Andy Barr

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this combined rule that will enable the people's House to consider both the World Bank Accountability Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act. Before I speak about why I support this rule, I do want to respond to the other gentleman from Colorado saying that this House is not doing the people's business. In fact, this House is dealing with year-end spending, and we are doing it right now. We are working on immigration reforms. To suggest otherwise is simply not true. In fact, on year-end spending, this House passed all appropriations bills ahead of time, ahead of schedule, before the end of the fiscal year. Those bills were sent over to the Senate. This House also dealt with the issues related to the Children's Health Insurance Program, dealt with community health centers and a whole range of other issues. Those pieces of legislation went over to the Senate. So the issue is really with the Senate, it is not with this House. Furthermore, this House has passed historic tax reform that has become law. It has passed over 16 Congressional Review Acts rolling back Obama-era regulations and rules that were holding back our economy. The result is millions of jobs were created and the best economy we have seen in a decade. So it is just simply not true to suggest that this House is not doing the people's business. We are dealing with some important additional issues this week. We can do both: plan for the year-end spending debates with the Senate and also reauthorize the World Bank. The World Bank's mission is to reduce poverty around the globe. However, during congressional oversight hearings, it has become clear that the World Bank is falling short of its antipoverty mission. As early as 1992, outside reviews of the World Bank--and, later, its own reviews--concluded that a ``pressure to lend'' on staff, through the staff evaluation process, has created perverse incentives for some World Bank employees to focus on loan volume in order to receive a raise or a promotion rather than what really matters, which is poverty reduction outcomes. In addition, there are numerous examples of where the very group of people that was supposed to be helped through World Bank assistance was actually harmed by a corrupt government or its cronies. From violent evictions to rape, to murder, the list of human rights violations goes on and on. One of the most egregious examples of human rights violations was the Uganda crisis, where contractors were sexually abusing a dozen or more girls, and it took the World Bank years to stop it. Even more perplexing, the World Bank's country manager for the Uganda project was, disturbingly, promoted to become World Bank country director for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where allegations, not surprisingly, of sexual and gender-based violence have resurfaced in 2017. For these reasons and more, I support the World Bank Accountability Act, which requires the World Bank to fix its problems or face a 15 to 30 percent reduction of the U.S. contribution to the World Bank's International Development Association fund, or, as it is commonly called, IDA. More specifically, the bill authorizes $3.3 billion for IDA over the next 3 years and mandates that the World Bank must align its incentives for employees with the World Bank's goals of poverty reduction, ending the ``pressure to lend'' problem that is pervasive today. Throwing money at this problem is not the answer, but getting results and doing so without these kind of terrible, horrific scandals is critically important. The legislation also requires the World Bank to fix failures identified in the Uganda sexual abuse crisis so that nothing like that ever happens again. Additionally, the legislation requires the World Bank, through its various tools, to support property rights, due process of law, and economic freedom. The World Bank must also demonstrate that none of its resources have been used to fund terrorism, and must also improve its ability to detect and minimize corruption. If the World Bank does all of these commonsense reforms, then it will receive its full U.S. contribution for IDA. But if it fails to do this, then the World Bank doesn't deserve the full funding backed by U.S. taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I also am a strong supporter of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act. This much-needed legislation exempts community financial institutions, such as small banks and credit unions, from the onerous doubling of Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act reporting requirements if they make 500 or fewer mortgages and 500 or fewer home equity lines of credit each of the preceding 2 years. The lenders I have spoken to say that, without relief, they will have to devote more resources to compliance costs, rather than deploying more capital into our economies to benefit working families and businesses. Instead of having to collect superfluous redundant data, let's allow and liberate our community financial institutions to do what they want to do, and what they should be doing, in their core mission, and that is serving their customers and providing loans. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Emmer for his hard work on the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act. I thank Chairman Hensarling also for his leadership on both of these bills. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both of these important pieces of legislation.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his very thoughtful amendment. His amendment addresses an issue dear to our heart, and that is economic freedom. By making the bill even more explicit in its support for entrepreneurship, his contribution makes a good piece of legislation better. Still, it is important to remember that the poor, wherever they may be in the world, can succeed if their government lets them, and that is a principle we should all wholeheartedly support. I hope the World Bank will subscribe to it as well. I would just say one other thing about the debate that has transpired here today. This is hardworking American taxpayers' generosity. It is their charity. It is the American taxpayers trying to help people who live in impoverished countries. It is unfair to hardworking taxpayers and it dishonors the generosity of the American people to not hold the World Bank accountable. I applaud the gentleman, Mr. Norman, for his amendment, which will unleash entrepreneurship in these lesser developed countries.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for his support and leadership in bringing my legislation to the floor. As Chairman Hensarling has already noted, H.R. 3326 passed the House Financial Services Committee by a unanimous vote of 60-0. No amendments were offered by any of our Democratic colleagues during that markup. So it is disappointing to me that the ranking member is standing in opposition today, despite voting for this bill in committee and then waiting half a year before proposing any changes. Nonetheless, I want to address the gentlewoman's criticism of the withholding mechanism in this legislation, because she seems to share a philosophy endemic at the World Bank, which basically says this: money equals impact. But this runs counter to the evidence we have heard again and again during multiple oversight hearings. It also runs counter to how the World Bank itself operates with its borrowers. The World Bank lends to poor countries by attaching conditions. People can disagree if that conditionality is too much or too little, but the World Bank affects behavior by telling governments that there are no blank checks. The ranking member knows this, and it goes without saying that there are many elements to World Bank conditionality that the ranking member and her Democratic colleagues passionately support, but if the gentlewoman from California would never tolerate the World Bank writing blank checks to governments, it is odd that she wants Congress to write a blank check to the World Bank. Here is how a former, longtime senior staff member of the World Bank put it in testimony before our subcommittee last Congress: `` . . . the reality is that bank staff are assessed by the volume of their lending, dollars of money lent. And that is just a poor indicator of impact on poverty. You have impact on poverty sometimes when you don't lend at all.'' This perverse lending culture at the World Bank has been documented for at least a quarter century and documented by the World Bank itself. Mr. Chairman, I want to draw your attention to a 1992 bank management review entitled, ``Effective Implementation: Key to Development Impact'', commonly known as the Wapenhans Report, which details a pressure to lend that distorts staff incentives at the expense of management and project implementation. Again, this is from 1992. Well, fast forward to 2014, and a report by the bank's own evaluation office entitled, ``Learning and Results in World Bank Operations: How the Bank Learns,'' concludes that the pressure to lend is alive and well. In addition to focusing on better incentives and management at the World Bank, H.R. 3326 requires the World Bank to more effectively support secure property rights, due process, and economic freedom. As distinguished academics such as Nobel economics laureate Angus Deaton, New York University's William Easterly, and the University of Chicago's James Robinson have found, foreign aid makes little positive difference if we are indifferent to the poor's right to exert control over their livelihoods, own land and other assets, and be free from arbitrary government interference. Now, Mr. Chairman, if the World Bank supports a corrupt government, that doesn't mean that it is going to help the condition of the impoverished in that country that is denied economic freedom. Why doesn't the ranking member support these commonsense principles? If the bank doesn't lend with the rights of the poor in mind, then the ranking member's concerns about withholding money aren't serious. If money is being squandered and it isn't helping the poor to begin with, why would you not want to withhold it? Again, our Democratic friends love conditionality at the World Bank; they just had a change of heart when a Republican-sponsored bill is holding the World Bank to high standards. So let no one watching this debate be fooled by crocodile tears. Let me close by touching on the national security elements of this bill, which the ranking member also plans to vote against. H.R. 3326 incentivizes the World Bank to strengthen its work to fight violent extremism and keep state sponsors of terrorism away from World Bank resources. This latter provision was a direct result of bipartisan discussions that we had in our subcommittee, so it is shocking to see anyone on the other side of the aisle oppose the legislation. Finally, this bill would also ensure that the U.S. oppose World Bank financial assistance to countries that knowingly fail to enforce U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea. Our committee passed nearly identical language as part of the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions Act, which I am proud to have sponsored, and the provision benefitted directly from input from my subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Moore. The committee vote, yet again, was unanimous on that bill, and the House went on to pass it by a vote of 415-2. It boggles the mind that any Member of this body would vote against that language as part of H.R. 3326. In closing, if the ranking member is upset that we take the interests of the poor more seriously than the interests of the World Bank, then so be it, but I believe the World Bank's interests and the poor's interests should be aligned, not just in theory, but in practice, and if they are not, it is the World Bank that should look at itself in the mirror. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3326.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a straightforward amendment that would simply make this bill's language more consistent with legislation the House has already passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. As reported, H.R. 3326 calls on the Treasury Department to oppose World Bank assistance to IDA countries that knowingly fail to enforce U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea. As the U.N. Panel of Experts has concluded, lax enforcement, including in developing countries eligible for IDA support, has significantly undermined the effectiveness of U.N. sanctions against the Kim regime. All my amendment does is change the word ``should'' to ``shall,'' making U.S. opposition to World Bank assistance for those countries mandatory. At the same time, the amendment adds Presidential waiver authority so that the administration can exempt countries that may be facing limits to their government capacity or which are making an effort to correct their enforcement failures. There is also a national interest waiver included in this provision. The Financial Services Committee has already passed this stronger mandatory provision in the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions Act, which I am proud to have sponsored along with my subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Moore from Wisconsin. Ms. Moore's input was important to making this provision both tough and flexible enough to incentivize foreign countries to work harder on sanctions enforcement. Our committee passed the Otto Warmbier sanctions bill unanimously, and it passed the full House in October by a vote of 415-2. Again, this is a minor change to align this bill's language with a policy that the House has already endorsed on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support. Before I conclude, I do want to just make a general comment about the wisdom of this legislation and the approach to enforce accountability on the World Bank. We heard some of the arguments from our friends on the other side of the aisle--our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I would just say, on a bipartisan basis, we are the guardians and the custodians of the American taxpayers' charity. We are the guardians of their hard-earned income that they pay in the form of taxes to their government, and they ask us to be wise stewards of those tax dollars. These taxpayers work hard to pay their taxes. So when that money comes to Washington, they expect when we are fighting poverty in Third World countries with their tax dollars that we make it work because the American people--and we all agree here--want to fight poverty in these Third World countries. We want to make sure that these Third World countries are not either knowingly or unknowingly supporting circumventing these sanctions against North Korea. We want to make sure that they are promoting economic freedom and actually helping people rise out of poverty and achieve their God-given potential in these countries that need our humanitarian assistance. So for goodness' sake, let's support accountability at the World Bank so that we don't have rape, murder, and violent evictions associated with World Bank projects, which is what everybody knows the testimony has been in our oversight. This is not about turning our backs on the poor. It is about standing up for the poor. It is about making sure that the money that our taxpayers are giving to the World Bank is actually helping alleviate poverty and not exacerbating the problems in these poor countries. If the Bank can't undertake the reforms in this bill--again, reforms that the minority supported--then, by definition, the Bank's money is not benefiting the poor. If it is not benefiting the poor, how could withholding a portion of it be punishing the poor? For goodness' sake, let's honor the charity of the American taxpayers. Let's not dishonor it. Let's honor it by actually making reforms to the World Bank so that it can fulfill its important mission and not undermine its important antipoverty mission. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the distinguished chairman of the full committee.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, these are first-generation college students who receive a tuition-free education. I know that Chairman Brady shares my commitment and that of Chairman Rogers, Senator McConnell, and others to make sure that Berea College and other work-study colleges continue their important mission. Accordingly, I ask the gentleman's commitment to work with me to permanently exempt work-study colleges from the excise tax on endowment income in a timely manner, in the tax extenders, or another appropriate legislative vehicle as soon as possible.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the great work of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, my good friend from Texas (Mr. Brady) for his good work to overhaul America's Tax Code to deliver historic tax relief for workers, families, and job creators. I resent the rhetoric from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle who talk about this as hurting disabled families. I am the brother of a disabled sister, and I am voting for this bill because it helps families with loved ones with disabilities, like expanding the ABLE Act. I thank Chairman Brady for working with me and others to address a provision in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which would negatively impact work-study colleges, such as Berea College in my district. The gentleman has fulfilled his commitment to me to fix this problem in the conference committee for work-study colleges and other small schools so that their endowments would be exempt from the excise tax on large college endowments. Regrettably, last night, Senate Democrats used procedural rules to insist that this exemption be stripped out of the final conference report. It is unfortunate that they put partisan politics ahead of ensuring that students--many of whom are low-income and first-generation college students--at work-study colleges would continue to be able to receive a tuition-free education.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a bipartisan bill, the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act of 2017, introduced by my good friend and colleague, Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer from Missouri. I also want to thank Chairman Hensarling for his leadership and, for my friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly Mr. David Scott from Georgia, for his leadership in support of this legislation. Among the least transparent and most mysterious black holes of the United States Government is the process under the Dodd-Frank financial control law, by which U.S. financial firms are designated too big to fail. Formally called systemically important financial institutions, or SIFIs, these firms are considered by all-knowing Washington bureaucrats as businesses so critical to the Nation's economy that they need to be burdened with additional regulations, supervised more strictly to further the cause of bureaucrats, and designated as a SIFI to send a clear signal to investors that it is a firm which is most likely to be bailed out by taxpayers during the next crisis. For bank SIFIs, there is a one-size-fits-all designation model that says that any bank with more than $50 billion in assets is automatically a SIFI. Bureaucrats do little to nothing to account for the unique nature of each institution that may indicate it is more risk adverse or better positioned to handle a turbulent economy. Bank SIFIs suffer from the same plight, in that they are not told by the U.S. Government what they need to do to rid themselves of the shackles of this SIFI designation. Instead, these firms are left in the dark to guess what they can do to de-risk by Federal regulators. And even if firms try to make reforms, they have no idea if the changes they are making will help them shed themselves of this arbitrary designation. In the end, the entire SIFI process does little to make our economy stronger and more resilient. Instead, designated U.S. firms and their workers are harmed and disadvantaged relative to their international competition, undermining credit availability, causing weaker jobs and economic growth in America. For these reasons, I support the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act, which will give much-needed transparency to the SIFI designation process and eliminate the arbitrary automatic SIFI designation of banks with $50 billion or more in assets. Under this legislation, banks will be judged by their merits, such as interconnectedness, size, cross-jurisdictional activity, complexity, and substitutability, and the justifications for a designation will be clearly communicated to them. The end result will be greater credit availability for small businesses, more capital formation, more help for consumers, greater consumer choice, greater economic growth, and greater competition. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank Mr. Luetkemeyer and Mr. Hensarling for their leadership on this critical issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams). Since the seizure of the U.S. Embassy and the taking of 66 American hostages during the 1979 revolution, Iran has taken a long view on its global ambition, supporting terrorist proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen. From 1983, when Iran-supported Hezbollah bombed a U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon, killing 243 servicemembers, to the killing of over 500 soldiers in Iraq by the elite Quds Force leader, Qasem Soleimani, Iran has earned its reputation as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Most recently, Iran Air, an Iranian state-owned airline, was sanctioned by the Treasury Department in 2011 for using its commercial passenger aircraft to transport weapons to terrorists helping the Assad regime in Syria and for transporting military cargo to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This is in addition to what the world already well knows, that the Iranian regime has covered up and lied about its nuclear program for decades, deceiving international inspectors, agreeing to intrusive inspections, and then allowing those inspections to be implemented only provisionally and selectively. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, regularly chants ``Death to America'' and ultimately calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people. In 2015, the Obama administration made a historic mistake by agreeing to the ill-conceived Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or as it is also called, the Iran nuclear agreement or JCPOA. The agreement removed financial sanctions on Iran, enabling greater financial resources for Iranian-funded terrorism. Adding insult to injury, later, in 2016, due to the agreement, the Obama Treasury Department authorized the sale of more than 200 planes to Iran, the same Iranian airline that was sanctioned in 2011, and the Department also authorized U.S. banks to finance these transactions. But there is evidence that the carrier has continued its illicit behavior. According to an April 2017 hearing in our subcommittee, Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, testified that Iran Air operated at least 114 flights to Syria between January 16, 2016, which was Implementation Day of the JCPOA, and March 30, 2017. These flights are known as weapons resupply routes and stopovers in Iran with a suspected IRGC logistical hub that supports airlifts to the Assad regime. In communications with the committee, Dr. Ottolenghi later confirmed that Iran Air had run at least 134 such flights between Implementation Day and May 4, 2017, which means the Iran nuclear agreement facilitated Iran helping the brutal murderous regime of Assad. In exchange, what did the United States get out of this? Only managed access to suspect nuclear sites in which international inspectors must appeal to Iran, Russia, and China in a bureaucratic process that takes at least 24 days, during which Iran can remove anything covert and in violation of the agreement. International inspectors have also been denied access to military sites, the most likely places in Iran where illicit nuclear activity is occurring. But even if the JCPOA was delivering on its core promise of a denuclearized Iran, the agreement was sold with specific assurance that the JCPOA would not limit the United States' ability to stop Iran's nonnuclear activities and their support of terror activities. Then Secretary of State John Kerry, in defense of the agreement, selling the agreement to Democrats and Republicans in the Congress, testified that: ``If we catch them funding terrorism, they are going to have a problem with the U.S. Congress.'' Mr. Speaker, apparently not, because Members of Congress don't have a problem with this evidence that Iran is funding terrorist proxies and the Assad regime. For these reasons, it is imperative that Congress pass the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act, which would require the Treasury to provide a report to Congress describing these connections. This is a reporting bill. Even if you support the JCPOA, you should support congressional oversight.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling for his leadership, and especially a thank-you to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), my friend, for her outstanding leadership on this issue; and I rise in support of her legislation, the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act. Homeownership is part of the American Dream; however, an ill- conceived rule promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has made it harder for Americans to purchase a home. In typical one-size-fits-all Washington bureaucrat fashion, the Bureau's rule places excessive escrow and mortgage servicing requirements on the backs of smaller community financial institutions and mortgage servicers. What the Bureau missed is that these lenders are rarely in subprime lending and frequently hold the loan in portfolio for the term of the loan. This means these lenders have a very strong incentive to ensure that taxes and insurance premiums are being paid because they are taking on 100 percent of the downside risk if the borrower fails to hold up their side of the deal, and, therefore, an escrow account isn't necessary. However, as a direct result of the rule, there is less consumer choice and more expense. That is because many community financial institutions are leaving the market or have been forced to charge home buyers more so they can afford to hire the extra professional staff they need to comply with this rule. For these reasons, I support the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act, which exempts community financial institutions with assets of $25 billion or less from much of the regulatory burden of the Bureau's rule. Again, I want to thank my good friend from New York, Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, and our chairman, Congressman Jeb Hensarling, for their leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of efforts to simplify our outdated and overly complex Tax Code in order to make our economy more competitive and to provide big tax cuts to hardworking American families. Last night, the House voted to go to conference with the Senate to work out differences between our two versions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I am confident the conference committee will report a reconciled bill capable of passing both Chambers, because the American people need and deserve tax relief. Make no mistake: no matter what the tired talking points are on the other side of the aisle, this legislation will be a tremendous benefit to middle- and lower-income Americans who have been hit hardest by the policies of the previous administration. This is a massive victory for low- and middle-income Americans. But don't just take it from me. Let's review the facts. The House bill takes the lowest 10 percent tax bracket to zero, and it doubles the standard deduction, meaning hardworking Americans can immediately take home more of their paychecks. Specifically, the first $24,000 of family income will be completely tax free under this plan. We are nearly doubling the child tax credit. The changes to all tax brackets means we are lowering taxes for low- and middle-income taxpayers even as we simplify the Tax Code and broaden the base. A study by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that, in Kentucky, this legislation will create 11,782 new full-time jobs and will increase take-home pay by $1,724 by Kentucky households making the median income. Not only will middle-income families be able to keep more of their paychecks, their paychecks will grow. A letter signed by 137 economists last week, sent to all Members of the House and Senate, made the case that ``a competitive corporate rate is the key to an economic engine driven by greater investment, capital stock, business formation, and productivity--all of which will yield more jobs and higher wages.'' That is why these economists are urging us to make the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act law. They note that our current corporate tax rate of 35 percent, which is the highest in the industrialized world, has made America noncompetitive, resulting in the loss of 4,700 companies to overseas competitors since 2004, lost jobs, and lost wages. This analysis is confirmed by the Tax Foundation, which concludes that approximately 74 percent of corporate taxes are paid by workers in the form of lower wages. Let's give American workers a pay raise. Reducing the corporate tax rate will ignite economic growth, allow jobs to return from overseas, increase new private sector jobs through greater investment, and increase paychecks. A win-win-win-win for middle class workers and those looking to get ahead. Now, the ultimate irony is that if you actually wanted to help the wealthy and the well-connected, then you would vote against tax reform and you would keep the current Tax Code in place. It is a complicated mess of multiple brackets, high rates, and special interest loopholes. The Code is a haven for special interests, tax manipulators, and the well-connected. It is an impossible frustration for ordinary middle class Americans who need to comply with the Code to hire tax lawyers and accountants. So if you want to help the middle class, get rid of this complicated mess. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to respond to my friends on the other side of the aisle who after more than doubling the national debt during the Obama administration and who continue to push massive unpaid increases in spending, such as single-payer healthcare-- government-run healthcare--have suddenly become gravely concerned about our national deficit and debt. Now, let me be clear: I welcome this epiphany. I welcome their change of heart. I hope we can work together to actually address the true cost drivers of our deficit and debt. But last year, the Federal Government took in $3.3 trillion in revenue. Our deficits are not the result of too little revenue. They are the result of Members of Congress who are unwilling to force the government to live within its means. We will never balance the budget or even think about paying down our debt without robust economic growth. Those on the other side assume that a $1.5 trillion tax cut will increase the debt by $1.5 trillion. But that is based on the absurd assumption that nobody changes behavior when you get a tax cut. It is based on the assumption that the economy is fixed. They are wrong because they don't account for the extra revenue that tax reform will generate by creating more taxpayers and higher paychecks. As was noted by an analysis by the American Enterprise Institute and U.S. Policy Metrics: ``If the economy grows an average of 2.6 percent, the Republican tax reform bill would not raise the deficit. If the economy grows faster than 2.6 percent, the deficit would actually fall.'' It should be noted that in the last two consecutive quarters, the U.S. economy has grown at an annual rate of 3 percent or more. That is, in part, due to the increased confidence by businesses, consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs that we will indeed make good on our promise to complete tax reform this year. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues concerned about the deficit and the debt to join me in supporting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act when this bill returns to the House floor so that we can ignite economic growth, create new jobs, and give American workers the pay increase that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, it is their money. Let's give it back to them.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1699, the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act. Homeownership, for many, is part of the American Dream, but overbroad and burdensome regulations arising out of the Dodd-Frank financial control law are limiting the ability of Americans to realize that dream. A one-size-fits-all regulation issued by the CFPB makes it harder for lenders to offer mortgages to hardworking Americans who simply want to buy a manufactured home. By expanding the range of loan products considered ``high cost'' under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, the CFPB has failed to recognize the unique nature of manufactured housing loans. Due to the increased legal liabilities and stigma associated with making these so-called high-cost mortgages, many lenders have simply stopped making these loans altogether. In fact, according to the government's own Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, origination of manufactured housing loans of $75,000 or less has plummeted by 22 percent since this regulation went into effect. This data clearly showed that there is a negative impact of these Federal rules on the availability of credit for manufactured homes. While virtually all mortgage market segments have been growing in the last few years, HMDA data clearly shows continued declines in small dollar loans for manufactured homes. As a result, this regulation is harming low- and moderate-income families, particularly in rural areas, and existing homeowners are harmed because they will not be able to sell their homes. These regulations are hitting Americans in rural areas of modest means the most. Take, for example, the hospital worker in Kentucky. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, this is about the hospital worker in Kentucky, not Warren Buffett. This hospital worker applied for a loan of $38,500 to finance a manufactured home. He had an 8 percent down payment. His monthly income was $2,200 per month--plenty to cover the all-in housing costs of $675 per month. The payment he would have been investing in his own home would have been less than what he was spending on rent. But he couldn't get financing. He contacted his local banks and credit unions, but they no longer finance manufactured homes. This is not about Warren Buffett. This is about helping low-income Americans achieve the American Dream. The reasons for this crippling lack of credit are unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and their ``high- cost'' loan regulations and the definitions of mortgage originator and loan originator established in the Dodd-Frank Act. These regulations fail to take into account the unique circumstances associated with manufactured housing and the fixed costs associated with the purchase of any home, large or small. They fail to recognize the simple, mathematical fact that fixed costs on smaller loans translate into higher percentages of the total loan. They fail to recognize that even if interest payments on manufactured homes are more than your average home, the payments are still more affordable than the all-in cost of a site-built home or even rent in many markets. This is especially the case when one considers that purchasing a manufactured home as opposed to renting allows these owners to build equity leading to financial stability for their families. This bipartisan bill, the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act, recognizes the unique nature of manufactured housing, something that bureaucrats in Washington don't know anything about. They don't know anything about what goes on in rural America. This fixes these government-caused problems by modifying the definition of loan originators and mortgage originators to exclude manufactured housing retailers and sellers from the definition of a loan or mortgage originator, so long as they are only receiving compensation for the sale of the home and not engaged in loan offerings. The legislation also increases the thresholds for high-cost loans to accommodate manufactured home purchases of up to $75,000.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the additional time. Mr. Speaker, it accommodates manufactured home purchases up to $75,000 while maintaining the tough restrictions on lenders to prevent any borrowers from being taken advantage of. Yes, that is right, this preserves those consumer protections. As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to protect the American people from regulations that harm their ability to purchase an affordable home for themselves and their families. We need to end government policies under the guise of consumer protection that are actually protecting Americans right out of homeownership. It is not consumer protection, Mr. Speaker, when you deny people affordable housing. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue and I applaud both Democrats and Republicans who support this commonsense solution.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of this rule that would allow the House of Representatives to debate legislation I introduced, H.R. 1699, the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act. Homeownership, for many, is part of the American Dream; however, overbroad and burdensome regulations arising out of the Dodd-Frank financial control law are limiting the ability of Americans to realize this dream. Specifically, a one-size-fits-all regulation issued by the unaccountable Consumer Financial Protection Bureau makes it harder for lenders to offer mortgages to hardworking Americans who simply want to buy a manufactured home. By expanding the range of loan products considered ``high cost'' under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, the CFPB has failed to recognize the unique nature of manufactured housing loans. Because of the increased legal liabilities and stigma associated with making a so-called high-cost mortgage, some lenders have simply stopped making these loans. According to recent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, data that is submitted to the government, the number of manufactured homes of $75,000 or less has plummeted by 22 percent since this regulation went into effect. As a result, the CFPB's overzealous regulation harms lower and moderate-income families, particularly in rural areas, who just want to purchase a manufactured home but, now, cannot access the necessary financing. In addition, existing homeowners are harmed because they won't be able to sell their homes. These rules are hitting Americans in rural and suburban areas and those with modest means the hardest. Take, for example, the hospital worker, in Kentucky, who applied for a loan of $38,500 to finance a manufactured home. He had an 8 percent downpayment. His monthly income was $2,200 per month, plenty to cover the all-in housing costs of $670 per month. The payment he would have been investing in his own home would have been less than what he was spending on rent, but he was unable to get financing. He contacted local banks and credit unions, but they no longer finance manufactured homes. The reason for this crippling lack of lending is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its so-called high-cost loan regulations and the definitions of ``mortgage originator'' and ``loan originator'' established in Dodd-Frank. These regulations fail to take into account the unique circumstances associated with manufactured housing and the fixed costs associated with any home purchase, large or small. They fail to recognize the simple mathematical fact that fixed costs on smaller loans translate into higher percentages of the total loan. Even if interest payments on manufactured homes are more than your average home, the payments are still more affordable than the all-in cost of a site-built home--or even rent, in many markets. That is not predatory lending. That is actually getting people into more affordable housing. This is especially the case when you consider that purchasing a manufactured home, as opposed to renting, allows the owners to build equity, leading to financial stability for those Americans. The Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act recognizes the unique nature of the manufactured housing industry, and it fixes these government-caused problems by modifying the definition of ``loan originators'' and ``mortgage originators'' to exclude manufactured housing retailers and sellers from the definition of ``loan originator'' so long as they are only receiving compensation for the sale of the home and not engaged in the financing of the loans. The legislation also increases the thresholds for high-cost loans to accommodate manufactured home purchases of up to $75,000 while still retaining tough restrictions on lenders to prevent any borrowers from being taken advantage of. As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to protect the American people from regulations that harm their ability to purchase affordable homes for themselves and their families. We need to end government policies that are issued under the guise of consumer protection when those policies actually are protecting Americans right out of homeownership. Again, that is not consumer protection. So, for these reasons and the fact that about 40 different proconsumer and probusiness trade associations support this legislation, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule. This is not the only reason why we should vote for the rule. The other legislation, introduced by my friend from Kentucky, the Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act, is another piece of legislation that will help ensure that the U.S. Federal Government has a competent workforce. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Comer for his hard work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to adamantly dispute this false narrative that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is only intended to benefit the wealthiest Americans and does not benefit the middle class. When you hear this fiction from the other side of the aisle, remember these facts: this bill lowers tax rates on low- and middle-income Americans. It takes the lowest 10 percent bracket to zero. It doubles the standard deduction, meaning hardworking Americans can immediately take home more of their paychecks. Specifically, the first $24,000 of family income will be completely tax free under this plan. By slashing our noncompetitive corporate tax rate, this bill will result in more jobs and, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, it will deliver average American households a pay raise of at least 2\1/2\ percent. With this legislation, a typical family of four earning $59,000, the median household income, will receive a $1,182 tax cut. Madam Speaker, that is not a tax cut for the rich. That is a tax cut for low- and middle-income hardworking Americans, and that is a fact. This will benefit people like Jared from Frankfort, Kentucky, who told me: ``The extra income from the tax cut will enable us to have some breathing room.'' It will also help constituents who are living paycheck to paycheck, who have told me they would use these tax cuts to save for a rainy day, make car repairs, occasionally go to a restaurant, and invest in higher education for their kids. I heard from my constituent in Lexington named Gary, who told me: ``It doesn't matter how I plan to use my money. By definition, it is my money to begin with. Trust me to spend it in the way that applies for me.'' Gary, you are absolutely right, it is your money. Tax relief is not about handouts. It is simply about allowing the American people to keep more of the hard-earned income that they made. On behalf of all of the hardworking people of central Kentucky, I urge my colleagues to vote for Gary and to vote for all other taxpayers who deserve to keep more of what they earned. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. BARR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to engage in a colloquy. Mr. Speaker, I want to first commend Chairman Brady and the Ways and Means Committee for their outstanding work on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which will provide tax relief to millions of hardworking families and businesses. I would like to address a small provision in the bill that inadvertently impacts Berea College, a small private college in Berea, Kentucky, that is a member of the federally recognized Work Colleges Consortium. Work colleges, by definition, do not charge their students tuition, and they also require their students to hold jobs. For over 125 years, Berea College has fulfilled its mission of providing a tuition-free education to students with limited economic resources, primarily from Appalachia, and who are often first-generation college students. Berea pairs its strong academics with a student labor program, honoring the dignity and utility of all work. Berea could not fulfill its unique and special mission of providing free tuition to all students without a healthy endowment. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act includes a 1.4 percent excise tax on private college endowments over $500,000 per student. There are two federally recognized work colleges with endowments above this level, including Berea College in my district. I was pleased to learn that the Senate version of the bill exempts schools with fewer than 500 tuition-paying students from the excise tax. This provision would effectively exempt work colleges from the tax, because they do not charge tuition. I understand it was never the committee's intent for this legislation to negatively impact work colleges that use their endowments to provide tuition-free education. In fact, I understand the intended purpose of the excise tax is to encourage colleges to use their endowments to keep college costs down. In this case, Berea College uses its endowments to defray 100 percent of the cost of tuition. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his willingness to work with me on a solution in conference, either acceding to the Senate position or another mutually accepted solution that exempts work colleges and allows them to continue their unique mission.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the amazing story of Rick Corman, the hardworking, hard-charging founder of R.J. Corman Railroad Group in Nicholasville, Kentucky, in my district. Rick's life story is an example of the American Dream, and his tireless spirit, grit, determination, and generosity benefited not only the employees of R.J. Corman, but an entire community. Unfortunately, because of America's broken Tax Code, the abilities of entrepreneurs like Rick are compromised, and the estate tax, in particular, threatens the future ability of the R.J. Corman Railroad Group to continue to drive economic growth, employment, and charitable giving in Kentucky. This story is timely. As Congress takes on the task of reforming our broken Tax Code over the next few weeks, critics will undoubtedly protest that this plan is a tax cut for the rich, and they will cite our changes to the estate tax as an example. But as the story of Rick Corman reveals, the estate tax is not a tax on the wealthy as much as it is an unfair penalty on hard work, jobs, charity, upward mobility, and the American Dream. In 1973, after growing up in a low-income, five-room house with no interior bathroom, Rick Corman started his company immediately following high school graduation with nothing more than a dump truck, a backhoe, and a tenacious spirit. Driven by his remarkable operator skills, and then by his commitment to safe and reliable service, Rick was able to become a trusted provider in the railroad industry. But his success would not have been possible without the assistance early in his career from Luther Deaton, a community banker for what is now called Central Bank in Kentucky. As Rick grew his company, he faced debts and cash flow problems. He struggled to get a loan. As Luther said: He had a good company; he just faced a cash crunch. But Rick invited Luther to the site of a coal train derailment inside a tunnel in the middle of the night to show his work; and Rick, recalling the episode, laughed because he had gotten his banker filthy and covered in coal dust. But after that experience and seeing how hard Rick worked, Luther knew that this man would not fail. So Rick was then able to secure character-based loans that allowed his company to thrive because his community banker was willing to take a risk on him based on what he knew about his business and Rick's drive to succeed. Today, this type of loan would never be allowed under the overly restricted Dodd-Frank law, but those loans proved to be essential for the growth of Rick's company and ultimately highly profitable for the bank. Without access to capital, today's entrepreneurs are prohibited from doing what Rick Corman did. Over 40 years he grew his company into what is today known as R.J. Corman Railroad Group, continuously investing profits back into his business, into its workers, and into the surrounding community. Today, R.J. Corman has field offices in 23 States. The company serves all seven class I railroads, many regional and short line railroads, as well as various rail-served industries. Rick grew the company into what it is today by treating all of his workers well, working alongside them, and never asking them to do a job that Rick himself was unable or incapable of doing himself. The company's diversity and investment in people gave it the ability to service all aspects of the freight railroad industry at any scale. The company has been critical to restoring service when class I railroads are devastated by flooding or storms like Hurricanes Katrina, Harvey, or Irma. But now the future success of this company is threatened by the estate tax, also known as the death tax. In 2013, Rick Corman passed away after a heroic 12-year battle with cancer. It resulted in the transfer of his life's work to a living trust. More than anything, Rick had an intense appreciation for the hard work and loyalty of his employees who had been and continue to be an integral part of the company's success, and he wanted to ensure that he protected their jobs into the future. Since Rick's passing, the trust has continued to reinvest cash into the company, as he intended, and the company continues to operate and help those who have benefited from it. The company has invested nearly $110 million in capital assets, and employment has grown by 53 percent, nearly 450 jobs. The company has donated more than $2.5 million to charitable causes since Rick's passing. But due to the estate tax, the company has yet to feel the full impact of the tax. But starting in 2019, nearly 30 percent of its annual cash flow will be pulled from the company as a result. This will significantly impact R.J. Corman's ability to create jobs, purchase equipment, and donate to charity. The leadership of the company now tells me that the government will actually lose revenue because the company will not be able to grow and create jobs that would produce more revenue than the estate tax will produce. This is an example of why it is so important we end this unfair tax. The death tax destroys intergenerational small businesses and family farms throughout the Nation owned by people who started with literally nothing and worked their entire life to build a successful company and jobs. So as we look at the estate tax and tax reform in the coming weeks, I hope my colleagues will remember the story of Rick Corman. These families and these businesses should not have to fear triple taxation from Washington just because someone passes away. Our bill immediately delivers relief from this tax, and I hope that we will pass a repeal of the estate tax to honor entrepreneurs, job creators, and philanthropists like Rick Corman.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Zeldin for his leadership on this issue; his voice in criticism of this flawed nuclear deal with Iran; and, of course, for his valiant service to the United States in the military. I rise tonight in strong support of the President's decision to decertify this deeply flawed JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. I agree with the President's finding that Iran is not transparently, not verifiably, and not fully implementing the agreement. I agree with the President's finding that continued sanctions relief is not in the vital security interest of the United States. That is because the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran was a dangerous and historic mistake. The deal provided the mullahs in Tehran with roughly $100 billion in upfront sanctions relief in exchange for Iran's promise, future promise, to temporarily pause its enrichment program. Unfortunately, the agreement contained fatally deficient verification protocols and the International Atomic Energy Agency now concedes that it has no capacity to verify that Tehran is engaged in activities which could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device. That is because under the terms of the agreement, the very terms of the JCPOA, international inspectors are barred from accessing Iran's military sites where elicit nuclear activities are most likely taking place. President Obama's promise that there would be ``anytime, anywhere inspections,'' but that promise was replaced with ``managed access'' to suspect nuclear sites in which international inspectors must appeal to Iran, Russia, and China in a bureaucratic process that would take days during which Iran could remove anything covert and in violation of the agreement. As Congressman Zeldin correctly pointed out, we don't even know what the verification protocols actually are because we haven't been able to access the secret agreement between international inspectors, non-U.S. inspectors, and the leadership in Tehran. But the most serious concern is not that Iran would cheat. It is that even if Iran is fully complying with this agreement, bad outcomes are guaranteed. First, Iran will be allowed an arsenal of nuclear weapons in as little as 10 years. Under the very terms of this agreement, Iran was not denied a nuclear weapon. The path was paved for Iran to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons with international sanction. Iran was not required to dismantle key bomb-making technology. It was permitted to retain vast enrichment capacity, and it was allowed to continue research and development on advanced centrifuges, and it will be allowed to continue to acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles. Intercontinental ballistic missiles. Why do you need intercontinental ballistic missiles if you have peaceful designs for your nuclear program? Those of you who are listening at home across America, remember this: an intercontinental ballistic missile is not a missile designed for Tel Aviv. An intercontinental ballistic missile is designed for New York City; for Washington, D.C.; for Atlanta, Georgia; for Los Angeles, California; and for Seattle, Washington; and for Chicago. Our homeland security has been jeopardized because of this fatally flawed agreement. Iran will receive a sanctions relief jackpot. They have already received upwards of $100 billion so far. In my capacity as the chairman of the subcommittee that oversees sanctions, oversees the Treasury Department's implementation of sanctions, I can say that we have heard it. We have heard the reporting that, as a result of this agreement, Iran has not become pacified. Iran has actually accelerated its support for terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Nigeria. Because Iran's neighbors know that this deal reverses a decades-long bipartisan policy blocking Iran's nuclear program, this agreement continues to risk a nuclear arms race in the broader Middle East. They are apologists. There are defenders of the Iran nuclear deal, and they say it is working. They say there is evidence of dismantling of the nuclear program, but we have the benefit of almost 2 years of implementation of the deal. We have the benefit of hindsight to see if this deal is actually working. Here are the facts. The facts are that since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was implemented in January of 2016, Iran has continued to sponsor Hezbollah and other radical terrorist militias in the region. Its support for the Assad regime alone, including the use of planes to airlift military supplies, has helped claim an estimated 400 lives. Last April, even President Obama suggested that the Iranians were violating the spirit of the deal by engaging in these activities. Rather than being deterred, in October, Iran sentenced three Americans to long prison terms on bogus charges. In January of this year, the country tested a ballistic missile in violation of U.N. Security Council resolution 2231. In April, just as a commercial airline manufacturer was announcing new sales to Iran as a result of the sanctions relief under the JCPOA, we learned that dozens of Syrian civilians, including at least 11 children, were gassed in an Iranian- supported chemical weapons attack. Additionally, Iran has stated that it will no longer permit inspections of its military bases. It continues to attempt to intimidate our allies, and is facilitating the imports and exports of arms. As of February 2017, Iran has fired as many as 14 ballistic missiles, and the leaders of Iran continue to chant ``death to America,'' and pledge to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. So where do we go from here? As the chairman of the subcommittee that oversees enforcement of sanctions, we have been working on additional measures that can be taken, including non-nuclear sanctions consistent with the JCPOA to hold Iran accountable for its malign activities. On April 4, we held a hearing on the effectiveness of non-nuclear sanctions against Iran, where we determined that Iran Air, a state- owned commercial airline, has used its aircraft to transport fighters and weapons throughout the Middle East on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp. As a result of these findings, I wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin urging him to ban the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran Air. Similarly, I supported two appropriations amendments that would prevent the sale of aircraft to Iran and prohibit U.S. firms from financing such a sale. Finally, I recently drafted a letter to the Treasury Department urging it to identify all entities it believes to have transacted business with the IRGC, a precursor to possible additional secondary sanctions. These actions are all important and relevant in the aftermath of the President's correct decision to decertify the deal because it invites Congress to step in and offer constructive recommendations on how to address the flaws, the fatal flaws, in the JCPOA. These are some of those recommendations to the administration, and we hope the Treasury Department will respond accordingly. Going forward, we must do the following to stem Iran's nuclear ambitions: We must designate the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization. We must make permanent the sunset clauses on Iran's nuclear program and testing. This cannot be temporary prohibition of the Iran nuclear program. This must be a permanent ban on Iran ever having nuclear weapons capability and the capability of delivering those weapons. Finally, we need to do a better job strengthening the agreement, revising the agreement, scrapping the old agreement, and actually getting to anytime, anywhere inspections. That means we have got to work with the P5+1 and our European allies to revise the JCPOA so that we mandate anytime, anywhere inspections of nuclear facilities, and so that we are guaranteed that the IAEA, that international and U.S. inspectors have access to all suspected sites within the territorial boundaries of Iran. In conclusion, I want to thank Congressman Zeldin for the Special Order. I want to thank President Trump and his administration for their leadership on stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and for the important national security imperative of revisiting this flawed Iran nuclear deal so that we can actually achieve peace in the world. Mr. Speaker, we thank Congressman Zeldin for his leadership in pursuing this very important objective.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3898) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to place conditions on certain accounts at United States financial institutions with respect to North Korea, and for other purposes, as amended.