getting the job done. An additional interagency task force isn't going to fix that.

Congress needs to reform how HUD operates so that it can assist the families and individuals it is tasked with serving.

In conclusion, this en bloc is more of the same. It will politicize the Fed, expand the CFPB's authority, and make credit harder to access and more expensive, ultimately harming the very consumers Democrats are claiming to help.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's focus on the main thing. The main thing to the American people right now is what they see when they fill up their tank at the pumps and buy gas. It is what they see when they go to the grocery store. It is what they see in their daily lives.

What they are seeing in their daily lives is inflation at a 40-year high. Here are fantastic examples that are horrible, horrible things to see, but they are important that we see because this is what the American people are facing.

Inflation is at a 40-year high. Food prices are up 10 percent, gas 50 percent, and shelter 5.5 percent from just last year. The American people will pay $5,200 more this year than they did last year for the same goods and services.

This is a direct result of Democrats' fiscal plans. It is a direct result of the Democrats' economic strategy, and we are suffering the consequences from it.

This bill, and the amendments that pass on the floor today, will do nothing to help struggling American families. Nothing.

Instead, they will politicize the Fed, expand the CFPB's authority, and make credit more expensive and harder to get. This is bad news. It is bad policy. It is a bad process.

We should reject it. We should make sure this bill does not become law.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Republican en bloc, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The amendments in this en bloc are where we should have started this debate. These amendments would improve the bill and provide real solutions for the American people who are suffering under the weight of misguided Democrat economic policies.

In whole, this amendment package would make the bill bipartisan and give us a real chance to pass the Senate and become law. These amendments would preserve the sections of the bill that Republicans supported during committee consideration, such as promoting new and diverse depository institutions, improving corporate governance through diversity, ensuring diversity in community banking, expanding opportunity for minority depository institutions, and improving the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program.

These are the bipartisan pieces of the bill. These five bills are the result of bipartisan discussions and compromise. They show that Congress is capable of working together and putting the American people first rather than really a far-left agenda that the rest of the bill is pushing.

These bills collectively would help to identify and implement solutions to support small banks and credit unions in the communities they serve.

Furthermore, this amendment en bloc would strike section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act which requires the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--which is an unaccountable agency, by the way--to issue a rule to force banks and credit unions to collect and report demographic data on small business loan applications.

We have seen what the CFPB can do under Director Chopra's scorched- earth policies. This proposed rule will make small business lending more costly and difficult for financial institutions of all shapes and sizes. It will also choke off the very access to credit those small businesses need right now.

So instead of limiting small business credit options and saddling them with unnecessary regulations, as the underlying bill does, we should focus on fostering growth and help small businesses succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In closing, I would just reiterate the amendments in this en bloc are how we should have started this debate and how we should have started this bill.

These amendments would improve the bill and provide real solutions for American people who are suffering under the weight of misguided Democrat policies.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Gonzalez's attempt to help community banks. I would say that this amendment really doesn't do anything substantive to the bill. It doesn't help community banks compete and survive in the current regulatory environment.

In fact, if we were really serious about helping community banks, we would be looking at the Dodd-Frank Act and the additional regulatory burdens in place on these financial institutions, but we are not. This bill doesn't do that. We would be looking at the regulatory burdens that Dodd-Frank keeps on institutions that keeps them from lending to their consumers, the compliance cost burdens that make accessing credit more difficult, especially for hard-to-reach communities.

Last year, Democrats got rid of the true lender doctrine, which focused on providing legal certainty to banks and fintech partnerships. The true lender doctrine would have actually helped provide clarity and lower the cost and access to credit. It is these partnerships between fintechs and community banks that harness and scale technology and provide consumers with the financial products that they want and need, particularly in underserved communities.

If we are really serious about reaching underserved communities--and I think we should be--we should restore the true lender doctrine and rightsize overly burdensome regulations on community banks.

Those are the important points I would like to make in light of this amendment. I welcome a discussion about those issues. I think we have a lot of mutual concerns about the challenges the American people are facing, but I think it is important that we get to the big issues that are central in this economy, given the economic circumstances we are currently in as a result of Democrat policies, and we should be working to fix those big issues.

While I am not opposed to the amendment--I think it is fine; I am not going to oppose it--I think it is important that we highlight the big and essential things we should be about.

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

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

I just reiterate that this amendment really doesn't do anything substantive. If we are serious about helping community banks, rightsizing burdensome regulations would be the way to go, and reinstating the true lender doctrine would be a strong first step. There are bigger things that we should be doing to help these institutions.

While I am not opposed to the amendment, I think we should be doing the big, substantive items that are important for us to have a competitive economic situation for working Americans. We should be about these bigger items and focus on them.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem and provides a pathway for frivolous lawsuits in Federal court. Cash continues to be an important form of payment in many communities across America. However, businesses that have a substantial number of customers who wish to transact in cash already accept cash.

The amendment's requirements will impact small business owners in particular, who will be required to accept cash payment whether or not it makes economic or business sense.

Additionally, this amendment would give preferential treatment to ancillary service providers that may be facing a downturn in demand for services due to an increasing electronic payment usage desire among consumers.

Let's look at the bill. Let me try to explain it. The bill would prohibit retail businesses from refusing cash payments below $2,000. It would prohibit the retail business from charging a higher price to any customer who pays by cash than is customarily going to be charged for using other forms of payment. It provides a private right of action-- that means that they can sue--in Federal court for consumers who are aggrieved.

The amendment provides exceptions to these prohibitions, including if the business provides a mechanism to convert cash to prepaid cards.

This is really the desire to force basically ATMs into retail establishments. That is the construct of the bill. So imagine you are a small business, and now under Federal law, you are required to take a $2,000 cash payment. That seems onerous. Imagine you are a small businessperson who is now going to be faced potentially with lawsuits in Federal court for a failure to provide an ATM machine in your establishment. This seems quite onerous.

We can get into the question of the soundness of a fully digitized world. There is a serious debate to be had here, and there is an economic inclusion debate that is necessary for us to have. In a world of digital payments, not everyone is digital, so we have to make sure that we get to those key issues.

But this bill is rather convoluted, and it provides a number of requirements for businesses that are not in keeping with trying to get at the question of cash acceptance. I think we should have some serious discussions about cash acceptance, especially for our communities across America that are not online and don't have credit cards or prepaid cards in their pocket.

I think there are things we can still work on in this space. Unfortunately, this bill is too convoluted with too many mechanisms that would provide too many opportunities for new lawsuits, so I oppose it. I think it is important that we oppose this amendment, as I did in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman's time fully expired?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. I agree with Mr. Payne on his choice of attire. I think the fact that two of us, who are very well dressed--appropriately dressed, I would say--are having a debate and are on different sides of this issue is very unbecoming of the bowtie community. We stand together more closely than this.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague--the fact that he has an undertaking in this arena to talk about the question of cash acceptance, I think, is important.

There are a number of questions that I have raised about this bill that I think are important. The private right of action in Federal court is problematic for us on this side of the aisle. The requirement to have a machine on site--on page 2 of the bill, it says the retail facility, or whatever the facility is, that is accepting payment, they have to provide customers with the means on the premises to convert cash into a card that is either a general-use prepaid card, a gift card, or an access device for electronic funds transfer. So it is a very specific requirement to have on premises.

Imagine the same scenario of this nice lady that lives in his district, Mr. Payne's district, who goes downstairs to purchase whatever, whether it is from a grocery store or whatever. Now, imagine they had an ATM that was two doors down. Under the construct of this bill, that wouldn't be sufficient.

There are important things to get at here. I oppose the amendment, but I welcome the debate.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, due to a family emergency, I was unable to vote on June 13, 2022.

Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 256; YEA on Roll Call No. 257; and YEA on Roll Call No. 258.

Madam Speaker, due to an unforeseen conflict, I was unable to cast my vote for S. 812. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 138.