Blaine Luetkemeyer

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Hundreds of American businesses, large and small--from manufacturers, to utilities, to agricultural businesses, to airlines--use derivatives every day to manage their business risks and to reduce their exposure to price fluctuations. Without derivatives, businesses and their customers would face increased prices for the goods and services these businesses provide. The derivatives these businesses use are not risky. They played no role in the financial crisis. Nevertheless, they were targeted in the Dodd-Frank Act, which increased their price and decreased their availability. Since the beginning of the 112th Congress in 2011, the Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee have worked together to clarify that title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act should not burden Main Street businesses with a costly compliance regime that would stifle growth and job creation. These efforts have produced bipartisan bills, including many sponsored by Democrats, that have passed the House with large majorities. The bill under consideration is yet another. H.R. 5471 is sponsored by my Democratic colleague on the Financial Services Committee, Representative Gwen Moore, and is cosponsored by another colleague, Representative Steve Stivers. The bill amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Commodity Exchange Act, and it extends the Dodd-Frank Act, title VII, clearing exemption to nonfinancial entities that use a central treasury unit to reduce risk and net the hedging needs of affiliated businesses. Mr. Speaker, that may sound technical, but the bill is a commonsense measure to give regulatory certainty to Main Street businesses in Missouri and beyond. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 5471. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever the gentlewoman from Wisconsin is ready.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5471) to amend the Commodity Exchange Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to specify how clearing requirements apply to certain affiliate transactions, and for other purposes.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 5471, currently under consideration.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 3240, the Regulation D Study Act, introduced by my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), a colleague on the Financial Services Committee. This is a simple but important bill that directs the GAO to study the impact that the Federal Reserve's Regulation D minimum reserve requirements have on depository institutions, consumers, and monetary policy. Section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act gives the Federal Reserve authority to impose reserve requirements on the deposits of member institutions. These requirements are set forth in what is commonly referred to as Reg D. Regulation D reserve requirements are calculated as a percentage of the amount of funds a financial institution's members hold in transaction accounts. A transaction account is typically an account from which the depositor or account holder is permitted to make unlimited transfers or withdrawals, such as a checking account. Because balances in those accounts can change quickly, the Federal Reserve requires institutions to reserve funds for those accounts as a stabilizing tool for the money supply. Regulation D limits the number of transfers and withdrawals from nontransaction accounts to six per month. As legislators, it is important that we periodically review the impact of regulations on those whom we have the honor to represent. The Regulation D Study Act does just that, and I am pleased to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4200) to amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to prevent duplicative regulation of advisers of small business investment companies.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 4200, currently under consideration.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Helias Catholic High School Crusaders Girls Volleyball team for winning the Class 3 Missouri State Championship. I ask that you join me in recognizing the Helias Crusaders for a job well done.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Fatima High School Girls Softball Team for winning the Class 2 Missouri State Championship. I ask that you join me in recognizing the Fatima Comets for a job well done.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Festus High School Boys Cross Country Team for winning the Class 3 Missouri State Championship. I ask that you join me in recognizing the Festus Tigers for a job well done.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Fatima High School Girls Cross Country Team for winning the Class 2 Missouri State Championship. I ask that you join me in recognizing the Fatima Comets for a job well done.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, just last week, folks along the Missouri River were bracing for the river to possibly reach flood stage. Should the basin have received a few more inches of runoff, homes, farms, and businesses would have been inundated with devastating flood waters. While it appears the danger has subsided for now, these citizens are not in the clear and will have to remain prepared for the rest of the flood season. These recent events serve to highlight the importance of maintaining effective flood control infrastructure. Though it is one of our region's greatest resources, the Missouri River would produce extreme, erosive regular flooding and be mostly unfit for navigation, if not for the aggressive long-term management by the Army Corps of Engineers. Congress first authorized the Missouri River bank stabilization and navigation project, BSNP, in 1912, with the intention of mitigating flood risk and maintaining a navigable channel from Sioux City, Iowa, to the mouth in St. Louis. Though the BSNP's construction was completed in the 1980s, the corps' ability to make adjustments as needed remains crucial to this day. President Obama, in his fiscal year 2015 budget, requested $56 million for the Missouri River Recovery Program, which primarily goes towards the funding of environmental restoration studies and projects. This funding dwarfs the insufficient $8.5 million that was requested for the entire operations and maintenance of the aforementioned BSNP. It is preposterous to think that environmental projects are more important than the protection of human life. I do not take for granted the importance of river ecosystems. I grew up near the Missouri River, as did many of the people I represent, yet we have reached a point in our Nation at which we value the welfare of fish and birds more than the welfare of our fellow human beings. Our priorities are backwards, Madam Chair. My amendment will eliminate the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan, or MRERP, a study that has become little more than a tool of the environmentalists for the promotion of returning the river to its most natural state, with little regard for flood control, navigation, trade, power generation, or the people who depend on the Missouri River for their livelihoods. The end of the study will in no way jeopardize the corps' ability to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. MRERP is one of no fewer than 70 environmental and ecological studies focused on the Missouri River. The people who have had to foot the bill for these studies, many of which take years to complete and are ultimately inconclusive, are the very people who have lost their farms, their businesses, and their homes. Our vote today will also show our constituents that this Congress is aware of the gross disparity between the funding for environmental projects and efforts and the funding for the protection of our citizens. This exact amendment has been passed by voice vote during debate in the last 3 fiscal year Appropriations bills, which were ultimately signed into law by President Obama. It is supported by the American Waterways Operators, the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River, the Missouri Farm Bureau, and the Missouri Corn Growers Association. It is time for Congress to take a serious look at the water development funding priorities, and it is time to send a message to the Federal entities that manage our waterways. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support our Nation's river communities and encourage more balance in Federal funding for water infrastructure and management. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues for their support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. It is amendment No. 62.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, just turn on the news and you will see reports that highlight the need for a strong and resilient flood protection system as people along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers are bracing for potential floodings. These basins have faced major challenges over the past few years due to both extreme flooding and droughts. This devastation, combined with a sluggish economy and our aging inland waterways infrastructure, means that now, more than ever, we must be focused and responsible with taxpayer-funded river projects. My amendment would prohibit funding for the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study, also known as MRAPS. This $25 million-earmarked study comes on the heels of a comprehensive $35 million, 17-year study that showed that the current authorized purposes are important and should be maintained. This Congress and this administration need to focus on protecting human life and property by maintaining the safety and soundness of our levees. We also must support the important commercial advantages provided to us by our inland waterways system. The Missouri River moves goods to market and is an important tool in both domestic and international trade. That is why the American Waterways Operators, the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River, the Missouri Farm Bureau, and the Missouri Corn Growers support this amendment. This study puts in jeopardy not only the lower Missouri River, but also the flow of the Mississippi River, which could create devastating consequences for navigation and transportation, resulting in barriers for waterways operators, agriculture, and every product that depends on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers to get to market. The current authorized uses of the Missouri River provide necessary resources and translate to continued economic stability not only for Missourians, but also for many Americans living throughout the Missouri and lower Mississippi River basins. This study is duplicative and wasteful of taxpayer dollars. On this exact issue we have already spent 17 years and $35 million on hundreds of public meetings and extensive litigation. I offered identical language during our first debate on the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. That amendment passed by a vote of 245-176. The exact amendment was also offered and passed by a voice vote in 2012 by a vote of 242-168 in 2013, and again by voice vote in last year's debate. I appreciate my colleagues who offered their support and hope to have that support again. Madam Chair, there is no doubt in my mind that water resources receive too little funding. It is time for the Federal Government to refocus and reprioritize to create safer, more efficient infrastructure for our inland waterways and stop spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars unnecessarily. I ask my colleagues for support of this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Mr. Neal Harrell for his tremendous volunteer efforts with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association's International Foundation. It is an honor to have such an upstanding citizen in my district. Recently, Mr. Harrell, who is an employee of Cuivre River Electric Cooperative, traveled to Honduras as an International Foundation volunteer to help employees at the Roatan Electric Cooperative implement their newly-acquired smart grid system. This trip was part of the Smart Grid Alliance for the Americas project. Mr. Harrell's volunteer efforts supported the Alliance's goal to share experience and provide technical assistance in smart grid technology applications to cooperative, municipal and other small electric distribution utilities in Latin America. Mr. Harrell's efforts will help the Smart Grid Alliance of the Americas project improve energy efficiency, integrate renewable generation, and most importantly improve access to electricity for underserved communities in Latin America. I ask that you join me in recognizing Neal Harrell for his excellence in volunteer work for electric cooperatives across the nation. It is an honor to represent him in the United States Congress.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, how does the Federal Government get rid of an industry it simply doesn't like? Easy. It cuts that industry off from the financial services it needs to operate. Sound impossible? Sure, it does. However, that is exactly what the Department of Justice is doing in conjunction with the FDIC. This program even has a name: Operation Choke Point. It is designed to force legally operating and licensed entities out of business by choking them off from the financial services they need. What started with nondepository lenders is spreading to other industries. Media reports indicate that DOJ is now pressuring financial institutions that service the gun and ammunition industries. As a former bank examiner and banker, I know how they are using the power of their position to intimidate the banks and undermine the banks' ability to serve their customers who are doing a legal business. It is just plain wrong, Mr. Chairman. However, I want to be very clear. I strongly support DOJ's authority to go after the bad actors. Those actions should be commended and should not be inhibited. But what cannot be tolerated is the Federal Government using its authority to broadly target entire industries, including those that obey the law and are living within the rules. The staff report just released in the Oversight Committee summarizes 853 pages of internal DOJ documents. Many of these internal documents show that even DOJ officials question the legality of their actions, and yet they continue. This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. This isn't a conservative or liberal issue. This is an issue of DOJ stepping outside the law. We have worked on a bipartisan basis to inform DOJ and other regulators of the unintended consequences of Operation Choke Point, but those concerns have fallen on deaf ears. As a result, this bipartisan amendment is an important step to ensuring that DOJ can continue to do its job, but makes clear the Department must not abuse its authorities. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), my good friend.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. With that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by saying I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's support. This is an agency that has gone well beyond the scope of its authority. It even questions its own authority in its internal memos. The original intent is questionable, but at this point it has gone well beyond even the original intent. There is now even a list of other industries to go after. I think that this is a situation where we need to stop what is going on, and I think my amendment clearly sets out what needs to be done. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank both Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters for their support of my bill as well as the hard work of Chairman Congresswoman Capito here for her help and support today, as well as Congressman Murphy for his sponsorship as well. At a time when regulators are requiring more and more from small and community-based institutions, I appreciate the opportunity to work across party lines to offer some commonsense relief. Small bank and thrift holding companies face unique challenges with regards to capital formation, which is a particular concern at a time when regulators are demanding higher capital levels in response to Basel III. Understanding these challenges, the Federal Reserve has recognized that small bank holding companies have limited access to financing and, as a result, face difficulties in the acquisition of small banks by small holding companies, which often requires the use of debt. The Federal Reserve Bank holding company policy statement, first issued in 1980, allows for relief from certain requirements, making it necessary for a small bank holding company to raise the necessary capital and issue debt. The policy statement also simplifies acquisitions and formation of new bank and thrift holding companies. These are important tools in ensuring that our smallest institutions can continue to lend in their communities, hire new staff, and survive what remains of a very difficult time for community banks. H.R. 3329 simply increases the threshold in the Fed's policy statement from $500 million to $1 billion in assets. The $500 million threshold has not been touched since 2006. In the past 7 years, our Nation's smallest bank and thrift holding companies have faced significant recession, consolidation, and an alarming number of bank failures. While this bill does offer regulatory relief to our Nation's smallest institutions, it also includes safeguards that allow the Fed to continue to monitor for safety and soundness. The Fed retains the right to impose capital standards on a holding company if the Board of Governors decides it is needed to protect the safety and soundness of that institution and its customers. Additionally, the policy statement outlines requirements that limit a bank holding company's ability to benefit from this relief. H.R. 3329 keeps these safeguards in place. This noncontroversial bill will help more than 500 of our Nation's smallest banks and thrift holding companies. H.R. 3329 has bipartisan support and the support of the Independent Community Bankers of America and the American Bankers Association. H.R. 3329 will go a long way in ensuring that these institutions are able to grow stronger and continue to serve their communities. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mid America Bank and recognize the contribution the institution has made to communities in Missouri during its 100 years of operation. Since April is Community Bank Month, it is fitting to celebrate the anniversary of one of Missouri's finest financial institutions. On April 27, 1914, this community bank was founded as the People's Bank of St. Thomas. It was then relocated to Meta, Missouri in 1951, where it operated as the sole location for 27 years and was renamed the Meta State Bank. In 1978, the name Mid America Bank was adopted as the bank grew and opened a second branch in Linn, Missouri. Mid America Bank has continued to expand and currently has five branches throughout the state that allow the people of Missouri access to the financial tools that provide stability and security in their daily life. The longevity of Mid America Bank is not only a testament to its success and knowledge of the financial services industry, but also its commitment to our Missouri communities. Community banks such as Mid America Bank have a desire to help their customers improve their lives and realize their dreams, all while valuing the customer and respecting the vital role of relationship banking. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in wishing all the employees of Mid America Bank our sincerest thanks and appreciation for their service to the men, women and families of Missouri. Congratulations on 100 years and best wishes for continued success in the next 100 years.

Mr. LUETKEMEYER

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address some of the many lingering issues surrounding the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The bill passed by the House yesterday will help a significant number of Missourians who have been saddled with inconceivable rate increases, who cannot sell their property, and who run the risk of losing their homes. I have heard from one constituent in particular who told of an unexpected premium increase that jumped from under $1,800 to more than $11,000, a cost difference that she and her husband will have difficulty meeting. It is my sincere hope that this legislation helps to address these issues. While I supported H.R. 3370, I regret that the bill presented no opportunities for an increased presence for the private insurance market. One of the primary public policy goals associated with NFIP has been to spur private insurers to enter the flood insurance space. As long as NFIP generously subsidizes risk, however, the private market will remain a secondary player in the program. We must create a program that becomes, over time, actuarially-sound and creates a greater role for the private sector while reducing the government's role. Yesterday the House took a step towards ensuring that our constituents are not saddled with impossible premium increases, but our work on this issue is far from done. More must be done to reign in FEMA, create more accountability in NFIP, and ensure the program is on sound footing. We must also demand more accountability from FEMA and NFIP and work to ensure that flood maps are accurate and not overly encompassing. If NFIP has taught us anything, it is that Federal government should not be involved in the insurance industry. Many living in Missouri's Third Congressional District are in desperate need of relief, and NFIP is in desperate need of reform. Private insurance companies have a role to play, and the program should be changed to allow the private market to participate. I will continue to work to make the program sustainable, reliable and more functional than it is today, and hope that my colleagues will join me in the effort to increase the private sector role in flood insurance.