Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairwoman Brooks for putting this Special Order together and taking time to call attention to some good news. Good news is out there. It is hard to find sometimes on the news, but tax reform, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is all about good news.

What is astonishing is the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was already having an impact even before it became law. The hope of the cuts that were to come were causing our economy to grow at nearly double the rate that it was under the previous administration.

And now we have seen deeds, not just words. We have seen actions transform the idea of tax cuts into enacted tax cuts, things that have transformed the expectation of 1\1/2\ percent growth, the path that had our economy stagnating, take-home pay stagnating, and no hope for the growth that our parents once knew to be part of the American future.

Today, we are seeing 3 percent growth. We may even see more than 4 percent growth in this quarter. The experts said this wasn't going to happen and, instead, what we have seen is the power of ideas, the power of those ideas becoming law, and now we are seeing that show up in our economy.

What does that mean for families in Ohio? Hardworking families are getting more home take-home pay. They are creating more opportunities. The ability to change jobs and find a better-paying one with better benefits is out there because everyone I am talking to is hiring.

This is great news for Ohio, a State that just a short time ago was reeling from over 400,000 jobs lost, a fleeting economy, and a State savings account that was raided to just 89 cents left in Ohio's treasury.

Today, Ohio's manufacturers are hiring. In fact, nearly every company that I have met with is hiring, and their problem is they can't hire fast enough. They are looking for more good workers, and this is creating better opportunities for hardworking Ohioans and better opportunities for American companies. Because we didn't just cut taxes, we reformed taxes, and we made changes that make it so companies are investing in Ohio, in America again, and this is creating these jobs.

Places like Staub Manufacturing Solutions have seen an uptick in sales, employment, and optimism. They have grown their team from 23 to 37 employees over the last year, and they recently expanded by acquiring a new building.

Hartzler Propeller in Troy, Ohio, is experiencing the same optimism and continues to grow and invest in the future of their employees and their investment in Ohio.

How does this happen?

The framework has to be right. It is not more government or less government; it is the right kind of government. It is the kind of government that has made America the world's land of opportunity.

America has always attracted the best goods, services, capital, ideas, and people that flow freely and flourish here in America because we have the certainty of a good regulatory framework, not an excessive, burdensome regulatory framework. We have seen that burden lifted, and we have seen it complemented by strong tax reform, important tax cuts, and we have seen the result is more jobs, more than a million created in the 6 months since this bill became law.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a constructive policy for jobs, for prosperity, and for a promising economic future for everyone in America.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Staff Sergeant Michael ``Mick'' DeHart for the selfless actions and bravery he showed on April 10, 1969, during the Vietnam war.

While conducting a routine reconnaissance operation, Staff Sergeant DeHart and his platoon were ambushed by a numerically superior force. Throughout the firefight, Staff Sergeant DeHart moved through the enemy fire to provide cover for injured soldiers, distribute supplies, and coordinate a counterattack.

As dusk approached, Sergeant DeHart, at significant personal risk, moved to an exposed position, fired on machine-gun positions and approaching enemy soldiers, halting their advance. He also aided in the successful exfiltration of his unit.

For his heroism in combat, Staff Sergeant DeHart recently had one of his two Silver Stars upgraded to a Distinguished Service Cross.

Thank you, Sergeant DeHart, for your heroism, courage, and service to our great country.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this historic bipartisan legislation. This progrowth bill is thanks to all the hardworking members of the House Financial Services Committee, and I am proud to have contributed to this meaningful reform.

S. 2155 will reduce regulatory burdens hindering Main Street by providing job creators with resources they need to grow their businesses and, frankly, their banks. Under Dodd-Frank, big banks have gotten bigger and small banks have become fewer. Our economy is not well served when small banks are handicapped.

As a former manufacturer, I understand the toll excessive regulatory burdens can have on small businesses. That is why I am a proud supporter of this legislation, and I look forward to seeing this bill signed on the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss digital currency, particularly initial coin offerings.

These innovations have outpaced regulators and the courts. Now, regulators and courts are beginning to weigh in.

Meeting with agency officials and industry leaders makes one thing clear: Making the markets work in the United States of America requires legislative certainty. Failure for Congress to act produces uncertainty, and that will drive capital and innovation offshore.

Our task is to answer questions like: How are these tokens traded? Are they securities or commodities? Who is the proper regulator? How do we prevent fraud? These are just some of the questions that need answers.

Congress needs to act by passing legislation that creates certainty and turns the United States into a market maker. I intend to lead this legislation for initial coin offerings to clarify the role of regulators, protect consumers, address national security concerns, and facilitate a pro-growth environment for businesses to raise capital here in America.

Mr. Speaker, the Consolidated Audit Trail stands as the largest financial database in the world and ranks second in size only to the NSA's database.

The value of the sensitive information housed within this database includes Social Security numbers, broker numbers, account numbers. In fact, it is comparable to nine times the wealth that is in Fort Knox-- far more sensitive than the Equifax data, whose breach affects 143 million Americans.

Despite the enormity of wealth within this database, the unfortunate reality is that its cybersecurity is not yet adequate. The Government Accountability Office report found the SEC's systems ``at unnecessary risk of compromise.'' The CAT operator recently delayed the issuing of technical specifications, which means that industry will have just 1 month to transmit all of this market data.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced the Market Data Protection Act, which passed this House with unanimous support, to guarantee the private information of hundreds of millions of Americans transmits securely and without risk. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to send this bill to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of Ohio constituents who have suffered reduced access to the banking system due to the loss of community financial institutions in Ohio's Eighth District.

Like many things in Dodd-Frank that were intended to do good and protect consumers, the Volcker rule is doing the exact opposite. The Volcker rule was designed to protect depositors from having their deposits placed at risk through proprietary trading. It was not designed to discourage other forms of capital from flowing into our banking system, from increasing competition, or from lowering prices for a broad swath of customers.

This pragmatic, bipartisan compromise on Volcker is a great step forward in enabling community banks to reach their compliance costs and allow them to deploy more capital in the communities that serve.

My hope is we can move forward and pursue more commonsense solutions like this, especially to help underserved communities where we have seen local banking services dry up. I encourage support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+ Improvement Act. I greatly appreciate my colleague, Representative MacArthur, for this bill and for our chairman for moving it through our committee, and, frankly, my colleagues from across the aisle who came together to recognize the need for this bill.

As has already been stated, this has broad implications for small capital companies. I spent the past 15 years, prior to coming to Congress, growing small manufacturing companies, and I can greatly appreciate the challenge of raising capital. This is another means of doing that, but I want to highlight another area that it might be suitable.

With approximately $4 billion of capital raised worldwide in 2017, it is fair to say that initial coin offerings are just another great way for startups to raise capital and grow their businesses. ICOs in Regulation A+ could work great together, and with Mr. MacArthur's bill, they can work even better.

An example of this harmonization is the investor-based Reg. A+ allows investors of any wealth to participate. This Democratic process is a pillar for ICOs in terms of the premise behind distributed ledger technology.

Another provision is anti-money laundering. Reg. A+ requires the validation of investors, as well as background checks on the principles of offering companies. This goes hand in hand with improving the credibility of ICO business practices and reducing the risk of loss.

Compliance with Reg. A+ would mean a disclosure memorandum, not just a white paper. Reg. A+ provides ICO entrepreneurs and their startups with a viable path to compliance with SEC security regulation. So it is important that we have guardrails established in this explosive new industry, while not hampering the ability to grow the business. I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 4296 and for the bipartisan work of our committee, the work our chairman has helped lead; and I am encouraged that this bill will establish clear guardrails for operational risk capital requirements and improve U.S. capital framework as a whole.

This legislation is another example of ensuring regulators work in the best interest of the U.S. economy rather than abiding by international standards that hold American businesses back rather than move them forward.

In fact, the very premise of this legislation reminds me of a song. I remember when Bill Clinton was running, he

had a song about: ``Don't stop thinking about tomorrow. Yesterday is gone; yesterday is gone.'' It is all about the future.

Well, this piece of legislation that is in place today, established by the Basel Committee in 2006, is thinking about tomorrow, is thinking about yesterday. What happened in the past is constraining what could happen in the future.

So banks are reserving against past losses in an era that holds them from being able to adopt the business plans that maybe even under new leadership, new board members, and a whole new set of governance requirements that will get the company moving forward at a better growth rate. This is better for not just the company, not just the executives or the board members, but the consumers that would be served by this market.

Take, for instance, historic losses being reserved against. That capital is sitting there not actively employed in the market. Even the Basel Committee saw how ridiculous this rule is; so they updated their guidance, in 2016, to include historical loss experience as a relevant indicator instead of as the sole factor.

It is time that we move forward in the best interests of our country and make rules that help American businesses instead of hold them back.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act. This bill is another example of the rollback of burdensome regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act, which Barney Frank himself says missed the mark, particularly with respect to small banks.

I appreciate the Member opposed calling attention to Democrats who have worked across the aisle to benefit community banks. In fact, 11 of them support this bill in our committee, and I appreciate them for doing that. I appreciate the cosponsors who are Democrats, who worked across the aisle with my colleague, Mrs. Love, to pass this good bill through our committee, and I look forward to seeing more colleagues pass this in a bipartisan way across the floor of the House today.

How about giving small institutions a chance to start taking back some of their market share? Instead of too big to fail, what Dodd-Frank has done is made things so that small banks are too small to succeed. These exemptions that are in this bill make it easier for small bank holding companies to raise capital, to issue debt.

Under the current capital requirements, small businesses just can't compete with the larger banks, and the large banks have celebrated this in their own statements, celebrating the effect of Dodd-Frank in protecting their market share and helping them grow it.

Under current capital requirements, that is what we have seen: bigger banks getting bigger, and smaller banks getting fewer. We need to give community banks the ability to breathe from the regulatory burden that has been shoved down their throats. And if you want to make big banks smaller, you can try to regulate them more, but we have demonstrated that is their competitive advantage.

Frankly, all benchmarks are easier to audit. Just picking a number here in D.C. is easier to audit, and this is a compromise to what would be a good solution to look at systemic risk.

We are losing nearly one community bank a day, and that is having a devastating impact on local businesses and communities. I urge all of our colleagues to support H.R. 4771.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 1153, the Mortgage Choice Act. This bill is another example of a rollback of the burdensome regulations of Dodd-Frank and, many would say, unintended consequences.

The 113th Congress, as Mr. Huizenga reported out--apparently, the Member opposed feels that her colleagues were

confused in the 113th Congress when they unanimously supported this very same procedure, this same change to Dodd-Frank. Apparently, all of President Obama's supporters were also confused into forgetting to make the big investments they have made as a reaction to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that was recently enacted. So confusion must be rampant, but let me clarify what this does.

It doesn't do the things that the Member opposed accuses it of doing. Frankly, the market prevails here, not price controls from Washington, D.C., nor a substitute that would say a nonaffiliated company could offer the exact same product that the one-stop shop is barred from offering.

So rather than have a simple procedure where a borrower could work with one lending institution, they are forced to this array that resembles the healthcare industry, where, instead of getting one bill from one visit, you show up to do a mortgage and you get a bill from five or six different entities, and it makes it more confusing.

The market lets people shop and say, ``Hey, maybe I could get this product from someone else,'' but, unfortunately, without this change, it blocks hardworking families from working with one relationship to close on their mortgage. It adds one more piece in the web of documentation required, and it adds one more thing to negotiate in the relationship that is necessary to close on a mortgage.

The QM rule should not stand for ``quitting mortgages.'' It should stand for ``qualified mortgages.'' The application of this has resulted in small and community banks quitting the mortgage market for certain types of loans, and this is hurting the families that the Member opposed says she seeks to help.

I urge all of my colleagues to unite and support this rational, limited modification that lets the market work the way the market can work for the hardworking families of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my excitement that this body has taken a strong pro-life stance and, likewise, that this country is becoming increasingly pro-life.

This is not surprising since it is a view that is plainly obvious that we are not talking about a clump of cells but a baby human. Advances in science and medicine make this more clear all the time.

In addition to our votes this week to save babies with the necessary medical care when they are born alive following an abortion, tomorrow my office will be welcoming and hosting pro-life leaders and friends from Ohio's Eighth District traveling to Washington, D.C., to participate in this year's March for Life.

I am proud to participate tomorrow in the march where we will seek to get out the message that love saves lives. Since Roe v. Wade, nearly 60 million babies with all their potential have had their lives tragically cut short. I look forward to the day when love and sound science finally put an end to abortion.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of our committee and the chairman of our subcommittee for making great points and for pushing forward this great legislation.

The Members opposed to this legislation were for it before they were against it, as has been pointed out. But the other thing is the premise of the argument that is being made in opposition to this bill: that the United States should somehow give money, just spend the money, regardless of how poorly the World Bank will deploy this capital, regardless of whether they are effective or not in accomplishing the important mission of helping address poverty in some of the poorest nations in the world.

The specific purpose of this fund is to address poverty, and it has not done a very good job of doing that. Frankly, they have abused the funds they have had. So the premise would be that somehow we can just spend the money and trust that somehow they are going to get better.

Well, thankfully, when we were talking about it in committee and when we have talked about it on this side of the argument here--and I hope there is truly broad bipartisanship support for this bill to show to the American people we do expect a return on our dollars. We expect results for the money that comes to this body to spend on behalf of the United States of America.

I think the other premise is that somehow, unless we just send the money with no strings attached and no expectation of results, then we are not engaged in the world, that somehow we have withdrawn from the world and we don't care.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Because we do care, we are putting terms and conditions on the money. Because we do care about poverty and the results, we care that the World Bank operates, frankly, to accomplish its mission.

So while some would look for bigger, bolder reforms and maybe better use of U.S. tax dollars, we certainly expect some accountability for those results. This is a very measured objective in this bill, and I commend our committee for coming to this consensus 60-0 in committee.

Mr. Chairman, I hope for a similar outcome when we call the vote on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Amash amendment and in strong opposition to the underlying bill.

As a former Army ranger, I know the importance of section 702 in defeating the enemies of our country. The foreign enemies of our country are not subject to the protections of our Constitution; American citizens, however, are.

The supporters of the underlying bill would have you believe that the only way to secure America is by ignoring the Fourth Amendment, and I strongly disagree. It is the data of American citizens that is at subject here. The Fourth Amendment does not change when communications shift from the Postal Service, also in the hands of the government, to a database. It should be protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge support of the Amash amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to join Mr. Luetkemeyer in supporting his bill. I am so encouraged that this is a bipartisan bill.

Listening to the Members opposed, I am concerned that the bill is being highly mischaracterized. It occurred to me that when the Member opposed mentioned that 97 percent of banks would not be affected by this, that it automatically excludes 97 percent of banks from being affected by this.

Mr. Luetkemeyer doesn't pick a number and say big is bad. He says: Let's judge the bank by its behavior, not by the size of its balance sheet.

This is a rational, measured approach, and that is why it has drawn bipartisan support. It is focused on solving the problem, not driving regulatory burdens.

Let me explain that the SIFI designation is an arbitrary number, and it subjects banks with $50 billion or more in assets to the same standards as trillion-dollar globally important financial banks.

So a bank with $51 billion would be regulated the same way as JPMorgan Chase, for example.

Even former Chair Barney Frank, as has been mentioned, seized the problem. Janet Yellen seized the problem.

People look at it and say: What can be a solution?

The Federal Reserve has seen a possible solution as judging the character of the business activity. Mr. Luetkemeyer's bill firmly addresses that.

A simple asset threshold captures numerous banks that are widely perceived to be no threat to financial stability. It also distorts growth decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I just have to say, I am in shock. I am listening to the kind of thinking that, if it had caught on in the eighties, may have allowed the Cold War to continue.

When I enlisted in the Army, I was privileged to serve in Germany, wear our country's uniform, and see the fruit of generations of work. I also saw the concern that Germans had that Ronald Reagan was going to cause World War III and that actual leadership was somehow a problem.

Instead what we saw was that Mr. Gorbachev didn't tear down the wall. The United States of America didn't tear down the wall. The East German people tore down their own wall.

And why did they do that?

They did that because they knew the truth of what was on the other side.

Mr. Poliquin's bill is a major effort to try to help the people of Iran get their country back. They are under a strong authoritarian leadership system that has oppressed their people and caused harm throughout the region and, in fact, throughout the planet.

Meanwhile, I am so thankful that this is a bipartisan bill. The Members opposed to this would have asked more public disclosure of public company CEOs than they would of enemies of our country, and that is hard to understand.

Mr. Chair, I was sent here to represent the people of the Eighth District of Ohio and to support and defend the United States of America. I don't think there is anyone who has sworn an oath to support and defend 80 leaders in Iran.

This bill does not violate the JCPOA. It doesn't touch it. It simply says we are going to gather this information.

As far as diverting resources, this is the leading state sponsor of terror. It is precisely focused on the problem, and it gives the people of Iran a chance for freedom that so many people of the world enjoy.

I am thankful that we have the opportunity to try to make this difference. I encourage every Member of the House to vote for it, and those who thought they were opposed, to reconsider a rational, measured action to try to change the world for good.