Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I draw a distinction between political costs and real costs. In no city in the country are the political costs treated as more real than Washington. But the truth is that for the other 99 percent of the country, the real costs are what count.

The real costs of the Durbin amendment have been amply documented. Community banks have seen interchange revenue fall 20 percent. The low- income consumer has seen his checking fees double. The small-ticket merchant has seen his interchange cost increase.

For those of us who campaigned on a platform of free markets and limited government, which is most of our party, I suggest that a principle that is followed only when it costs nothing is not much of a principle at all.

The principle that government shouldn't be setting prices, ended up having a political price of its own. And for some, that was the only reality of this debate. I only wish that I could say the same for the 1 million people the Durbin amendment has driven out of the banking system.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, right now we are having a fierce debate in the Republican Conference over the Durbin amendment, which is a price control on debit swipe fees. Retailers have claimed that the Durbin amendment is about competition. They have claimed that it is about restoring a broken market. They have claimed that Visa, MasterCard, and issuing banks are engaged in price-fixing on swipe fees.

This is a key element of this debate. A vote to keep the Durbin amendment is a vote that rests on the idea that Members are sure that there is price-fixing in the debit card market. There is $6 billion to $8 billion per year at play here, and the violation of a core free- market principle, which is the notion that government should not be telling people what they can or can't charge.

My point would be that, if you do that, if you support that degree of command and control in the economy, you have got to be sure.

And should we be sure?

I go back to the Sherman Antitrust Act, which outlaws price-fixing. This is a criminal law. Hundreds of people have been put in jail for it. You can go to jail for up to 10 years for violating it, and the law has stood for more than 100 years.

Payment networks and retailers have been fighting over whether or not Visa, MasterCard, and issuing banks are violators of the Sherman Antitrust Act for 30 years. And one of the earlier rulings goes back to 1986.

There is ongoing litigation now. In fact, there are more than 15 different cases out there on this. Litigation, I would add, that the retailers have never won when cases went to trial. In the major cases that we have managed to find, they are 0-3.

They are actually in the middle of another big case right now. There was a settlement, and later a higher court set it aside. A sentence of that ruling reads:

``Discovery included more than 400 depositions, 17 expert reports, 32 days of expert deposition testimony, and the production of over 80 million pages of documents.''

Eighty million pages. I have studied this issue for months, and I have not read 80 million pages. I am a retailer, and I have paid thousands of dollars in swipe fees, so I know the difference between point of sale and Square mobile payments. I have used these systems, but I still don't know.

That is why I oppose the Durbin amendment: because I am not sure that this price control is necessary. Therefore, I put the Federal Government in the role of judge, jury, and executioner for the payment industry. For me to do that, I would have to be sure.

I know that the government wasn't sure when they came up with the regulation. They originally came up with 12 cents per transaction. Then the final rule finally came in at 24 cents.

Were they right the first time?

Were they wrong the second time?

There is no way to know for sure.

I guarantee you that when we walk down to this floor and we vote on this issue and choose to uphold a policy which many free-market think tanks have said harms consumers, Members will not have read 80 million pages. If we are honest with ourselves, most will not have read 80 pages. There is no way we could, given everything that is in front of the Federal Government, even if we wanted to.

Economist F.A. Hayek got at this in his criticism of the planned economy. He said that socialism doesn't work because of what he called ``the unavoidable imperfection of man's knowledge.''

Hayek was referring to human beings at large. I would offer that the knowledge of politicians--speaking for myself, in particular--must be that much more imperfect.

You don't have to believe that the banks are angels, and you don't have to disbelieve the retailers to oppose the Durbin amendment. You just have to feel a bit of doubt either way.

Mr. Speaker, a labor union's purpose is simple: to represent its members and to bargain on their behalf. But for millions of Americans who are currently paying union dues, their money is sometimes being used for political advocacy that they may not support.

The First Amendment in our Constitution grants workers around the country the freedom to donate or not to donate to any political cause. As it currently stands, however, union members have to opt out of having their dues spent on certain political activity. This process can be burdensome, and it can be complicated and time consuming.

Instead of asking workers to go through a lengthy process just to avoid funding political causes they don't support, they should have the choice from the start whether to opt in to that spending or not.

Earlier this week, I introduced the National Paycheck Protection Act that would require an employee's consent before their labor organization dues are used for any purpose not directly related to collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, union members are Americans before they are Republicans or Democrats, and this simple change would be the first step in the fight for more worker freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of H.J. Res. 50.

Mr. Speaker, you can divide this country into two classes of people, not Republican and Democrat but the political class and the rest of the country. The political class is doing better than ever.

Eleven out of 20 of the richest counties in America are in the D.C. metro area. For every dollar the average family in D.C. earns, the average family in Davie County, where I live, earns 55 cents.

The political class is alive and doing well for themselves. On the other hand, those who are not oriented to government--doctors, auto mechanics, waitresses, bartenders, factory workers--are still earning exactly what they did 10 years ago. I am not the first person to point this out, but I want to speak about a textbook example of how this dynamic plays out in reality.

I am referring to a recently announced $418 million arms deal between the U.S. and Kenya. It is for 12 airplanes that are essentially armed crop dusters. There is only one slight problem with the deal, the defense contractor that was chosen to fulfill the sale doesn't even make these type of airplanes. They have never done it before. In fact, there is an extra $130 million built into this deal to design a whole new airplane.

IOMAX USA, a service-disabled, veteran-owned small business in my district, makes these airplanes. They have been doing it for 7 years. They have got 50 of these airplanes in the Middle East. These planes have dropped more than 4,000 bombs on ISIS. They are the only U.S. manufacturer of this type of aircraft.

They were not even considered for the deal, which was awarded without competition. Nobody got a chance to bid. Nobody knew about it, except for the company that got it and the bureaucrats who were involved.

That is how the D.C. area got so wealthy. If you know the right people and you have the right lobbyists, you get awards like this from the Federal Government without competition. It doesn't matter if you don't even make the product, they will give you some extra money to design it from scratch if you know the right people.

IOMAX, a small business just like the millions of others in our country, doesn't have those connections. The giant defense contractor involved in this deal does, and so they get the money. Something is wrong with that picture.

The problem lies with a secretive acquisition unit within the Air Force called Big Safari. Now, I don't say ``secretive'' lightly.

At one point in 2013, Big Safari's commanding officer told a reporter: Don't be angry or upset when your Freedom of Information Act gets turned down; that is just they way we do business here at Big Safari. And the commander's words were true.

I asked for information on this, and they turned me down saying that the information was sensitive, but unclassified, and for official use only. I asked them 19 questions, and they answered only four of them having to do with the very basic elements for the deal that were already public.

Under that secrecy, Big Safari doles out billions in government contracts. I imagine it makes things convenient for when Big Safari employees go to work for the same companies to which they direct these large defense contracts, which we have found that they do with some regularity. You don't even have to go to a different building, in some instances. We have got a confirmed case of a Big Safari employee awarding a contract, quitting, and then going to work on the same program with the same company he has just given the contract to.

The forgotten men in this equation are the employees of IOMAX, mostly veterans, mostly blue collar, who have to compete against a $13 billion defense contractor and a $4 trillion Federal Government that appears to have forgotten impartiality.

We need to shine the light on this deal with congressional oversight, and we need to ask ourselves who exactly the Federal Government is supposed to be working for, the country or for the political class.

Mr. Speaker, we need to fix this. It is a symptom of a very serious disease that our democracy cannot long survive.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the racing legend Richard Childress upon his induction into the NASCAR Hall of Fame.

Richard Childress' iconic career began 50 years ago when he bought his 1947 Plymouth for $20 at the age of 17. That simple moment in time was a pinpoint in history that would ignite Childress' passion for motorsports leaving an imprint on NASCAR fans across the country. As a driver, Mr. Childress laid claim to (6) top 5 and (76) top 10 finishes. In 1981, Mr. Childress climbed out of the driver's seat and into the owner's role full time.

Beginning as a one-man operation, Childress has grown his organization to more than 500 employees. His cars have compiled over 100 victories and 2,588 major series starts. In 1981 he kicked his team's performance into overdrive when he paired up with late great Dale Earnhardt, who was part of the inaugural NASCAR Hall of Fame class. The duo would become known as one of the most successful partnerships in NASCAR, winning a total of six Cup championships together. Mr. Childress has a total 11 Cup Championships and counting, putting him second on the all-time list for owners.

Childress' legacy is not exclusive to NASCAR. Following his racing career, he remains an active member of the North Carolina community. In 2008, the Childress family began working with Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and subsequently founded the Childress Institute for Pediatric Trauma after discovering that pediatric trauma was the number one killer of children in the United States.

Mr. Childress' contributions and accomplishments to the sport and his community deserve to be celebrated and honored. Mr. Childress' induction into the NASCAR Hall of Fame not only speaks to his incredible achievements in stock car racing, but also to his character, business acumen, and his drive to succeed and win. Mr. Speaker, please join me today in congratulating Richard Childress and his entire family and organization on his induction into the NASCAR Hall of Fame.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 57, which we will be voting on today and discussing and debating in a few moments, would overturn an administration rule on school accountability standards that were finalized back in November.

Congress passed a law last year with the intent of giving power back to States and to local communities, but unelected bureaucrats at the Department of Education finalized this rule last year which, ultimately, could force Common Core standards on States that don't comply.

We see this time and time again. Congress will create a law, and then an agency that is filled with unelected officials disregards the will of the people by writing regulations as it sees fit. Every American, in putting aside one's personal ideology, can agree that an important issue like how we educate our kids is not something that we should decide here in Washington. In the months and the years to come, we should welcome a continued debate about whether the fate of a child's education should be decided in Washington or if a child's education should be more personalized at the State and the community levels. In my view, dictating specific accountability requirements from Washington and punishing those who don't meet those standards is a losing prescription.

It is my hope that every kid in my district, in North Carolina, and around the country has a quality education. I think that is the hope of my colleagues, too. The more we think that Washington has all of the answers, the further we get away from our founding vision of a limited Federal role in our lives, especially in something as personal as education.

It will be debated in a few moments, but I do urge a ``yes'' vote on H.J. Res. 57.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution would overturn a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that, according to the agency, is supposed to ``help combat global corruption and empower citizens of resource- rich countries to hold their governments accountable. . . .''

Well, that is a grand idea, but we have a financial regulator to protect the American investor, not to combat global corruption or empower citizens for other countries. I am sure we could send the SEC off to fight any number of other international problems--religious oppression, authoritarian regimes, malaria, maybe even leprosy.

The question is if a financial regulator mandated to combat all these things can fulfill its core mission to provide financial transparency and prevent fraud. Given that we had a financial crisis that the SEC didn't foresee and did nothing to prevent, that would suggest that it needs even less on its plate, not more. What this joint resolution does is put the American investor first and help us to stop sending the SEC off on global rabbit trails.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I stand here to share with you a few words about North Carolina's dear friend, Ruth Samuelson.

Ruth was only 57 when she went to glory yesterday morning. Her grace in the fight against cancer was a trait that was seen in her life as a wife of 35 years to Ken, as a mom, and as a public servant.

It was this strength rooted in her Christian faith that provided her with the grace to lead and to champion causes that she held dear. Although Ruth worked in the often divided world of politics, she garnered respect from all sides.

This week we will discuss an issue that was very dear to Ruth: the right to life. She fought hard for the lives of the unborn with heart and compassion that earned admiration from all.

Her grace and leadership will forever continue to inspire all she encountered.

I would like to end with a passage of significance to Ruth and her husband, Ken. It is from Matthew 6:33:

``But seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.''

We will miss you, Ruth, but we know that you have been added to the Kingdom of God.

Mr. Chairman, the debate over financial regulation is not just about more versus less. It is also about the idea that financial liberty and personal liberty are connected, and they have been for most of history.

This goes back to the Middle Ages, when widespread use of a bill of exchange--basically, a check--made it much more difficult for government to wrongly take people's wealth. That development was one of the first building blocks of limited government.

Now, today, we see a similar principle at work in global capital. Like the bill of exchange placing gold or silver out of the reach of government, the connected global economy allows capital to flow away from harsh regulation. Countries that get it right are the ones that win.

There are a number of statistics that suggest that we are getting the short end of the stick in this arena. We are losing our financial competitiveness. For example, nearly 10 percent of foreign companies left the New York Stock Exchange this year, almost double the historic average. Finally, from 2010 to 2016, the United States slipped from 6th to 11th in the Index of Economic Freedom.

While this problem has a number of causes, the Securities and Exchange Commission Regulatory Accountability Act will help improve our economic competitiveness by requiring that the SEC put its regulations through a strong cost-benefit analysis and review regulations that are just plain outdated.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.