Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the Orderly Liquidation Authority is an authority to bail out big banks, consistent with the bailout that the ranking member voted for in, I believe, 2008, that the chairman, I believe, voted against.

When we talk about those who use rhetoric to say they don't support big banks, but then actually vote for them, I think that is a hard note to take.

But I rise today to support H.R. 4545, the Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act, a bipartisan measure introduced by Mr. Tipton.

This bill would amend the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978, a long time ago, by updating the definition of financial institutions, establishing new requirements for the final examination report process, and creating an office of independent examination review, giving some independence here, some common sense.

These updates are critical because, in 1994, Congress directed Federal regulators to establish an independent intra-agency appellate process for institutions to seek the review of examination ratings, adequacy of loan loss reserve, and clarifications on loans.

I agree that these entities should be reviewed to ensure that they are financially sound. We want to make sure that we prevent failure so we don't have folks across the aisle voting for bailouts. However, we are hearing from our community financial institutions, the ones that serve most of my district in Wisconsin, that the avenues needed to appeal these determinations are limited. The process is secretive, and the regulators are overempowered.

The intra-agency review process has also been criticized as not being independent because the regulatory determinations are reviewed, not by a third party, but by the employees of the same regulator handing down the verdict. So this is the judge, the jury, and the executioner.

I was a prosecutor, and when I presented a case to a jury and they found someone guilty, I didn't make the defendant appeal the verdict to the same jury that found him guilty. They have got to go to a third- party appellate process, independent reviewers. That is the way the American system works and should work in this scenario as well.

Our community bankers explained that they feel victimized. They feel retribution for challenging the outcomes of these exams, and that is a bad thing. Add to the fear the fact that these examinations lack transparency, and now we have real problems to contend with which is why the solution is so bipartisan. The chairman mentioned 16 Democrats on the committee voted for this commonsense piece of legislation.

That is why the bill is so important. It will embolden our community banks by creating an independent auditor to ensure fairness and transparency.

Mr. Speaker, this bill ensures that there is an open forum for these institutions to discuss the examination procedures, practices, and policies without fear of reprisals. It gives them a little bit of freedom.

Importantly, the office would also review regulators' procedures to make sure that their written examination policies are being followed and adhered to.

Lastly, the bill would provide a right to a hearing upon appeal. The decision as to whether the appeal is heard on the record will be left to the petitioner. Again, you are getting due process. We want due process. That is something we all fight for. No one disagrees on that. Why can't we offer that to our small community banks and credit unions that oftentimes feel victimized? This is a bipartisan bill.

This is common sense, and I would encourage my good friend, the ranking member--who I like so much--to join us and let's get something done for small community banks.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 5, 2018 I missed the following votes and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 92, and YEA on Roll Call No. 93.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 26, 2018 I missed the following votes and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 81, and YEA on Roll Call No. 82.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for all of his work and support on this legislation, as well as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), for which my provision is made part of a larger package.

I also thank the gentlemen from Georgia and Illinois, my good friends across the aisle, David Scott and Bill Foster, both of whom are cosponsors of the Protection of Source Code Act. It is a bipartisan bill.

The recent cyber incidents at Equifax, SEC, and even at the NSA, has shown that all organizations are vulnerable to security risks. These incidents are a timely reminder of the risks that we face in this digital age.

Given this reality, it is important for government agencies such as the SEC to rethink what they collect, how they collect it, how it is stored, and what they do with this information in the long run.

The Protection of Source Code Act is a bipartisan bill intended to reduce some of the cybersecurity risks to our financial markets posed by the SEC when it gathers highly sensitive trading or source code information as part of their oversight duties.

The Protection of Source Code Act establishes a process for the SEC with respect to requesting source code and other intellectual property that forms the basis of source code.

It does not preclude the SEC from requesting data that it determines it needs for market oversight. It merely puts a process in place for how the SEC seeks access to certain intellectual property.

Having a process in place for how the SEC requests source code and similar intellectual property will better protect registrants and their clients and investors from inadvertent disclosure or cyber theft of their most valuable and important intellectual property.

Such disclosure or theft could destroy the American businesses that own the intellectual property. Worse, it could undermine investor confidence and create significant volatility in our financial markets.

In general, the SEC should not be requesting source code or intellectual property that forms the basis of source code. They shouldn't be collecting that on a regular basis. Such information is generally unnecessary for the SEC to perform its market oversight function and, as we have learned from recent cyber hacks, could create a very inviting treasure trove of sensitive data for computer hackers.

This bill ensures that the SEC will gather source code when it is truly needed, under a subpoena process that provides appropriate due process for the information.

Under this bill, the SEC, in conducting an exam, may continue to ask a registrant for general information about a registrant's trading system or trading strategies.

So let's break this down a little bit. We have source code that is highly sensitive. It is intellectual property. If you are the SEC, you can actually go onsite and look at the source code. I am fine with that.

But if you are going to collect the source code and take it back to the SEC and store it and you have a whole bunch of intellectual property from American businesses stored at the SEC, this is one-stop shopping for hackers. You have just got to do it once. Get in the SEC and you get it all.

My friend across the aisle, the ranking member, wants to talk about volatility. Wait and see if there is an SEC hack where they get all this information, all this source code. That is a risk we don't want to have.

We want due process. If you want to come in and take the source code, get a subpoena.

Do we believe in due process in America?

For the most sensitive data, the most sensitive information, get a subpoena and you can take it. But those are basic measurers, basic protections that we offer in America that we should employ at the SEC when they want this intellectual property that is of great value to these firms.

My bill, contrary to the ranking member's point, Madam Speaker, doesn't offer exemptions to exams. Exams will still happen. Also, it is still illegal to manipulate markets. Those things haven't changed.

This is just about due process.

It is important that we have truthful and honest information on the floor. This does not prohibit exams. This doesn't make legal manipulation of the markets. It is still illegal. All we are saying is we have sensitive source code, and if you want to take it to the SEC, you get a subpoena.

Frankly, we think there are problems with that. The SEC has been hacked. The NSA has been hacked. Everybody has been hacked. If you compile all this information, the risk that poses to our markets and volatility to our markets, I think, is unacceptable. That is why it is bipartisan.

I would encourage all Members of this House to take a step forward for due process.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 5, 2018 I missed the following votes and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 51, and NAY Roll Call No. 52.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4258) to promote the development of local strategies to coordinate use of assistance under sections 8 and 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 with public and private resources, to enable eligible families to achieve economic independence and self- sufficiency, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4258, the Family Self- Sufficiency Act. This legislation will streamline a program designed to help those unable to purchase a home while reducing their dependency on welfare assistance and rental assistance provided by the government.

I want to thank my colleague and friend from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) for all of his bipartisan and helpful work on this legislation. It passed out of our committee 58-0, which is somewhat historic for the Financial Services Committee.

Now, the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, or FSS program, is focused on helping families in public housing and the housing choice voucher program. The goal is to utilize a number of services coordinated through the program to help families with individual training to increase their employability and become less dependent on assistance.

These services can include basic education, childcare, transportation, education, financial literacy, mental health referrals, and homeownership counseling. While receiving services, an interest- bearing escrow account is established for the family that can be used for any purpose once the family has graduated from the program.

Currently, HUD operates one program for families served by the housing choice voucher program and a separate program for those families served by the public housing program. This legislation will combine those two separate FSS programs into one to streamline and reduce regulatory burdens.

The bill also broadens the scope of supportive services that may be offered to these families to include attainment of a GED, education in pursuit of a postsecondary degree or certification, and--I think this is important--training in financial literacy. Lastly, H.R. 4258 opens the FSS program to families that live in privately owned properties that are subsidized by project-based rental assistance.

Mr. Speaker, 4,793 families have successfully completed the program, with 1,557 graduates exiting rental assistance, within a year and another 606 graduates that eventually went on and were able to purchase a home. So more than 10 percent of the people who graduate from the program go on to buy a home.

I want to leave you with just a quick anecdote on written testimony that came to our committee from the Compass Working Capital Group. It is a story about Tanya. She graduated from the FSS program in Lynn, Massachusetts.

Now, when Tanya enrolled in the FSS program, she had been receiving housing assistance for about 4 years. She was working full-time and raising two children, but she had bigger dreams. One of those dreams was to one day own a house. At the time, Tanya believed that owning a home was, in her words, ``not for families like mine,'' a low-income single mother who came from a family where no one has ever owned a home.

So when Tanya graduated from the program, she got the assistance, got the counseling, and in the end, she was able to increase her annual income by $8,000, improve her credit score 140 points, pay down her debt, and save $3,000. She graduated from the program in 2015 and achieved her dream of becoming a homeowner, the first person in her family to do so.

She said: But what makes me happiest of all is seeing my children love their new home. Thanks to the Compass FSS program, now I, too, believe that families like mine can get ahead, live better, and accomplish our big dreams and goals such as buying a home.

This is a remarkable story of a program that actually works, that helps people get from public assistance into self-sufficiency and hopefully into homeownership.

I think it is this kind of artful review of policy that our committee has done on a bipartisan level that brings us to reforms that can look at the successes of a program and build upon those successes and make them work for more families.

Again, I want to thank my colleagues and friends across the aisle for working on this legislation and, again, bringing it out with such a bipartisan vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly say in closing that we oftentimes find people who get stuck in a cycle of poverty. I think the goal of the program should be to help people get out of poverty and get to self- sufficiency.

If you look at this program, it takes an initiative by the person in FSS to say: I am going to raise my hand; I want to take advantage of these opportunities. It is about helping them get an education.

I have 8 kids, and I have a wife. For a single mom with a couple of kids who is trying to go to school or do job training or get a job, without some help on child care, that can't work. You can't make that happen. That is offered in this program.

Again, it offers additional education, financial literacy training, and counseling on home ownership. If you have some mental health issues, you can get training in that.

It is what is right about government, in the sense we don't want people to get stuck. We don't want people to get caught in a cycle of poverty, we want to help lift them up, and it is this kind of a program with these kinds of reforms that I think we have worked together on that accomplishes that goal: help people live the American Dream, which is get a job that allows them to eventually save enough money and buy a house. On the escrow part of this, when you get out of the program, you might have a small, little nest egg that you can use as a deposit for that home.

So I think this is a great program that does the right thing. If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, no matter what side of the political spectrum you sit on, this program is making the government work for people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and 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. 770) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in recognition of American innovation and significant innovation and pioneering efforts of individuals or groups from each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the United States territories, to promote the importance of innovation in the United States, the District of Columbia, and the United States territories, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within 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 today in support of H.R. 770, the American Innovation $1 Coin Act, introduced by my friend from Connecticut (Mr. Himes). The legislation seeks to honor that which is best about America: her innovative spirit.

If enacted, the legislation would authorize a program under which the Treasury Department's United States Mint would produce a series of $1 coins celebrating the innovative capacity of the United States. By the way, it is that innovative capacity that makes us so great and competitive and allows our salaries and incomes to rise.

Under the program, the front of the coins would have the standardized image symbolic of liberty, and the design on the reverse would be an image or images emblematic of one of a significant innovation, an innovator or pioneer, or a group of innovators or pioneers.

Four different reverse images would be issued annually, representing innovations or innovators from each State, territory, or the District of Columbia. The order of issue would be strictly alphabetical. That means the first issue would go to the great State of Alabama.

The number of coins of each design would be determined by the Treasury Secretary. While the coins technically would be circulating coins and usable in ordinary commerce, there is no real demand for circulating $1 coins at present. So the demand would strictly be determined by collector interest.

The program would be produced at no cost to the taxpayer. I think that is important. Mr. Himes made sure of that. Depending on the collector demand, it actually might produce a surplus that would then be returned to the Treasury's General Fund.

The legislation explicitly states that minting of the innovation coins would in no way interfere with the minting and issuing of the $1 coins honoring Native Americans. Those coins similarly have a standardized front design

and a reverse design that changes regularly, honoring the great contributions that have been made to this country by Native Americans.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Presidential dollar, when produced for collectors, had a demand of a little more than 5 million coins per design. That seems to indicate enough interest that would and should approve this program, as it can proceed at no cost to the taxpayer, while allowing the Mint to fully use its facilities. The language we are considering contains some minor technical amendments that will allow the coin production to begin more swiftly, which I think makes sense.

I think this is a good bill, and Mr. Himes has kind of thought through any red flags that could be risen by any Member on the floor. He has addressed those.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is important to note that we are using the capacity of the Mint, which costs no additional money. But as Mr. Himes pointed out, we are celebrating innovation. As a country, we continue to innovate and create in a way that no one else does in the world. It is that innovation and creation that creates more and better jobs for our society, our community, and our families. So I think it is a wonderful idea to celebrate that by way of a coin that costs the taxpayers no money but celebrates this great American trade.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support 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. 4279) to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise any rules necessary to enable closed-end companies to use the securities offering and proxy rules that are available to other issuers of securities, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within

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, closed-end funds are important retirement savings and investment vehicles for retail investors and serve as a long-term source of capital for operating companies, which helps promote job creation, research and development, and economic growth.

Despite the many benefits of closed-end funds, the number of closed- end funds has been declining over the last several years.

Closed-end funds occupy a unique space within a framework of regulated investment companies. They have opportunities to invest in small enterprises and stocks and bonds that they may issue that would not necessarily be ones that are open-ended or invested in by mutual funds.

Since the SEC has adopted its 2005 offering reform for traditional operating companies, the SEC has had more than 12 years to consider a parallel framework for closed-end funds, but has failed to do so. H.R. 4279 would direct the SEC to draft rules as appropriate to permit closed-end funds to take advantage of the 2005 offering reforms.

If the SEC does not finalize these rules within 1 year, closed-end funds that otherwise meet the requirements could take advantage of the 2005 offering reforms until the SEC adopts a rule. By simplifying the closed-end fund offering process and liberalizing existing restrictions on communications, the legislation would reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens that raise cost for investors. In turn, this would enhance the ability of closed-end funds to act as a source of financing for the economy.

I think this is a commonsense piece of legislation. I would also note that, in a committee that often doesn't see a lot of bipartisanship, this bill passed out of committee with a vote of 58-2, signifying broad and wide support amongst the parties and from our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is a unique space where, oftentimes, we would look to the SEC to actually act. Because they haven't acted, I am proud to say I am part of a group in Congress that are willing to act proactively to make sure, again, we are protecting investors, protecting savers, but also helping capital flow into spaces that are so needed by this reform.

Mr. Speaker, again, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Gus Frank, Chairman of the Forest County Potawatomi Executive Council, who recently announced that he is retiring after 20 years of dedicated service to his tribe. Gus has worked tirelessly for the benefit of his people--and he's always done it with a smile on his face. I'm proud to have worked with Gus for several years on many issues affecting our communities and I'm proud to call him a friend. I congratulate him on his retirement. Gus has truly earned it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Kati Milberg-Pavek in recognition of and in shared grief for the indefensible cyber abuse she faced following the deaths of her daughter and two nieces: Clara Diana Pavek, Lydia Marie Milberg and Laynie Jo Amos. On December 12, 2013, a terrible tragedy took the lives of three wonderful children. I was further saddened and disturbed by the unprovoked comments and harassment that the victims and their families subsequently faced on social media, as well as local news outlets and publications.

As First Lady to the United States of America, Melania Trump has declared a campaign against cyber-bullying and reckless abuse, and like her I rise to condemn the hatred by these reckless individuals. Though my words can never reverse the awful heartbreak Ms. Milberg-Pavek and her family have suffered, I hope that by speaking out against victims' abuse, we can encourage those in control of online platforms to play a more active role in monitoring these hateful attacks, especially when innocent children are involved. No one should have to endure these types of spiteful on-line comments in the wake of a loss again, and I stand with those who actively seek to provide solutions for this growing problem. My deepest sympathies are with Ms. Milberg-Pavek and her family.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 18, 2017, I missed the following votes and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 685, YEA on Roll Call No. 686, and YEA on Roll Call No. 687.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding time to me, the chairman of Financial Services, Mr. Hensarling. I appreciate his leadership and stewardship on our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get into the bill in a second, but I can't let the Dominican Sisters reference go.

It is not the Dominican Sisters who are using proxy advisers. It is the largest financial investors in the world that are using these advisers, which we are going to get into in a little bit.

And if you want to talk about sisters, I will talk about the Little Sisters of the Poor, who have been ravaged by ObamaCare because they can't practice their faith, if you want to talk about sisters. We are not going to go there today.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation where, my friends, if you listen to the debate, you might say, ``Well, Republicans are asking for a little more regulation in the proxy advisory space,'' and Democrats, miraculously, are saying, ``We don't want any regulation.''

Well, our concern is that you have consolidated power in two companies that control 97 percent of the industry, and some have made the claim and the allegation that there might be political motivations behind both--or at least one--of these massive proxy advisory firms, because Glass Lewis is owned by the Ontario Teachers' Pension fund, and they might have a political agenda that might affect the recommendations that have a massive impact on American corporate governance. Maybe that could be the distinction between the two parties in today's debate.

Mr. Speaker, we have covered this quite a bit, but I want to go into it again. The role of proxy advisory firms in the U.S. economy is incredibly important. It is important stuff.

These firms counsel pension plans and mutual funds and institutional investors on how to vote their shares. No one is trying to get rid of proxy advisory firms. We think they are a good thing, but we think they should have a little bit of regulation and a little bit of oversight.

I think it is troubling, when you look at the share of institutional ownership, in 1987, it was 46 percent. Today, that has grown to 75 percent, meaning that institutional investors control billions of shares.

There was a recent study that was done by Stanford that says that asset managers with $100 billion or more under their control only make 10 percent of the decisions on these proxy issues, meaning they outsource 90 percent of the decisions to one of two firms, consolidating great power in these proxy advisory firms.

This was pointed out before as well, but, again, two firms, 97 percent of the market share, writing analysis reports, voting recommendations that affect the fundamentals of corporate governance, mergers, acquisitions, approval of corporate directors, and shareholder proposals.

What is of greatest concern is that these firms are not free of conflicts of interest. For example, in addition to providing recommendations to institutional investors about how to vote, proxy advisory firms may advise companies about corporate governance issues, rate companies on corporate governance, help companies improve those ratings, and advise proponents about how to frame a proposal to get the most votes. They are playing every side of the issue. They are getting every dollar from anybody who cares about the corporate governance space. They play everybody. And if you want access, you pay.

I am going to give you an example in just a little bit of one of the hundreds of letters that I have received on this issue. But before I do that, I think it is important to say: What are we asking for? What is the radical idea that we brought to the floor today, which, by the way, had six Democrats' support?

Mr. Scott commented about his support as well, and I know he had an issue about the cost that this would have on proxy advisory firms; but the CBO, which I rarely quote, did a study on this and said the cost to proxy advisory firms of this bill is minimal, if

anything. I think his concern might be misplaced.

But what are we asking to do here? We are asking for accountability. We are asking for transparency, responsiveness, and competition in the proxy advisory space. By doing that, we will improve corporate governance, and, in the end, we are going to protect investors.

Specifically, again, this bipartisan bill will ensure that proxy advisory firms are registered with the SEC. They will disclose potential conflicts of interest. They will maintain a code of ethics and make publicly available their methodologies for formulating their proxy recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my friends across the aisle have about maintaining a code of ethics or disclosing potential conflicts of interest or instituting an ombudsman to resolve issues that might come up. This is commonsense stuff. This is good governance, and I would encourage all of my friends across the aisle to join us.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read one part of a letter that I received that I think embodies what is going on in corporate America.

I am not going to give the name of the company, but it says:

Upon contacting ISS and seeking explanation on one of the

recommendations, we were told there was a firewall between

the ISS recommendation group and the ISS group that deals

with corporate matters. Ultimately, we were advised that if

we were willing to join ISS, which includes payment of a

relatively substantial amount of money, we could have input

in the recommendations before they were made.

So, Mr. Speaker, pay for the input.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say:

Meanwhile, during our latest discussions we were again

advised that we could avoid some issues by subscribing to ISS

corporate services and thereby have some input before such

recommendations are published.

Mr. Speaker, of course, such a subscription would entail big payouts.

It goes on to say:

On the one hand, ISS makes wholly unsupportable,

unreasonable, and irrational recommendations regarding

corporate elections without investigation, regulatory

support, or even contact with the victim company. While, on

the other hand, seeking fees from the victim company for the

privilege of influencing ISS's recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, so what you have here is you have the mafia on the streets. So, lo and behold, your little shop on the street corner gets burglarized at 10 o'clock one night and at 8 o'clock in the morning, and lo and behold, the thugs come in and say: Do you want to buy some insurance? Do you want to buy some protection? Pay up. We will keep you safe. ISS, Glass Lewis, you pay up, and we can help you with your recommendation. We can help you with your ratings.

Mr. Speaker, this is thuggery.

Let's have a little commonsense oversight in this space. It is a good bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time.

Before I get to my bill, if I could just address a few points that have been brought up in this debate, which I am surprised at the fact that the Rules Committee doesn't actually talk about the rule. We talk about a whole bunch of different issues, but maybe I am new to this game.

I have to say that the gentleman from Georgia is correct. Infrastructure investment in the internet has gone down over the last 2 years.

I would agree: If it is not broken, why did President Obama try to fix it?

It was working really well for 20 years, and we had great innovation.

In regard to the tax bill, that is being debated. I think we are looking at some unique arguments that are being made. The Democrats are over there and they are fighting for the poor middle class American, and all Republicans are fighting for the rich. It is a great line. I love the line. But let's look to the wealthiest communities in America.

Go look right outside of D.C. Look in Northern Virginia. Are those wealthy communities, those counties in Virginia, are they Republican or Democrat? They are Democrat. L.A., San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, New York are all really rich communities that elect Democrats.

The wealthiest and biggest corporations, think of the tech industry in California or the biggest in America. What are they? They are Democrats. And that is why. When the tax debate comes up, you see Democrats fighting for loopholes and preferences for their big, wealthy friends.

And that is why, when Republicans here in this House said maybe to write off the mortgage interest on a $1 million home, that might be a little too much, maybe we should lower it to $500,000 of mortgage interest deductions, my Democratic friends freaked out.

Oh, no, the poor, middle class people in my community who have a $1 million mortgage, they are just having a tough time getting by--that was the argument that was made, fighting for the loopholes and preferences for the wealthiest Americans, while we are fighting for the middle class.

You talk about investment in my bill? You want to talk about pension funds? What has happened to pension funds in America? What has happened to American 401(k)'s? They have gone through the roof because we are lowering rules and regulations in a smart way, and we are going to reform our Tax Code to let families and businesses keep more of their income because they can spend it better than anyone in this town. They do it well.

So if you want to tank the markets, do what you have been doing and tank tax reform.

I want to get to my bill. This is on proxy advisory firms. I have taken awhile to get here, but the role of proxy advisory firms in the U.S. economy and shaping corporate governance is profound. These firms, they counsel pension funds and mutual funds and institutional investors on how to vote the shares of the corporations that they own.

You think, well, that is pretty benign. That is not a big issue.

Well, the shares of institutional investors' ownership in 1987 was 46 percent. Today, institutional investors own 75 percent of American corporations, billions of shares institutional investors control and look to proxy advisers for advice.

There are just two firms that control 97 percent of the market. So two companies, basically, are having a huge influence on American corporate governance, and they are involved in the writing and analysis and reports and voting recommendations that affect fundamental corporate transactions like mergers and acquisitions, approval of corporate directors and shareholder proposals--a huge impact on corporate governance.

And they are not immune from conflicts of interest. For example, in addition to providing recommendations to institutional investors about how to vote, proxy advisory firms may also advise companies about corporate governance issues, rate companies on corporate governance, help companies approve those ratings, and advise proponents about how to frame proposals to get the most votes.

I am going to come back to that in a second, but there was a Stanford University study that said institutional investors with assets under management of $100 billion or more, they only make 10 percent of the voting decisions, which means they offload 90 percent to proxy advisory firms.

So I don't know if you are familiar with the Mafia, but you have got the old storekeeper on the block, and he is robbed one night--right?-- gets beaten up and robbed, and the next day, the thugs come in and go: Hey, hey, I hear you were robbed last night. You pay a little fee, we'll take care of you and make sure you are not robbed anymore.

That is exactly what proxy advisory firms are doing. They are like: Oh, you got a bad recommendation. Let me tell you what. You buy our services, and we can help you in the future. Just pay the ransom, and we will help take care of you in future recommendations.

This is not the way corporate governance should work. So my bill brings transparency and accountability to proxy advisory firms.

I thought that is what Democrats want: making them more responsive; bringing more competition into the industry; making it better for investors; specifically, again, a bipartisan bill. Republicans and Democrats voted for this legislation.

But we will ensure that proxy advisory firms are registered with the SEC. Oh, how bad is that, registering with the SEC, a little oversight?

We are going to disclose potential conflicts of interest. How radical is that idea?

Shouldn't we tell people that we have a conflict of interest, and shouldn't all parties be aware of it?

I don't know why my friends across the aisle, or the gentleman from Colorado would be opposed to that.

Maintain a code of ethics. That is not shocking. I think most people would agree to that point.

And make publicly available the methodologies for formulating proxy recommendations and analysis.

Again, this is transparency. This is a commonsense bill that both Republicans and Democrats have voted for because we have recognized-- and again, I am not a big regulation guy, as the gentleman from Colorado had pointed out. But when you consolidate a great deal of power in two companies that have a huge impact on American corporate governance, that makes a lot of people uncomfortable; and to have a little more oversight, to have a little more transparency, to have a little more accountability is a really, really good thing.

Some of the smallest companies have been the biggest complainers about how these proxy advisory firms have held them hostage. So let's support the small innovators, the big job creators in America that are complaining about the big proxy advisory firms. Let's stand with them and the families that they employ, and the future families, if they are successful, that they will employ, and let's give a little more control to proxy adviser firms.

I ask all to support this great bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of the Congressional Friends of Finland Caucus in recognition of Finland's Centennial. For a generation of Finns, this is the most significant commemorative year in their lifetime.

The significance of the anniversary comes with good reason. A century ago, on December 6, 1917, Finland declared itself an independent republic and rejected its status as an autonomous Grand Duchy of Russia. As is often the case, independence is not easily won. Soon after breaking away from Tsarist Russia, the country descended into civil war with neighbor pitted against neighbor. However, from the struggle of war, something incredible happened: the Finnish people emerged with renewed purpose and a new national identity.

After 100 years of democracy, Finland has become a shining example to the world of what monumental achievements can be made in a short time. Today, Finland is the pinnacle of Nordic values and culture, a proud member state of the European Union, and a key political and economic partner of the United States. The deep relationships between the United States and Finland cannot be overstated. The United States is the third largest trading partner of Finland and in addition, around 250 Finnish- owned companies, which directly employ about 34,000 people, are based in the United States. Truly, US-Finland relations have never been stronger.

And just a few short months ago, President Trump hosted President Niinisto at the White House. There the Presidents discussed Finland's leadership of the Artic Council, the coalition to defeat ISIS, and cybersecurity. Furthermore, President Trump pledged an additional half- million dollars to the Fulbright Finland Foundation so that the United States could send more of our brightest students to study and form lasting relationships in Finland.

Our peoples share many common values and interests that make Finns and Americans readily identify with one another. Hard work and the drive to succeed have benefitted both our peoples and embody some of our most deeply-held virtues.

In light of these shared interests and the strong relationship between our peoples, I congratulate all Finns on 100 years of independence. Continued cooperation between our nations will make Finland's second century as robust and vibrant as the first and my colleagues in the House and I look forward to closely working with our Finnish counterparts towards that end. Thank you, Finland, for being a valued friend to the United States and happy centennial.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an incredible young man, Tha Ying Xiong of Weston, Wisconsin, and congratulate him on receiving this year's Paul Bunyan's ``larger than life'' award. Paul Bunyan, with his trusty blue ox, Babe, was a larger-than-life figure in Wisconsin. And through his dedicated work in the Wausau region community, Tha Ying certainly exemplifies the term ``larger than life.'' Tha Ying serves his community as a member of the Help Making Our Next Generation (H.M.O.N.G.) Youth Program, a member of the ReUnited Dance Group, coordinator for the first Mr. Hmong Royalty competition, and has spent countless hours on behalf of the Hmong American Center fundraising and helping to fulfill the day-to-day operations that every organization needs to thrive. He is described as a leader among his peers, even by those who are much older than him. His selfless acts to improve the community around him serve as a true inspiration to us all and as a credit to the legacy of Paul Bunyan. Congratulations, Tha Ying.