Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), who is from the great metropolis of Advance in Davie County and who is a leader in fintech.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 56, the Financial Technology Protection Act. Our number one priority is to ensure the safety of the American people, especially from terrorists and terror organizations seeking to take away the freedoms we hold dear. This bipartisan legislation is a prime example of how we can reach across the aisle and find common ground in the fight against terrorism as well as illicit finance. H.R. 56 establishes an Independent Financial Technology Task Force, which will improve coordination between the private and public sectors in order to research and develop tools to combat terrorism and the illicit use of financial technologies, including digital currencies. Recent studies have found evidence that terrorists, especially lone- wolf actors, use digital currencies. A public-private task force as established through this legislation can inform Congress on the legislative and regulatory steps needed to stop these bad actors. Furthermore, this bipartisan bill would incentivize individuals to come forward with knowledge of possible terrorist and illicit financing involving digital currencies by offering monetary rewards for information that leads to successful convictions. A reward program is just the kind of innovation in policymaking that we need to stay a step ahead of terrorists. Last Congress, the Treasury Department informed our committee that using such unconventional tools could be critical in generating useful intelligence, and I applaud Mr. Budd and Mr. Lynch for thinking creatively in this process and listening to testimony and taking that and putting that in legislative form. The threat of illicit use of digital currencies is evolving, and policymakers must work together to find best practices and solutions. That is why this bipartisan bill is so important. Furthermore, I would add that digital currencies have enormous potential benefits. We want to understand those benefits, but we also want to understand those costs involved, as policymakers. We want to be smart about it. I think it is useful and helpful for us to begin with understanding how we stamp out bad actors and their use of digital currencies before we move into that next set of conversation about how we properly enhance their utility in our society. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, again, my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for his work here and my colleague from North Carolina, the great north State, Mr. Budd, first for their relationship on this important policymaking, and also their willingness to work across the aisle in order to get good legislation that is ensuring the safety of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 56 as a commonsense, forward-looking approach to combating terrorism, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Riggleman), a new Member of Congress from Afton, Virginia, and a new member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 502, the FIND Trafficking Act. Consider this: In 2017 alone, more than 47,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses. Additionally, it is estimated that the total number of human trafficking victims in the U.S. reached into the hundreds of thousands. These shocking numbers point to a deep, systemic issue happening right in our backyards, where bad actors use any means necessary--even financial products--in order to lure people into horrible situations. One of the ways they do this is by using virtual currencies to evade the oversight of institutions, like government agencies. While virtual currencies may possess a great opportunity for society, we don't quite know the extent of their utility in human trafficking. Mr. Speaker, these virtual currencies are one of the most versatile payment options available today, yet they are among the least understood. We need to do more work in order to understand their utility and their opportunity. It is precisely this lack of understanding that risks making virtual currencies ripe for exploitation by these bad actors engaged in human trafficking and the sale of illicit drugs. In its 2017 National Drug Assessment, the Drug Enforcement Administration concluded that transnational criminal organizations are increasingly using virtual currencies for illicit activities, including drug trafficking. This includes illicit transactions with China, as well as the sale and purchase of narcotics, including those involved in our country's opioid epidemic. This bipartisan legislation before us is an instrumental first step toward analyzing how virtual currencies and online marketplaces are used to buy, sell, or facilitate the financing of goods and services associated with human and drug trafficking. By directing the Government Accountability Office to study how virtual currencies are linked to the supply chain of drugs and human trafficking, this bill will give lawmakers insight in how to sever that link. We need to know how virtual currencies are being used; the scope of their use; and, most importantly, how our Federal and State agencies must respond, and can respond, to impede their use for illicit activities. Let me add, Mr. Speaker, that nothing in this legislation is meant to demonize the use or the development of virtual currencies for legitimate economic activity. As my colleagues know, there are few Members more committed than I am to how new technologies can facilitate commerce and growth. But in order for such technologies to flourish, we need a rigorous discussion on the risks in enabling new routes for illicit finance. We need to understand that as policymakers. This bill is important because it enables us to have the measurement tools necessary for us to smartly legislate in this area. Mainstream acceptance of innovation depends on mainstream forms of accountability, and this bill does just that. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas) for his sponsorship of the bill. I thank my vice ranking member on the Financial Services Committee, my second in command on the Financial Services Committee, Mrs. Wagner of Missouri, for her sponsorship and leadership on this important issue of human trafficking that she is so very committed to and so smart on legislating around. I thank them both for setting the right tone for our committee jurisdiction, smart legislating, and reaching across the aisle. I know they will continue to lead the fight against trafficking as Members of the House Financial Services Committee this Congress, as they have in previous years as well. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think it is important that Congress understand. The objective of this bill is to understand the contours of human trafficking that occur here in the United States, and to understand the contours of how drugs are financed. It is incumbent that we have the proper data and the public have the proper data so we can understand how to respond. That is what this measure is about, the plight of those human- trafficking victims, and the plight of those who are suffering the impairments and the devastating consequences that opioids have brought in our society. We know those in our community. What we have to understand is the deeper issues around the movement of money, which is what the Financial Services Committee can do. It doesn't fix the full problem, and we should focus on fixing the larger issues around human trafficking and drug overdoses, and the horrible effects of illicit drugs on our society. But what we can do here is understand the contour so we can cut off that siphon of money that is fueling this epidemic in our communities all across America. I want to thank Mr. Vargas and Mrs. Wagner, who just departed, for their work on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the vice ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, who will be the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion on the Financial Services Committee as well.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, now, being in the minority and the majority, we are both learning something in the organization of control and debate on the House floor. Chairwoman Waters has been the ranking member of the committee previously to coming to the chair. Now I have to ask her for time, which is a different process. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close on this important bill, the first bill from the Financial Services Committee for this Congress. It is a bill written by Chairwoman Waters and cosponsored by me as the ranking member. This is a piece of legislation that we had discussed and worked through last Congress, and she was the lead sponsor and I was the cosponsor of it last Congress, and I held to my word and she has held to her word. This is proof that we can have bipartisan achievement that is of substance, that is real, that is meaningful, and we can do it representing vastly different districts, having different world views, having our disagreements that we have stated publicly and privately to one another, but still being willing to work through those disagreements to hammer out something that is good for the investor, for the consumer, to make sure that we have important consumer protections while also having vibrant markets of exchange so that we can lift folks out of poverty, to actually make sure people are safe for retirement. There are wonderful opportunities for us to legislate in a bipartisan way. This is proof of what potential we have in the Financial Services jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairwoman Waters for her efforts here. I urge my colleagues to support and vote for this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank once again Chairwoman Waters for her leadership, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 624, the Promoting Transparent Standards for Corporate Insiders Act. This bipartisan legislation is critical for protecting mom-and-pop investors from the effects of insider trading while ensuring that the rules are clear, fair, and not unduly burdensome. I want to first thank Chairwoman Waters for her sponsorship of this bill and for writing this legislation. I am glad to join her in a meaningful effort to help the Securities and Exchange Commission better understanding illicit trading, and I look forward to working with her in many more bipartisan efforts and her leadership on the Financial Services Committee. Mr. Speaker, preventing and cracking down on fraud and abuse within our financial system, such as illegal insider trading, is apolitical and should be. When a corporate insider breaks the rules on trading and profits from trading on insider information, that illegal activity hurts everyday investors who diligently put their hard-earned money away for retirement. To be clear, most corporate insiders faithfully follow the insider trading guidelines under Rule 10b5-1. I know that is not an everyday quoted thing, but those folks who are abiding by the law are complying with this very complex but important rule from the Securities and Exchange Commission. That allows for them to purchase and sell securities without concern for insider trading liability. These law-abiding corporate insiders should not be punished or barred from trading just because of the bad actors who succumbed to greed and those who chose to illegally trade on insider information. When properly adhered to, 10b5-1 insider trading rules are fair tools for allowing folks to help pay for down payments on a home or help pay for their kids' college education or other normal financial transactions. Moreover, allowing folks to purchase and sell securities at predetermined times on a scheduled basis under that rule ensures market stability and decreases the risk of volatility by preventing fraudulent behavior, such as pump-and-dump schemes that sometimes occur in the financial markets. By directing the Securities and Exchange Commission to study whether Rule 10b5-1 should be amended and to consider how any amendments to the rule would clarify and enhance existing prohibitions against insider trading, this legislation achieves a bipartisan goal of protecting mom- and-pop investors while encouraging economic growth. And, again, I want to thank Chairwoman Waters for her leadership. I applaud her willingness to work in a bipartisan way and in this important bipartisan manner that she is approaching the Financial Services Committee's jurisdiction we both care so much about. That bipartisan activity should help improve Federal oversight and protect American investors as well as enhance economic growth. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 624, and I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gooden), a new Member of this body and a new member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is plain and simple. It is a political stunt. And this is a sad offering 1 week into a new majority. These bills are dead on arrival, as the ranking member, my friend Tom Graves, said, when they arrive in the Senate. The Senate majority leader has already said this. It is dead on arrival. Nor will it be signed into law by the President, who has already said he would veto it. Furthermore, these bills have been stripped of House priorities that were in this bill reported out of Tom Graves' subcommittee last Congress. And they are not going to accomplish our number one goal, which is reopening the government and addressing the critical border security needs of our country. House Republicans did our job last year by sending this and several other appropriations bills to the Senate that would have been signed into law and ultimately avoided a shutdown if our friends across the aisle had chosen substance over politics. But this a greater point. What we should be focusing on, rather than this shell bill that is a political stunt, is what is not in this bill. Now, there are a couple things that we passed last Congress in a bipartisan way that the incoming chair of the Financial Services Committee and I, as ranking member on the Financial Services Committee, both voted for. We had the JOBS Act 3.0, which passed this House last Congress with 406 ``yes'' votes and 4 dissenting votes. Why is that not included in this bill? It should be included in this bill. It is a high priority. Why don't we see more bills helping those who are underbanked in this country? Those who are living on the margins? Those who are on the edge? Why can't we get them included? Why can't we have financial inclusion as a part of this bill? It does not address them, nor does it help people who live in rural communities who don't have a single bank branch in their county. So we have banking deserts in this country that separate people from access to basic financial services products. We need to fix that problem. The bill here before us doesn't address that issue either. Why aren't we doing more to help small businesses find the capital that they need? Businesses are starved for additional risk capital so they can grow, create jobs, help their community, raise wages. But instead of talking about ways we can help people, this bill does none of that. It is a political stunt. We should be focused on helping people and helping those who are on the margins through financial inclusion. Let's get back to the priorities that the American people sent us here to take care of. Let's vote down this bill, and let's vote ``yes'' on something that can clear the Senate and get to the President's desk and be signed into law. I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle in a constructive way in the coming months to do just that. But in the meantime, this is just a second-week charade, not essential to what we should be focused on here in the House of Representatives. We should be less focused on political optics and more about the reality of how we help everyday working Americans.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and could not make it to votes. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 436, 437; YEA on Roll Call No. 438, 439; YEA on Roll Call No. 440, 441; YEA on Roll Call No. 442, 443; and YEA on Roll Call No. 444, 445.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further proceedings today in the House, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that otherwise could be subjected to 5-minute voting under clause 8 or 9 of rule XX.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, and I thank Kevin and Richard for their kind comments regarding the counsel they have received from Parker and the relationship they have with her. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Parker's favorite Member of Congress, notwithstanding that that includes the majority leader and my friend, Mr. Hudson, and I on that list. We may be friends with Parker, and she may like and respect us, but her favorite Member of Congress is Bruce Poliquin from Maine.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is the first time, as a Member, I have given a speech like this. I have to say, in this body, Members understand that an essential ingredient for a successful Member of Congress and for this institution to function is our staff. With good, talented staff, Members can be successful, the legislative process can work, and we can serve our country. We have many faithful public servants here in the House of Representatives, and I rise today to recognize one of them. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize my chief of staff of 12 years, Parker Hamilton Poling. She has served this House of Representatives in many different capacities, but for the last 12 years, she has been my personal office chief and my leadership office chief. She sits behind me today, and she is easily embarrassed. But if she looks at the gallery, her husband, Todd, and her two beautiful daughters, Barrett and Eliza, are here to recognize her service and the hard work she has put in for this country. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because my chief of staff, Parker, has been an essential ingredient to my success as a Member of Congress, to serving the people of North Carolina's 10th District as a Member of Congress, to being a successful member of the House Financial Services Committee. She has been an essential ingredient for House Republicans on getting the key votes over the last 4\1/2\ years for our agenda. She has worked tirelessly to count the votes on the House floor to get our agenda passed. She has worked tirelessly to build relationships with other chiefs of staff and Members, as well as other staff, to further this operation in the House of Representatives. Eight years ago, Parker got a group of female chiefs of staff, Republican chiefs of staff, who were mothers together and said: We need to actually have an organization so we help each other and coach each other along the way through mentoring. She has developed that into a very solid group that exchanges information and helps each other. What I want to say here on the House floor and publicly is that my success in the last 12 years is as a direct result of Parker's work. I met her 22 years ago through an organization called College Republicans. We both cut our teeth in the rough and tumble of that political operation. I was a student at NC State, and she was a student at Brown University. She grew up in upstate New York and took this sort of different background and perspective, and I realized her ingenuity, her creativity, her strength, and her passion for the cause. And I learned so much from her. Then, 10 years after that, as a Member of Congress, I invited her in, between her law school classes. She thought I was trying to ask for free legal advice. She had, with coaching from her husband, a really set answer on how she could not, because she had not passed the bar yet, give me legal advice, much less free legal advice. She came in, sat down. She put her book bag down, wearing a pair of jeans. I said: Well, I would like to hire you as my chief of staff. And she says: I didn't interview for it, and I am not sure I want it. After she had a conversation with her husband, and some, you know, negotiation, she became my chief of staff, and my world as a Member of Congress changed much for the better. But I am not the only one that Parker has had an impact on as a Member of Congress.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, if I may close. I want to thank Congressmen Poliquin and Hudson, and the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, for their kind comments. I just want to close with that. Parker grew up in upstate New York but has done a fantastic job for the last 12 years working for the people of North Carolina's 10th District. She is a New Yorker but gets the South. She is a Republican who has friends across the aisle. She is a Republican through and through and committed to our party, our ideology, and the work that we are trying to achieve. While she could be a partisan in her role here counting votes for Republicans, she never lost sight of those relationships across the aisle that could make this place work. While I will miss her counsel on a daily basis, while I will miss her words of encouragement and also the tough words when you need them, when Members need them--and I have certainly needed them over the last decade--I am grateful for her service. I am grateful for what she has done for this institution, for me, and for the countless staff that she has mentored along the way. I wish her well. I say to her two daughters watching that they have a fantastic example in their mother. While she may be tough with us at work, I know she cares about them and loves them dearly. The life that Parker and Todd have built together is a great example of a loving family, while also both being professionals who have quite challenging careers. Mr. Speaker, I thank the indulgence of my colleagues and the kind comments for Parker, and I encourage folks to wish her well in her new endeavors.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 366, and YEA on Roll Call No. 367.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that the Postal Service, as my colleagues across the aisle say, is a constitutional function. It is really important that the Postal Service do its mission of delivering the mail. What we don't think we should do is give a government bureau, through a nonlegislative means, the right to expand into nonessential services for a part of the government that is bleeding money. An institution that cannot balance its own books should not be getting into the offering of credit or the movement of money and funds. While I am in favor of postal reform, and while I support my letter carriers, I do not favor postal banking. I think it is important for this Congress to put a note down that we are in opposition to that, and that is why I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter on behalf of Americans for Tax Reform, Heritage Action for America, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, FreedomWorks, National Taxpayer Union, R Street, and the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, along with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in support of this amendment. July 17, 2018. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the members of the American Bankers Association, the Credit Union National Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the National Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions, I write to urge the adoption of Congressman Patrick McHenry's amendment to the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill to prohibit the U.S. Postal Service from providing banking services. Financial institutions are strongly supportive of the Postal Service, as one of the largest mailers of any industry group in America. Physical mail remains an important communications channel for banks and credit unions. Financial institutions of all sizes use the mail to communicate with current and potential customers, to send statements and receive payments, and to market new products and services to their customers. Financial companies are also a vital revenue source for the Postal Service, generating billions of dollars of annual revenue that supports postal infrastructure. For these reasons, our members are committed to identifying long- term solutions to ensure an efficient, self-sustaining, and affordable U.S. postal system. Postal banking is not one of those solutions. Although there have been a number of proposals over the past few years to turn the U.S. Postal Service into the world's largest shadow banking system, we are very concerned that allowing the U.S. Postal Service to provide banking services will be beyond the Postal Service's core competencies, will raise a number of serious regulatory and consumer protection questions, and will present significant competitive issues for private sector entities. Congress should encourage the Postal Service to focus on its core business of physical mail delivery, and not be distracted by expanding the mission to businesses outside of the Postal Service's area of expertise. Most significantly, postal banking does not address the Postal Service's financial challenges, and may well make them worse. The U.S. Postal Service agrees. The Postal Service has strongly argued against authority to provide banking services, noting that providing these products would almost certainly cause it to lose money: ``The Postal Service's mission is to provide the American public with trusted, affordable, universal mail service. Our core function is delivery, not banking . . . Profit margins on these financial services businesses across the industry are very low . . . so even if we achieved $1 billion in revenue and executed well, our cash position would only increase by an estimated $100-200 million, which will not materially change our financial condition--we need to focus on the core delivery business.'' The Postal Service went on to note that to the extent that more affordable pricing of financial services is a primary goal of postal banking efforts, ``[m]ore affordable appears to mean at a lower price level than the free market provides today . . . Since established financial services firms make a slim margin on revenue . . . it seems unlikely that there is any significant room to lower prices without incurring a loss, and at a minimum, a lower profit margin.'' No doubt, postal reform is a serious topic that Congress must confront. We encourage Congress to enact legislation that would reduce costs and increase efficiencies to put the U.S. Postal Service on a sound and sustainable financial path over the long run, but the provision of banking services is not an acceptable solution. We look forward to continuing to work with you on postal reform efforts in the coming months, but urge you to support Congressman McHenry's amendment to the FSGG appropriations bill to ban the Postal Service from providing banking services when it is on the House Floor this week. Sincerely, American Bankers Association, Credit Union National Association, Independent Community Bankers of America, National Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the American Bankers Association, the Credit Union National Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the National Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions in support of this amendment. July 18, 2018. Dear Congressman Patrick McHenry: On behalf of our organizations and the Americans we represent, we write to express support of your Amendment to Division B, within the Financial Services and General Government section of H.R. 6147. This amendment would prohibit the use of any taxpayer funds for postal banking and financial services and prohibit the creation of any new pilot program that would expand this business practice through collective bargaining. While the USPS serves an important role in delivering mail and packages, we are concerned about expanding the Postal Service's primary role and allowing the government to compete with the private sector. This would include lower fees, subsidized services and even competing based on real estate and office location. Consideration of expanding postal operations to engage in banking and financial services is not a new concept. It has been touted as a solution to help stabilize the US Postal Service's financial practices. The cost alone to hire additional workers and retrain existing employees to offer banking products would further undermine the Postal Service's budgetary issues. Additionally, we have reservations about the ability of the Postal Service to safeguard customers' identities and information such as bank accounts and passwords. Regardless of the federal agency, the government has shown it can be slow to react to cyber threats, allowing bad actors to access citizens' private records. It is clear the US Postal Service's financial health is troubling. Expanding USPS's operations to compete with private sector banks and credit unions is not the answer. We, the undersigned organizations, support your amendment to H.R. 6147 and encourage its inclusion in the final appropriations legislation. Sincerely, Grover G. Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform; Tim Chapman, Executive Director, Heritage Action; Tom Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; Adam Brandon, President, FreedomWorks; Brandon Arnold, Executive Vice President, National Taxpayers Union; Kevin Kosar, Vice President of Policy, R Street Institute; Andrew F. Quinlan, President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity; Iain Murray, Vice President for Strategy and Sr. Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute. Who supports the amendment? American Bankers Association, Americans for Tax Reform, Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Citizens Against Government Waste, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Credit Union National Association, Freedom Works, Heritage Action, Independent Community Bankers of American, National Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions, National Taxpayers Union, R Street Institute.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would bar the United States Postal Service from expanding on its current offerings of financial services and banking products. I think it is important that the Postal Service focus on its core business of delivering the mail. While the idea of postal banking is nothing new, it is still a terrible idea. In 2015, the inspector general for the Postal Service took the highly unusual step in proposing that the Postal Service should expand its banking services in areas like prepaid cards, savings products, and money orders. Since then, postal banking advocates have used the report to argue that the Postal Service has the authority to offer more banking products, all without congressional oversight or consent. Recent reports indicate that these efforts include using a pilot program to implement this awful idea. That is the reason why I am offering my amendment. To make things even worse, rather than proposing the idea legislatively, the current strategy of those advocating for postal banking is to institute the program via behind-the-scenes negotiation between government bureaucrats and liberal special interest groups. This amendment draws a clear, bright line that says that no taxpayer money shall be used to subsidize these quiet attempts at making postal banking a reality. Proponents of postal banking argue that it would help the under- banked in this country, but the simple fact is that socialized banking is not the answer. Instead, we have to focus on working together in a bipartisan way around financial innovation as the pathway toward financial inclusion. Postal banking is a giant step backward. The Postal Service, as I said, should focus on its core mission of delivering our mail. Postal banking would simply create yet another government program that fails to solve the underlying problem. Further, if Congress does not step in and stop this now, we endanger our small community banks and credit unions that are already in trouble, while at the same time putting an additional burden on the American taxpayer, who will be stuck footing the bill for this horrible idea. This amendment protects the American taxpayers from being forced to finance a terrible idea called postal banking. Its passage would also maintain the role of Congress in determining the fate of the Postal Service and postal banking, not government bureaucrats and interest groups. Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.