Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority whip for his kind words and our ability to work together to put together a product that we are both proud of and that the House passed. Again, we regret that those on the other side of the Capitol have not seen the wisdom to put forth any plan. What we have before us is something that is quite simple. If you believe that you want to create at least 6 months of certainty for the market, for the real estate market, residential market, particularly in flood-prone areas, then you will pass this bill, because this is the one that creates certainty that every single current policy of the NFIP is extended for 6 months. That is what it does. It codifies one particular policy of the NFIP, and this creates more certainty. This is what people have come to the floor to say they want. Again, I lament the fact we are not doing a 5-year reauthorization. I lament the fact we are not dealing with many of the challenges that I mentioned earlier, but at least, today, we can create certainty for 6 months as negotiations continue in the next Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out again, all this bill does is extend for 6 months the current policies of the NFIP. Not one single policy of the NFIP is changed in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the National Flood Insurance Program is a program that has a number of challenges, but it is also a vital program for Americans who live in flood-prone areas. The challenges in the program are well-known. Regrettably, it is going bankrupt. Regrettably, it incents people to live in areas that are repeatedly flooded. Regrettably, it is a program that protects a government monopoly; that is why the House, earlier this year, acted with a comprehensive reform bill. Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the Capitol have yet to act. We do not wish to have the current program lapse; thus, we are on the floor at this very moment. This is a very simple bill. It would provide a temporary, short-term authorization through the end of May of 2019, regrettably, I believe now, the ninth extension since the House has acted. And it also ensures that we provide certainty, certainty to the market of what the policies of the National Flood Insurance Program are. I was there in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. And one of the great tragedies--there were many tragedies, but one of the great tragedies was how few people actually had flood insurance. So what we want is a system that, hopefully, will see more people have flood coverage written into their homeowners' insurance policy. So the NFIP wisely had moved in the direction of what they call allowing insurance companies to not have to have a non-compete. This is a current policy of the program, but too many insurance companies don't believe that policy will stay. So we will ensure that that policy stays through this bill, so that more people in a tragic situation will be covered by flood insurance. So, again, this ensures that current policy is at least extended through May of 2019. It adds certainty to current policy. I know in discussions with the ranking member--who has a lot of expertise in the subject of flood--we negotiated in good faith. We didn't quite get there on the comprehensive bill, but she agrees that we need this bill, right now, to ensure that current policy is extended, at least through May of 2019. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7388) to extend the National Flood Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her very, very kind words. And, again, she will be very much missed from this institution, but I will treasure our service together. I will treasure our friendship forever as well, and I thank her for coming to the floor tonight. And now, Mr. Speaker, I will issue the remainder of my remarks from the House well. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for what I expect to be my final speech on the House floor. After 8 terms, I have chosen to go home to Texas, the land of my forefathers, with the hope of being a better father and a better husband myself. I am also going home because I believe America is best served by the Jeffersonian model of American democracy, and that is a citizen legislature. I fear too many wish to become members of the permanent ruling class. I am not among them. I also know that this congressional seat, Mr. Speaker, never belonged to me. It belonged to the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. It has always belonged to them. They allowed me--they allowed me to hold it in trust. It was a sacred trust, Mr. Speaker, a sacred trust to be the guardian of their freedoms and their opportunities, and I will always, always be grateful for that privilege. So, come January 3, I reverently return their seat back to them, and I wish my successor, Lance Gooden of Kaufman County, Texas, all the best--all the best. Mr. Speaker, 16 years ago, I went to these very same people in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas and I told them: I believe I know what the genius of America is. It is faith; it is family; it is free enterprise; and, yes, it is freedom. And it does indeed all start with faith because, Mr. Speaker, over your chair right there is emblazoned our national motto, ``In God We Trust.'' And it is my firm prayer that, for our Nation, may it always be so. And I firmly believe we cannot be a virtuous nation unless we are first a godly nation. People come to America for many reasons. They come here for political freedom, economic freedom, but, also, most profoundly, for religious freedom. May we never forget Jefferson's prophetic words enshrined: ``Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are the gift of God?'' Mr. Speaker, as vital as faith is, so are our families. And the family that made me in College Station, Texas, all those years ago was blessed with two wonderful parents, Chase and Ann. My father was a poultry farmer; my mother was a stay-at-home mom; but together, they taught me and my siblings invaluable lessons about hard work, fairness, faith, discipline, and honesty--in a word, Mr. Speaker, values. They lovingly led by example, which is what my wife and I attempt to do today with our two children. We now have, over so many different years of history, showing that it is our families--it is our families--that can best perpetuate our values, raise our children, and care for our elderly. Now, let me turn to free enterprise. 1776 wasn't just a revolutionary year for America. It was a revolutionary year for free enterprise, for American capitalism, free market capitalism, as well, because it was in that year that Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith penned its intellectual foundation in his opus magnum, ``The Wealth of Nations.'' Prosperity would never, never be the same. We now have over 200 years of history in this country proving that free market capitalism produces the greatest wealth for the greatest number of people. Yes, free enterprise is about wealth creation, but this is not to be confused with materialism. Yes, free enterprise does produce Porsches, it produces Jacuzzis, and it produces vacations to Paris; but, more importantly, it empowers a factory worker in my district in Mesquite, Texas, to start her own business. It helps a family in Jacksonville, Texas, send their first kid to college. It puts ample, nutritious food on the kitchen table. And that kitchen table is found in a home that some hardworking family in Forney, Texas, never dreamed they could own but they have because of American free enterprise. But even perhaps more profound than wealth creation, free market capitalism is really about the pursuit of happiness. It is about the freedom to use your God-given talents to create, to innovate, and to produce, to take pride and joy that can only arise from what American Enterprise Institute scholar Arthur Brooks terms ``earned success.'' As is written in the book of Isaiah, chapter 65, verse 22: My chosen ones will long enjoy the work of their hands. And finally, freedom, Mr. Speaker, the inalienable right to liberty endowed by our creator. Never in the vast expanse of time, history, and space have the blessings of liberty been enjoyed in greater abundance than they have here in the United States of America. Only in America are you only limited by the size of your dreams. As my friend and mentor, former Senator Phil Gramm, is fond of saying: Only in America can ordinary people achieve extraordinary results. Mr. Speaker, generations--generations--of our forefathers have taken up arms in defense of liberty and found it worthy of the very sacrifice of their lives. There is no greater foundational principle to the American people than liberty: personal liberty, political liberty, religious liberty, and economic liberty. May we, in this body, always fight to preserve it. Now, in the Federal city, political calculus changes by the moment. Policies come and go, but principles endure, and there are no more enduring or foundational principles in America than faith, family, free enterprise, and freedom. I believed it 16 years ago when I came to this body. I believe it even more fervently today, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have learned a couple of things in my 16 years of service in Congress. One thing I learned is that, when one announces their retirement, two things happen: One, people begin to say nice things about you. Had I known about this phenomena earlier, perhaps I would have retired years ago. Second of all, reporters ask you about your so-called legacy. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to laugh because I am not sure there is anything as soon forgotten in the Federal city as a former Member of Congress. So I don't really think in terms of legacy. I, frankly, don't know if I have changed Washington. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know Washington didn't change me. I do take solace, though, and I take a measure of pride knowing that, along with a handful of other conservatives in this body, I fought steadfastly against the forces of what I view crony capitalism, and that be either by earmark set-asides, subsidies, tax preferences, or trade protectionism, particularly now as the specter of socialism once again rears its ugly head in our Nation. We can never let our fellow countrymen somehow confuse free market capitalism with crony capitalism. In the one, your success depends upon how hard and how smart you work on Main Street. In the other, it depends on who you know in Washington. The latter is a threat to the former, and the Republican Party will lose its moral authority to prevent a social welfare state if we ever acquiesce in a corporate welfare state. This we cannot allow to happen. Mr. Speaker, you know personally, as does the previous speaker, the gentlewoman from New York, how much pride I take in the work of the great men and women of the House Financial Services Committee. Most Americans today are seeing the best economy they have ever seen in their lifetimes, and that is in no small measure to the work of the men and women of the House Financial Services committee. Now, I am not going to argue that our work was on the same order of magnitude as tax reform. It wasn't. But the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act signed by President Trump was the most pro-growth banking bill in a generation, and has certainly done more to grow our economy than any other legislation passed by the House besides tax reform. Now, Mr. Speaker, economic growth cannot solve all of America's problems, but it lifts the downtrodden from poverty; it empowers middle-income America; and it enables tens of millions to achieve their version of the American Dream. It has, indeed, for 16 years of my service, been worth fighting for. As I prepare to leave office, Mr. Speaker, I leave with many, many hopes. But, Mr. Speaker, I leave with a few fears as well that I believe my fellow countrymen should pay close attention to. First, I am concerned about the state of America's entrepreneurial spirit. I wonder how long we will have robust economic growth if the government continues a regulatory onslaught against American business to attempt to render all risk out of our financial system. From its earliest beginnings, America has always been the land of the entrepreneur, the land of the dreamer, and the risk-taker and, yes, that includes the risk of failure. Several of the colonies, such as Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, and Virginia, were founded, not by the Crown of England but, rather, by profit-seeking corporations that were willing to take risk. You know, someone who clearly understood something about risk was Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple; I believe still the largest company in the world today. In an interview, Jobs was once asked how he thought about himself. He said: ``I look at myself as sort of a trapeze artist.'' And then the reporter asked: ``With or without a net?'' He didn't bat an eyelash, he said: ``Without.'' Steve Jobs was a risk-taker and because he took a risk, Apple again became the most valuable company in the world whose innovations have revolutionized our lives. And what is important is not the amount of money that Steve Jobs made, but what he was able to do with it, and that is create a successful company, to employ and serve millions who collectively have exercised their God-given rights at the pursuit of happiness. Fewer entrepreneurs taking fewer risks means fewer jobs, Mr. Speaker. It is that simple. And so one day, if we lose our ability to fail in America, we will soon lose our ability to succeed. There are simply too many burdensome regulations that crush the entrepreneurial spirit. This must cease. Another fear I have, Mr. Speaker, is that I fear we are drifting away from our constitutional moorings as I witness the rise of the administrative state, because we need to appreciate our birthright, the sheer genius of the Constitution which, unfortunately, today is threatened. Our Constitution's framework of checks and balances, limited government, co-equal branches of government, that has secured our fundamental rights and given us the freest, most prosperous society the world has ever known. But we are witnessing now a century-long liberal expansion of unconstitutional government that has unleashed the modern regulatory state as we know it, extremely powerful, exceedingly intrusive, imperiously opaque, bafflingly bureaucratic, and alarmingly unaccountable. Instead of being governed by the rule of law, increasingly, citizens are being ruled by the rule of rulers; specifically, the rules promulgated by legions of unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats. The result? It is OSHA now, not Congress, that governs over workplace safety. It is the EPA now, not Congress, that governs over our air quality. It is HHS, not Congress, that now governs over our healthcare. Today, the citizen's right to carefully deliberate proposed legislation through their chosen elected representatives in Congress is now reduced to nothing more than a little ``notice and comment'' period where the citizens are permitted to lodge complaints and suggestions, all of which the unelected bureaucrats are free to ignore, and which they may actually use to retaliate against the citizen. Madison, in Federalist 47, warned us of this phenomena when he wrote, The combination of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. It is time for Congress, Mr. Speaker, to reclaim its constitutional powers of the purse, to no longer allow these economically significant rules to pass without congressional approval, and to outlaw the Chevron Doctrine that has tilted the scales of justice toward the state. This must change. The next fear I have as I get ready to leave Congress, Mr. Speaker, is one that has really come about fairly recently in our State of the Union, and that is the tenor and tone of the national debate; in other words, what is happening in our public square. Now, on the one hand, for those who believe that we are on the precipice of something truly catastrophic, I remind them, we have survived a bloody Civil War. We survived the turbulent 60s of my youth. Politics has rhetorically always been a full contact sport. And if you read biographies of the founders like Jefferson, and Adams, and Hamilton, you will discover just how coarse and vile ad hominem attacks could be at the dawn of American politics. But with the exception of the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts, I don't recall ever there being a greater effort in our Nation's history to actually silence dissent. The cry for civility in political discourse, welcome as it is, is somewhat misplaced. The threat to democracy does not come from incivility but, instead, from those who are committed to preventing; preventing the debate, as opposed to winning the debate. That is where the true threat comes. Democratic self-governance relies upon a free flow of differing ideas within the public square to fully inform all opinions and challenge all accepted orthodoxies and ideologies. There was a time in America's history that the American ethos was encapsulated by the words that have been attributed to Patrick Henry: ``I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'' Regrettably, I can hear all over the Nation today people saying something along the lines of: ``I disapprove of what you say, and I am going to harass and intimidate you and your family, defame your character, and attempt to take away your livelihood until you simply shut up and withdraw.'' Those who do not respect the rights of others to be heard in the public square may be little better than book burners and represent a clear and present danger to American democracy. It is time for every citizen who cares about the destiny of their Nation, it is time for courage, but it is a time also for goodwill and mutual respect among our citizens. It is time to re-secure our democratic values in the public square. Mr. Speaker, my greatest fear for my Nation, though, is our national debt. When I first came to Congress the national debt was $6.7 trillion. Today it has tripled. Tripled. My greatest regret in public office is my inability to convince more of my colleagues and more of my fellow citizens of the peril of this national debt. We are experiencing debt-to-GDP ratios that haven't been seen since World War II, but in World War II they were episodic and temporary. Today's debt is structural and permanent. As a veteran of the so-called super committee, the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Committee, and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, my iPad is awash in reports saying that our national debt is simply unsustainable. Yet, denial, justification, and obstruction continue to rule the day. We should all be troubled and sobered by the fact that if one carefully reviews history, you will find few examples of republics that have existed beyond 200 years, and most of those republics met their demise through some type of fiscal crisis. There is so much at stake. Now, Mr. Speaker, in my heart, and in my head, I don't really believe America one day will wake up and become Greece, but I do believe that we are on the path, within a generation, to being a second-rate economic power, a second-rate military power and, frankly, a second-rate moral authority as we become the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. It is beyond time for both a spending limit amendment to the United States Constitution and fundamental reforms of our current entitlement programs for future generations. It is not too late to take America off the road to national bankruptcy. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have spent the last few minutes speaking about my fears, but please know I have far, far more hope than I have fear as I come to the House floor for the last time to give a speech. Most Americans, as I observe, are enjoying the greatest economy in their lifetimes. Oh, what a difference that has made in the lives of millions of Americans and, indeed, to borrow a phrase from the past: ``It is morning in America again.'' Opportunity abounds like few periods in our Nation's history. And our military might that had been hollowed out in the last presidential administration is being rebuilt and it is respected and feared around the globe again. As we look at our Nation's history, we cannot but conclude that we live in a time of relative peace, relative security, and we should always, always be grateful. But the main reason I come to this floor tonight, so hopeful, so hopeful for the future, is because of the people I have met in the Fifth District of Texas that I have had this privilege to represent. I have met great entrepreneurs, like Sam Bistrian of Lake Highlands. He immigrated to this country as a 12-year-old boy from Romania. He didn't even speak the language. A few years later, he managed to get a job at one of the local retailers, Neiman Marcus. He got a job starting at the bottom; I think it was stocking shelves. And with hard work and vision, he ended up one day launching his own line of designer rain boots called Roma, and now he heads up a multi-million dollar enterprise. And oh, by the way, he gives his boots away to poor people all over the world. Another entrepreneur I met is Rick Carmona from Terrell, Texas. As a kid, he used to visit a local Tex-Mex restaurant and, after going there a few times he said, you know what? My mom cooks better food than this. So after saving his money from a number of jobs, he finally took the great leap. He invested his money; took out a small loan; started his own restaurant. He seated the customers; he bussed the tables. His mom did the cooking. His office consisted of a back table and a pencil behind his ear. And a couple of decades later, he runs one the most successful restaurants in the entire county because of his entrepreneurial vision. I also have hope because I met great patriots, patriots like Doc Collins from Van Zandt County, who is a real conservative leader from that county. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he has bone cancer that he continues to battle. But during a recent election, he got chemotherapy in the morning for his bone cancer, and he was working the polling places in the afternoon because he felt that strongly about his cause and his country. Then, Mr. Speaker, there is Howard Banks of Kaufman, Texas. I wish everybody could meet this wonderful patriot. He is legally blind. He is a World War II veteran. He flies Old Glory every day. Every day. One day, some no-account vandal decided he would take Mr. Banks' flag, and Mr. Banks fought him. He fought him. He is age 92 and he still decided that he would fight for and he was willing to die for his American flag and the country it represents. These patriots inspire me, Mr. Speaker. And then there are the social entrepreneurs that I have met in the Fifth District of Texas; people like Morgan Jones of Athens, Texas, who owns a pawnshop. Every single year, what he will do is he will take himself and all of his managers on mercy ships to Africa in order to deliver care and gifts. This is something he does at his expense. There are so many people, I wish I had time to mention, in the Fifth District of Texas who represent the best of America. I don't have all that time, Mr. Speaker, so let me mention one more. Kenn Waterston of Terrell, Texas. I mean, he is a bulldog of a Marine veteran. He opened the Veterans Resource Center not a block, maybe two blocks away from the Dallas VA hospital. And now if homeless veterans will go to the VA Hospital to get their healthcare, as soon as they come out, they can get clean clothes; they can get showers; they can get counseling; they can get access to computers and people to help them find a job in society. So, Mr. Speaker, when I see patriots and entrepreneurs and Good Samaritans who are stepping up every day in the Fifth District of Texas, I know America has a very bright future, a very bright future ahead. So let me simply conclude where I began. For me, it is time for me to go home. It is time to go home to my family. It is time to go home to Texas. All things must pass, including our congressional service. I continue to have so many blessings in my life, but, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe I will ever have a greater privilege than fighting for freedom and opportunity in the people's House, the House of Representatives. My heart is just full of gratitude, full of gratitude to my staff, whose work empowered me; full of gratitude to my constituents, whose encouragement and prayers supported me; and most of all to my family, so much gratitude to Melissa, Claire, and Travis, whose support, love, and grace have sustained me all those 16 years. They are my rock. So here is what I know after 16 years, Mr. Speaker: I know if we will continue to trust in God, I know if we will continue to revere freedom, I know if we will keep faith with our Founders' vision, our children will have brighter futures and our Republic will be forever preserved. May God continue to shed his grace on this great country. And, Mr. Speaker, for the final time on the House floor, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, tonight it is a privilege that I have to yield to somebody who has become a good friend and an excellent colleague, who has served with me, at my side, at the House Financial Services Committee, who will be leaving us at the end of this Congress. Her voice of common sense and her voice to really promote economic growth among all Americans will be missed; but in her short tenure, she has made her mark in our committee and made her mark in Congress, and I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words, and far more importantly, I thank him for his leadership. He is truly one of the workhorses for economic growth in the United States Congress. Again, I take great solace, as I will soon leave this august body, in knowing that somebody like Mr. Budd will be here. He has such principle, character, is a hard worker, and has success in actually getting bills done that make a difference in the lives of working people. Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to serve with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd). Mr. Speaker, several of our Members have spoken tonight about what we call the JOBS 3.0 Act, Jumpstart Our Business Startups. Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, thanks to the leadership of Speaker Ryan, and thanks to the leadership of Chairman Kevin Brady, we have a great economy. We have, perhaps, the greatest economy in most Americans' lifetimes. Unemployment is at about a 50-year low. For the first time in a decade, we are seeing paychecks rise. We are seeing that take-home pay increase. Small business optimism, consumer optimism, is off the charts. It is amazing what can happen with some tax reform and regulatory reform. And, yes, I take pride--not on my behalf, but on behalf of the Financial Services Committee--in what we have done to help take some of the shackles off of our community banks and our credit unions. But there is so much more work to be done. Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, the whole idea of capital formation for our entrepreneurs, for our small businesses, traditionally, that has been a bipartisan effort. And, in fact, the very first, what we call JOBS 1.0, was signed into law by President Barack Obama. I don't quite have the quote at my fingertips, but at the time, he said something along the lines that we have to, from time to time, remove the regulatory burdens to capital formation that are preventing our entrepreneurs from accessing capital. So the first point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is the economy of today is in great shape. But can we count on it for the economy of tomorrow? Particularly, Mr. Speaker, when I look at public companies, what I see is that our public companies are fewer, they are older, and they are bigger. Today, in America, we still have far too many old cars and not enough startups in our garages. I sometimes think--and I am the father of a 16-year-old daughter, a 15- year-old son--the companies that will drive the economy when they are in their peak earning years, they probably haven't even been founded yet. Where are the next Amazons coming from? Where are the next Googles coming from? Where are the next Apples coming from? But what we see as recently as 2016, just a couple of years ago, is that new startups' entrepreneurial capitalism was at a 40-year low. Now, fortunately, under this administration, it is taking a turn upwards, but we have got a lot of ground to make up. Our public companies have been cut in half, a 20-year low, as recently as 2016. Half of the number of companies are going public. And so not only is that bad for America's economy, but it is bad for the family economy because they lose out on investment opportunities. Had you invested early in Apple, you would have made a gazillion percentage rate of return. It would have been an incredible investment opportunity. At the time, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts wouldn't even allow Apple to sell their securities because they were fearful it was too speculative. We want to make sure that every American family has the opportunity to invest in the next Apple. But, unfortunately, what we see is a regulatory burden that is absolutely strangling a lot of these startup companies. Over the past 2\1/2\ decades, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. share of global venture investment has steadily declined. And when we see it decline, what we also see is that regulatory restrictions on securities and investment have increased 54 percent in 10 years--in just 10 years, a 54 percent increase in regulatory restrictions on securities, and an 80 percent increase over 20 years. We are wondering why there is so little entrepreneurial activity, and we are wondering why so few companies have gone public. Part of what we have to do is simply modernize antiquated statutes. And so with the exceptions of Sarbanes-Oxley, and with the exception of, frankly, the first version of the JOBS Act and the second version of the JOBS Act, almost all of our other significant Federal securities laws date back to the 1930s. Mr. Speaker, a couple of these, the Securities and Exchange Act, the Securities Act, they are foundational. But so many of these other laws that we still labor under, I mean, there was a time that the telephone was the cutting-edge technology. That is when the SEC was created, in 1934, and the telephone was the cutting-edge technology of the time. So many of the security laws we have date back to that particular era. At that time, stock offerings were part of the daily newspaper. Well, we don't see that anymore. Pneumatic tubes and ticker tape transmitted the news of a stock sale. If we are going to be able to fuel the economy of tomorrow, we are going to have to modernize these securities laws. And, again, traditionally, this has been a bipartisan effort. The United States House of Representatives has passed JOBS 3.0 by a vote of 406-4. Months later, the United States Senate has done nothing on this piece of legislation. This cannot hold. This cannot be. There is no excuse for the United States Senate back there behind my shoulder to do nothing while, for example, we see more companies go public in China. We had a discussion a little earlier, Mr. Speaker, how China, unfortunately, too often has taken our technology--our intellectual property--by hook and crook. But a lot of it is companies are choosing to confine their capital in China because they find it easier, and now we are looking at over one-third of public companies are going public in China, and we are down to 11 percent. They have an ascending curve; we have a descending curve. In order to successfully compete with China in a global economy, we have to make it easier throughout the ecosystem of our small entrepreneurial ventures to make it easier, and so that is what the whole thrust of the JOBS 3.0 Act is all about. Again, it is a very, very strong bipartisan measure. So often the lead Democrat in this institution, known as ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) and I don't see eye to eye on much. We see eye to eye on very little. But we are joined at the hip in wanting to see the JOBS 3.0 Act. She has been stalwart, and she has been a good negotiating partner to get this done. So you have one of the most liberal Members of Congress and one of the most conservative Members of Congress come together to advocate for our small businesses, for our entrepreneurs, to help us compete with China in the JOBS 3.0 Act, but somehow they are still not hearing this in the United States Senate. Please, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), gives every liberal permission to vote for the JOBS 3.0 Act. As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and one who used to chair the conservative caucus in the House, I give every conservative permission in the United States Senate to vote for JOBS 3.0. Please, we need a message for all Americans who care about small businesses. We want to make it easier. We want to make it easier for these businesses to get funding. The bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have capitalism without capital, and we want to make it easier to access this capital. So I was very heartened by the fact that, although maybe our Senators--and I have many friends who are United States Senators. I still cannot understand why they haven't taken up a piece of legislation that came out of the House 406-4, a piece of legislation strongly supported by the administration, and a piece of legislation, again, that is going to help our small businesses and entrepreneurs. Why haven't they taken it up? Perhaps the single most influential newspaper in America is The Wall Street Journal. It is certainly the most influential economic publication in America, and probably the world. Fortunately, their lead editorial today was to encourage the Senate to take up JOBS 3.0. In fact--I am kind of paraphrasing here because I don't have the newspaper at my fingertips--they said that Congress has done yeoman's work shepherding a compendium of bipartisan bills to access capital. They were referring to JOBS 3.0. Again, go online. It is their lead editorial. They said that the Senate shouldn't scuttle what could be one of Congress' better achievements. I agree. This will be one of Congress' better achievements to be able to capitalize our small businesses to make sure, again, they can access capital, they can go public, and that they are not treated like a Fortune 500 company on day one. Mr. Speaker, many of our biotech companies that provide lifesaving pharmaceuticals, some of them don't even cash flow positive for a decade. They can't be treated with the same regulatory burden on their capital as a Fortune 500 company. If you do, again, they are going to go to China. They are not going to stay in the USA. They are going to go to China. As we continue to compete with them, we cannot allow this to happen. So we have had such great support. I alluded to the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters). She said that this bill is ``a carefully crafted bipartisan compromise.'' Those are her words. She said that it is ``an example of Members on both sides of the aisle working together to support our Nation's small businesses and investors.'' Again, she is one of the most liberal Members of the United States House of Representatives and most likely the next chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. She said that this bill will help entrepreneurs, small businesses, investors, and our economy to thrive. In the 6 years I have been chairman, it has kind of been rare for us to agree on the time of day, but we definitely agree that the JOBS 3.0 Act is important. It is important to America's economy not only today, but more importantly, it is important for the economy of tomorrow. If there is one aspect of America's economy that is somewhat unique in the world, it is how we have ensured that entrepreneurial capitalism can't just survive in America, but thrive. So those seeds have to be planted today. There is so much competition worldwide, and that is why it is important that we get this done. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce weighed in, and they said that the House amendment to S. 488--I am talking about the JOBS 3.0 bill--would remove barriers for raising capital for America's businesses. Approximately three-fourths of financing for businesses in the United States comes from capital markets, but regulations have failed to keep up with the demands of the 21st century. The Angel Capital Association has written: ``Thank you again for your leadership in promoting American startups, capital formation, and job creation. The JOBS and Investor Confidence Act will help foster innovation and job growth.'' The Biotechnology Industry Organization, known as BIO, said: ``The JOBS and Investor Confidence Act of 2018, or JOBS Act 3.0, will significantly improve the ability of emerging biotech companies to access capital and invest in their potentially lifesaving research rather than unnecessary compliance costs that do not add value to investors.'' There is widespread support. I am almost baffled, Mr. Speaker, why the United States Senate won't take this up. Again, this is a strongly bipartisan package. It doesn't get much stronger than 406-4. Again, our business startups have neared a 40-year low in 2016. Our IPOs, our initial public offerings that allow our working families to invest in the American economy, are half of what they were 20 years ago. Why? The average regulatory compliance for initial public offerings has now doubled. It has doubled in the last 25 years. It costs $2.5 million to go public, with average compliance costs clocking in at $1.5 million. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we have to take a look at regulations that date back to the 1930s and start to ask the question: How is that going to impact the economy of the 2030s? The answer is not too well, particularly in a global economy competing with China. So I just want to conclude by saying that I have so many friends in the United States Senate. I respect the United States Senate. I used to be a staffer of the United States Senate. But there is no excuse why they can't do what the House did and follow our leadership and work on a strong, bipartisan basis to make sure that America just doesn't have the strongest economy of today but has the strongest economy of tomorrow. It started with men and women, Democrats and Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee, to ensure that the economy of tomorrow, once again, will be strong for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and my friends in the United States Senate to follow our lead, to listen to the administration, and to pass the JOBS 3.0 Act immediately. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on behalf of the Financial Services Committee. Mr. Speaker, it has been my great privilege to have the responsibility to chair this committee for the last 6 years. I take no pride on behalf of myself, but I take a lot of pride in the work that has been done on this committee. A lot of that work, Mr. Speaker, has been bipartisan. And I believe, indeed, that the Financial Services Committee is the hardest-working, most productive committee in the United States House. We have produced more bills; we have had more bills passed on the floor; we have had more bills signed into law than any other committee. I am especially proud of the work that we have done to create more pro-growth economic policy throughout banking and finance, and the passage of S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, has meant so much to helping create more capital to help save our credit unions and community banks, and to really play a part in the unparalleled economic growth that we see in our Nation today. I take great pride in that work on behalf of all our members. I also take great pride on behalf of our Members for a piece of legislation that modernized the foreign investment in the U.S. The bill is technically known by its acronym, FIRRMA, and it modernizes a regime that had not been modernized in quite some time. Mr. Speaker, so many of us know we have challenges in America today with foreign interests that come in and essentially take our intellectual property, that take our technology, and regrettably China is one of the prime perpetrators of this. I have had the occasion to go to China and meet with their leadership. And I want China to rise, I want them to have economic growth, but not at the expense of the United States of America and not by violating either the letter or the spirit of the WTO, of the World Trade Organization, which we helped them enter a couple of decades ago. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work, especially, done by the gentleman from North Carolina, who is the vice chairman of our Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee. He was the House leader on this legislation and worked with the senior senator from Texas, John Cornyn, my friend, to bring this onto the President's desk that ultimately got signed into law. This was really a revolutionary law dealing with both export controls, foreign investment in the U.S., and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Pittenger, was an early leader. He saw the threat before others saw it. I have had a number of great privileges serving as chairman, but one of the greatest privileges is serving with men and women who have vision, who have commitment, who have principle, and that certainly describes the gentleman from North Carolina. Regrettably, he and I are both departing after this Congress, and that is a bittersweet feeling. I think we both look forward to the next opportunity that we have. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield him some time, because it is important for us to hear from him about the significance of this legislation and how important it is. I was happy to be in the White House not too long ago to have the President extoll the virtues of this law as well. Mr. Speaker, I will miss his company, I will miss his leadership, and there is no one that I know of who is a greater authority on terrorist finance who is serving in the U.S. Congress today than Robert Pittenger of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), my friend.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman for his comments tonight. I hope that there are a fair amount of Americans who are watching this this evening, because they need to know that they owe this gentleman, Mr. Pittenger of North Carolina, a great debt of gratitude. And indeed America is going to be a safer, more secure Nation because of his leadership. In his three terms, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pittenger achieved more in three terms than many Members achieve in ten terms. Many people, unfortunately, come to the People's House to be somebody. Mr. Pittenger of North Carolina came to do something. And, indeed, don't just take my word for it, but the President of the United States thinks this is one of the most significant pieces of legislation when it comes to dealing with the threats of those who would take our intellectual property, who would take our technology by hook or crook, or however they might do it. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Mr. Pittenger for his leadership. I must admit, this was kind of faint on my radar screen, this issue, but among Mr. Pittenger's other endearing qualities, he is persistent. He is a very persistent individual. And I am glad he was persistent, because it became a major piece of legislation. Part of my job as chairman and one of my great privileges is I get to take credit for a lot of other people's good work. I shouldn't, I shouldn't be accorded this. And so I get many thanks, but this was a team effort and it was led by Mr. Pittenger. Other countries are now put on notice. We are watching. These rules, as Mr. Pittenger, the gentleman from North Carolina, has said, will be unveiled in the weeks and months to come. But a new day has dawned for those who think that they are going to take, by hook or crook, our technology. We want our global neighbors to succeed, but, again, not to succeed at our expense. Those applications of technology and intellectual property that have any type of national defense implications, that is going to stop, and it is going to stop because of the leadership of Robert Pittenger, the gentleman from North Carolina. It has been a great, great source of pride and joy to be associated with him. I will count him as a friend for life. I appreciate the fact that he would come and spend time here. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that his leadership is not done. His leadership may be done in this body, but his leadership in fighting global terrorism from illicit finance and global terrorist finance, that leadership is not done. In many respects, it is just starting. I look forward to continuing to follow his career and his leadership. Mr. Speaker, we are also joined tonight by another real authority on global terrorist finance, a gentleman who has been incredibly active on the Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee. I have come to really appreciate his intellect, his knowledge, and his work ethic. He is clearly one of the hardest working members of the Financial Services Committee. As, regrettably, the gentleman from North Carolina departs, and I am saddened by that, we are both heartened to know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) will remain, and he will be one of the key leaders in the entire United States House of Representatives in combating terrorist finance. He has been such a workhorse in helping some of our economic growth measures that have helped save community banking and credit unions. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, well, after hearing those kind comments, I would be happy to yield the gentleman even more time. I say that tongue-in-cheek. Mr. Speaker, I have learned that if you want kind things said about you, announce your retirement. So, I must admit, I am humbled by this experience, and I thank the kind words of the gentleman. I must admit that it is a real mixed blessing that I get ready to leave Congress, but I take a lot of solace knowing that there is a new generation of conservative leaders who are coming to this body, who know how important faith is in the life of a great Nation, because you cannot have a free Nation that is not a virtuous Nation and a godly Nation. I know that there is a new generation of conservative leaders who are coming up who know how important our families are, our families who care for our elderly and nurture our youth and perpetuate our values. They know how important free enterprise is, not just because it allows people to sleep at night knowing the bills are paid, but how empowering it is to finally leave the assembly line and to start your own business; how empowering it is to send that first kid to college; but, ultimately, how important it is to pursue happiness, to use your God- given talents in any way that can help you and your family prosper. I know I take great solace to know there is a new generation of conservative leaders who know that, ultimately, liberty is an inalienable right given to us by our creator, the Almighty, and how precious it is and how few people on the face of the planet really enjoy the full fruits of liberty. I count Mr. Davidson among those people, and I will always count him as my friend. But it makes it much easier, after 16 years, to leave this body knowing that there is a Warren Davidson in Congress and knowing that there is a Ted Budd from North Carolina who will remain in Congress as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd). He also has become a fast friend of mine. More importantly, I count his wife as a friend of my wife, and me as well. Not unlike Mr. Davidson, he is one of the hardest working members of our committee, and he never, never gives up. Again, a significant portion of the economic growth packages that we have passed out of the House Financial Services Committee, two or three of them I know contain Mr. Budd's name. That is unusual for somebody who has been a freshman member of our committee, to have so many bills passed. It is a testament to the great citizens of his congressional district that they would return him to office. I hope, next time, maybe a few more will join in and make it a little less interesting. But I am also proud to call him colleague; I am proud to call him friend; and I, again, take great solace to know that this body will see his conservative leadership for quite some time.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I came here this morning, Mr. Speaker, and I picked up a copy of this morning's edition of The Wall Street Journal. Many Americans would consider it to be the most influential newspaper in America, but certainly, at least on economic matters, I think most would agree. I just happened to read the lead editorial today, Mr. Speaker, and it says the House, this body, has ``done yeoman's work shepherding a compendium of bipartisan bills to expand access to capital.'' This is in the most influential newspaper in America. There is a lot in between, but let me go to the last sentence, where it says: ``Senate Republicans shouldn't scuttle what could be one of this Congress's better achievements.'' That is in today's Wall Street Journal, Mr. Speaker. The Journal is talking about JOBS 3.0. It is a bill that came out of this body, 406-4. Its purpose, Mr. Speaker, is to promote small business, to promote entrepreneurial capitalism, and to promote venture capital. Again, Mr. Speaker, it came out of this body, 406-4--we couldn't get a 406-4 vote on a Mother's Day resolution--and yet it languishes on that side of the Capitol. So I have been in this body for 16 years, Mr. Speaker, and I have learned a few things. One of the things I have learned is never underestimate the Senate's capacity to do nothing. Unfortunately, so far, the United States Senate has done nothing on a bill that passed, 406-4. Now, Mr. Speaker, thanks to the leadership of President Donald Trump, thanks to the leadership of Speaker Paul Ryan, and thanks to the leadership of Chairman Kevin Brady, we have what, for most Americans--not all, but for most Americans--is simply the greatest economy they have had in their entire lifetimes: Unemployment is at a 50-year low, cutting across all socioeconomic groups; Small business optimism and consumer optimism is off the charts; We are seeing more people come back into the labor force. This is all great news, but we cannot be blinded by the fact that, as good as the economy is today, we still have to concentrate on the economy of tomorrow. We need to know: Can we ensure that the seed capital is there? Can we make sure that our public policy nourishes the drivers of tomorrow's economy? The next Amazons, the next Googles, and the next Ubers, where are they going to come from? So, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what we have seen is that, as recently as 2016, startups in America have been cut in half. And, oh, incidentally, the regulatory burden--more securities regulatory burden--has increased by over 50 percent in the last 10 years, and by over 80 percent. It now costs, Mr. Speaker, twice as much to go public today as it did 10 years ago. What do we see? We see half the number of companies going public. They don't seem to have that problem in China, Mr. Speaker, because China has over one-third of the world's IPOs, or initial public offerings; yet, in the United States, our IPOs have been cut in half. That is why it is so important that every Congress go back and we ensure that our securities laws are written in such a way that we make sure that entrepreneurial capitalism can't just survive in America but absolutely thrive. So I come to this floor again to ask that our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol--and I have many friends in that body, but I am often confused why they cannot act on something that has received incredible support in the House. Mr. Speaker, November is National Entrepreneurship Month. There are only 2 days left in the month. I hope that my voice can be heard on the other side of the Capitol, and I would ask the United States Senate to immediately take up the JOBS 3.0 Act and make sure that the economy of tomorrow for our children and grandchildren is as healthy and thriving as the economy of today.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7187) to extend the National Flood Insurance Program until December 7, 2018.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee. He is also the author of the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, which was passed by this body over a year ago, and we still await the Senate to take up this version.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the chairwoman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), the vice chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee and the true author of competitive flood insurance.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice chairman on the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the Financial Services Committee majority whip.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first, I return the kind words of the ranking member. One, she very much negotiated in good faith on the flood program, something she has a lot of passion and expertise on. We didn't get quite there as we did on a few other items, but, again, she negotiated in good faith. She has a lot of expertise on the matter. If we don't get it in this Congress, I have no doubt that she will play a key leadership role in the next in order to effectuate long-term flood reform. And I appreciate the kind words. Although, I must admit, I have learned many things in the 16 years I have served in Congress, and one is, the best way to get people to say kind words about you is to announce your retirement. I have never had kinder words spoken, but I know they were sincere, of the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, November 14, 2017, was a proud day for the United States House of Representatives, because that is the day, on a bipartisan basis, we passed the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, and I negotiated with the House majority whip, Mr. Scalise, this bill, among others. And here we are, over a year later, and no action from the Senate. And, today, November 29, 2018, is a sad and embarrassing day for the United States House of Representatives. And I must say, as a Republican, it is a sad and embarrassing day for something we call regular order, something that my party ran on. And now we have a bill coming to the floor, within the jurisdiction of the House Financial Services Committee; regular order says the committee of jurisdiction first works their will before the House works their will. The committee didn't work its will on this bill. And, in fact, I have yet to find anybody in the Republican leadership who will own up to how this came to the floor in the first place. So, unfortunately, because my party lost at the ballot box, we are going to soon be out of the regular order business and apparently we have forgotten how to do it. So it is a sad day in that regard. It is also a sad day because what we see here with this bill is a perpetuation of the status quo. Now, let me tell you what the status quo is, Mr. Speaker. The status quo is 100 different people are dying in America every year from floods. At least a part of that tragedy--a part of that tragedy is a failure to reform the National Flood Insurance Program. Status quo is that we continue to pay people to build the same homes in the same fashion in the same places that flood over and over and over and somehow expect a different result. We are not helping them. We are not helping them at all. We are helping put them in harm's way. That is what the status quo is, and if you vote for this extension, you are voting for the status quo. Status quo is a government monopoly--a government monopoly with no competition, no innovation, and, by the way, it is subsidized, and it is still not affordable. We are seeing average premium increases of 7 percent a year. You know, on the Republican side of the aisle, why don't we give free enterprise a chance? Why don't we allow competition to bring in innovation, to bring down rates as opposed to, again, making taxpayers subsidize it and still have unaffordability? Only government can bring about that insane result. What else is the status quo? The status quo is $35 billion of debt-- $35 billion of debt with $1\1/2\ billion actual actuarial annual deficit a year. Totally unsustainable. Totally unsustainable The status quo is that taxpayers, hardworking factory workers in Mesquite, Texas, are having to subsidize millionaires' beach condos. That is the status quo. That is the bill that is on the floor right now. The last several tragic hurricanes we have seen, 80 to 90 percent of the affected flooded homes didn't even have flood insurance. Why? Because it is not part of the homeowner's insurance policy due to the government monopoly. That is the status quo. And we are paying on the back end because we are not allowing market competition on the front end. That is the status quo. The status quo is, we are taking environmentally sensitive areas, and they are getting paved. They are getting paved in flood-prone areas. That is the status quo, and so that is really the debate that is before us today. We know what the classic definition of insanity is: doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result. Eight times--this will be the eighth time since the House passed the 21st Century Flood Reform Act on a bipartisan basis that there will be yet another vote for status quo. Here is a radical idea. Why don't we do something different? Why don't we tell the Senate it is time, after a year, that they do their business? I have got to tell you, once again, Mr. Speaker, I have learned a number of things in my 16 years of service in this body. One is never underestimate the Senate's capacity to do nothing. Why do we allow them to do nothing? Let them bring a bill. I don't believe we are through negotiating, Mr. Speaker, but the House shouldn't negotiate with itself after we have made a House position on a bipartisan basis known. There is no reason to do this. There can be a better day. There is hope. I imagine a day when we have a flood insurance program with affordable premiums that is brought about by competition, that is brought about by innovation. I can imagine a day where every American remotely placed in a flood-prone area has flood as part of their homeowners insurance so that when one of these great tragedies occurs, at least they had insurance on the front end. So I dream about and I imagine greater take-up rates. I also imagine a day where, for the people in flood-prone areas, we either help move them up or we help move them out so that they don't continue to be in harm's way. I went to Hurricane Harvey. I met with the survivors. I heard the tragic stories. I saw the tragedy of the lost homes. And yet here we are, voting on status quo to put them right back where they were again. This is a sad and embarrassing day for the House. We need to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report and want to congratulate my friend and fellow Texan, Chairman Mac Thornberry for his leadership and hard work to get us to this point and his willingness to work with the Financial Services Committee on a number of provisions where we have shared jurisdiction. I wish to address one title in particular: the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, or FIRRMA, which reforms the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). FIRRMA represents the first significant update to CFIUS since passage of the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007. In the intervening 11 years, a number of gaps in CFIUS's jurisdiction have emerged that FIRRMA now seeks to close, particularly in the realm of sensitive non- controlling investments and real estate transactions near national security-related sites. This is not to say that everything outside CFIUS's jurisdiction qualifies as a gap. Far from it. Although the House and Senate both produced their own versions of FIRRMA, the House approach was generally more cautious in the authorities it delegated to CFIUS. If CFIUS needed to review transactions that genuinely posed a national security risk, the House worked in good faith to determine which additional powers were called for, but also circumscribed those powers appropriately to prevent overreach and unintended consequences. The final version of FIRRMA adopts many important provisions from the House's bill (H.R. 5841), which passed this chamber in June by a vote of 400 to 2. For instance, the text that we have negotiated focuses on U.S. businesses that own, operate, or supply--and by ``supply,'' we mean provide--critical infrastructure, targeting specific information or influence that could be transferred. This approach is designed to prevent CFIUS from sweeping up entire economic sectors regardless of a business's connection to national security. Even within the scope of ``critical infrastructure,'' FIRRMA makes explicit that CFIUS is only to focus on the subset of systems and assets that are likely to be important to national security. There are technically a number of assets that fall within critical infrastructure sectors broadly, including everything from restaurants to amusement parks, but the bar for inclusion under FIRRMA is much higher. FIRRMA makes this clear. CFIUS must also limit its new jurisdiction to certain categories of investors, which is meant to include foreign persons connected with problematic countries. Those categories of foreign persons are not intended to target our allies. As under current law, CFIUS will continue to have jurisdiction over foreign investments in U.S. businesses when a transaction could result in control of the business. Under FIRRMA--and we have confirmed this point with the Treasury Department--CFIUS will continue to be limited to transactions involving a U.S. business only to the extent of its activities in interstate commerce. Finally, a key innovation originating in the House is the protection of sensitive personal data of U.S. citizens that may be exploited in a manner threatening national security. While some had sought to expand this language to include personally identifiable information more broadly, the conference committee rejected that approach in order to focus only on sensitive data with a clear link to national security. Again, the need for CFIUS modernization was clear, and the conference committee has worked to address it through FIRRMA. At the same time, we have ensured that expansions to CFIUS's jurisdiction are themselves appropriately limited in order to preserve our country's open investment climate. It is this openness to investment that drives forward our productivity, innovation, and growth, making openness itself indispensable to national security. I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle who helped ensure that the will of the House was reflected in the conference report. I especially want to acknowledge the author of the House's CFIUS bill, Mr. Pittenger of North Carolina who has been a tireless advocate for reform, and my fellow conferees from the Financial Services Committee: the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, who chairs our Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, as well as the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, the gentle lady from California, Mrs. Waters. This legislation is narrowly focused on national security while keeping America's doors open to investment. For that reason, it deserves our support.