Keith Rothfus

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act. As the vice chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, and as a longtime advocate for examination and review reforms, I commend my colleague, Representative Tipton, for his hard work on this issue. As we all know, our financial regulatory agencies are not without their flaws. From time to time, examiners offer decisions that are misguided, and these decisions deserve to be challenged. Managers of financial institutions that believe that the decisions passed down by their examiners are wrong deserve a chance to challenge those decisions at an independent forum and, if necessary, in the courts. We are all better served by a financial supervisory structure that subjects decisions to the scrutiny of further review. I know community bankers in western Pennsylvania who have struggled with their examiners for years to get flawed determinations changed. In many cases, these individuals were doing the right thing for their companies and their communities. Without the benefit of a clear timeline, this process has been allowed to drag on. Without a truly independent review process and protection against retaliation, these men and women working in our community financial institutions understand that they are facing an uphill battle. The current system is not independent and it is not sufficiently transparent. This is unfair. It is bad for our community financial institutions and it is detrimental to the integrity of our regulatory system. I again urge my colleagues to support Representative Tipton's work.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in remembrance of a remarkable community servant, a faithful friend and husband, and a brave veteran: Sergeant Mark J. Baserman. A corrections officer who devoted many years of service at the State Correctional Institute in Somerset, Pennsylvania, Mark tragically lost his life in the line of duty on February 26, 2018. Known throughout Johnstown and by colleagues as a man of integrity, bravery, and strength, thousands attended his remembrance service to pay their respects to Mark and his family. A 1975 graduate of Greater Johnstown Vo-Tech High School, as a young man, Mark volunteered many years with the Oakland Volunteer Fire Company and he served in the Army. Before becoming a corrections officer, Mark worked more than 20 years as a first responder with East Hills Ambulance Service. Mark's life history of public service is evident. Putting others first, including his wife, Rebecca, and mother, Lucille--both who have physical disabilities--is a powerful testimony and a shining example. Mr. Speaker, as we grieve the loss of this honorable man, I offer my deepest condolences to Mark's family, friends, and the Johnstown community.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, small businesses can't get the loans that they need. Families can't get the mortgage or pay for college. All of this means that the American Dream is getting harder and harder for people across the country. Again, as I often remind my colleagues, the solution isn't deregulation. It is right regulation. The TAILOR Act achieves this. By enacting the TAILOR Act, we can focus regulatory energy and resources where they are most needed and help reinvigorate our community financial institutions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the TAILOR Act. As the vice chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, and a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill, I also want to thank my colleague, Representative Tipton, for his work on this measure. I emphasize bipartisan. I listened to the other side of the aisle, and it sounds like there would be no support for this legislation, but there is support for this legislation. I wonder if the ranking member has been having some of the conversations with some of her members, because, over the past few years, we have learned that one-size-fits- all, those rules, are a recipe for a more concentrated and less dynamic financial system. I spend a lot of time talking with community bankers, credit unions, and their customers. They complain about skyrocketing compliance costs and regulatory burdens that force them to take attention away from their core businesses when they continue to add staff not to serve customers but to work on compliance issues. Consumers complained about higher prices, fewer choices, and less access to important financial products. Small- and mid-sized institutions play an important role in financing the dreams and aspirations of Main Street businesses and middle class families. Unfortunately, these institutions are disproportionately affected by the one-size-fits-all rules coming out of Washington, D.C. Banks and credit unions are merging or closing altogether, and new banks are not forming to take their place. Storied institutions with multigenerational relationships in their communities are being forced to close their doors and abandon the cities and towns they once served. It is very sad, Mr. Speaker, to see a small town with a shuttered bank. We see it across western Pennsylvania and we are seeing it across the country. This has an unmistakable impact on our economy. I remind the other side about the studies where, because of the overregulation over the last 10 years, that 650,000 fewer small businesses have been created; 6.5 million fewer jobs, that is 6.5 million fewer people paying Social Security tax, 6.5 million people fewer paying Medicare tax; critical, critical jobs that have not been created.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wonder if my friend from Pennsylvania has really taken a look at the legislation, because there are rules that apply. The entire bevy of environmental rules apply to these plants, and the SENSE Act is going to leave those in place, all the rules. What the SENSE Act does is take a look at two factors--two factors-- hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide. That is it. And it says, if you are in compliance with hydrogen chloride, you will be deemed to be in compliance with sulfur dioxide, or, conversely, if you are in compliance with sulfur dioxide, you will be deemed in compliance with hydrogen chloride. Everything else is applicable. Everything else is applicable. This is why I talk about a customization for a small handful of the plants. The group that represents these plants supports this legislation. The workers in these plants support this legislation. The people who live next to these coal piles support this legislation. But to suggest that this legislation means no rules for these plants is just not accurate. All the rules apply to these plants. We are seeing a small tweak because, again, when you look at the economics of running a business, running a plant, you are looking at cost; and if you are going to impose the cost to put the additional mechanics within the plant, it is not going to happen. Those plants are going to close. That is what we are looking at. So, again, I would appreciate if folks who take a look at this legislation understand that these plants are still subject to strict regulation both at the Federal and State level and that this is a minor tweaking of one rule. While the EPA may have been discussing the benefit of these plants in the context of another rule, the fact remains the same: these units warrant special consideration. If it is true under one rule, it is going to be true under all rules because of, again, the unique environmental benefits that these plants provide.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I want to talk about some burdens, burdens like uncontrolled release of toxins into the air when these piles catch fire, uncontrolled seepage into rivers. This subset of plants, my colleague from Pennsylvania makes the point about some of these plants are in compliance. There is such a thing as economies of scale. And when any business is in operation, you are looking at costs and expenses. You are looking at revenue. And when the costs and expenses exceed the revenue, you go out of business. Unless we are able to do a customization for these handful of plants, they will close. Hundreds of people will lose their jobs. The cleanup they are doing will stop. While some other plants may continue to operate and continue the good work, that is great, but it is going to go at a slower pace. It is going to cost taxpayers more because less will be cleaned up. This industry, so far, has cleaned up 200 million tons of waste coal in Pennsylvania, and that is just the start of the work that needs to be done. My hope is that it is all going to be cleaned up in our lifetimes. So, no, this isn't forever. This isn't forever. This, again, is taking a look at a situation we have in Pennsylvania, that we want to recognize the good work that is going on there and, again, when you look at the EPA under the Obama administration, talking of the unique environmental benefits that these plants provide and that they warrant special consideration. Again, I just urge my colleagues to come up. Let's get out of our trenches. Let's take a look, meeting, you know, in the middle here. Support this legislation. Save these jobs. Save these union jobs. Let these plants stay open, and let's continue to clean up western Pennsylvania.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points here. Without this relief, the plants are going to close. This is not a broad-based industry carve-out. This is for a subset of plants. When you look at the economics of running a plant, you are looking at income, you are looking at cost. The fact is, we are seeking a nuanced approach to recognize the environmental benefit that these plants have provided, the hundreds of jobs, family-sustaining jobs that are at stake. It is just frustrating to hear my colleagues just insist on this one-size-fits-all, seemingly we are incapable of appreciating a nuance. We don't rail against regulation. We rail against overregulation. Regulation is important. It is necessary. It should be responsible. It should be prudent. It should meet a cost-benefit analysis. I talked about right regulation, not deregulation; right regulation. You pick the regulation to fit the circumstance that you are in. A picture paints a thousand words. That paints a thousand words right there, and the EPA has even recognized the benefit of this industry here. A quote from the EPA: ``Coal refuse piles are an environmental concern because of acid seepage and leachate production, spontaneous combustion, and low soil fertility. Units that burn coal refuse provide multimedia environmental benefits. . . . '' Let me say that again. The EPA said: ``Units that burn coal refuse provide multimedia environmental benefits by combining the production of energy with the removal of coal refuse piles and by reclaiming land for productive use. Consequently, because of the unique environmental benefits that coal refuse-fired EGUs provide, these units warrant special consideration. . . . '' Let me say that again. The EPA said: ``These units warrant special consideration,'' because of the unique environmental benefits they provide. That is what the SENSE Act is about. Up in Cambria County, where they have a number of these piles, there are streams that flow into the Conemaugh River, that flows into the Kiskiminetas River, that flows into the Allegheny River, that flows into the Ohio River. This industry is cleaning up those tributaries, preventing acid seepage into the Conemaugh, into the Kiskiminetas, into the Allegheny, and the Ohio. This bill makes sense, and I would urge my colleagues to seriously consider it because this is an area where people can come up out of their trenches and find common ground, something that makes common sense, reaches common sense. It is pro-environment. The sky is not falling, as some of the opponents might say. And it saves jobs and union jobs.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Shimkus for leading and his help with this important legislation. This is going to be an interesting debate. This is a debate about one size fits all coming out of Washington, D.C., and the failure of folks in this town at regulatory agencies to not appreciate the nuance of what is going on in the rest of the country. I have been on these waste coal piles of western Pennsylvania. I have seen streams that are dead. I have seen hillsides scarred. I have seen restoration. I have seen streams come back to life. I have seen hillsides come back to life. This Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment, SENSE, Act, makes sense for those who live outside the Capital Beltway. The SENSE Act is a vitally important effort that I have championed in various forms throughout my time in Congress. The bill recognizes the huge success that the coal refuse-to-energy industry is making in Pennsylvania, and especially my district, to make it a healthier and cleaner place to live. Without the SENSE Act, five coal refuse-to-energy facilities in western Pennsylvania and West Virginia will close, and their environmental remediation efforts will end. Despite what the bill's opponents say, the SENSE Act is, first and foremost, a pro-environment bill, but it is also a pro-jobs bill, a pro-union jobs bill, because it is union workers who are going to be thrown out of work when these plants close. And it is a pro-taxpayer bill because the environment is being cleaned up without a contribution from the taxpayers. The coal industry has a long and storied history in Pennsylvania. Not only has it been an important part of the economy for generations, but Pennsylvania coal helped the U.S. and our allies win two world wars. Historic mining activity, unfortunately, left behind large piles of coal refuse. These piles consist of lower quality coal mixed with rock and dirt. For a long time, we did not have the technology to use this material, so it accumulated in large piles outside of cities and towns, close to schools, neighborhoods, and in fields across coal country. This has led to many environmental problems that diminished the quality of life for people in these areas surrounded by these piles. Vegetation and wildlife have been harmed, the air has been polluted, and acid mine drainage has impaired nearby rivers and streams. I have seen these sites firsthand, as I said, and the environmental danger they pose. Coal refuse piles can catch fire. Think about that. They can catch fire with no limitations at all. It is an unmitigated disaster when these things catch fire--uncontrolled air pollution. Many are already smoldering, giving off toxic emissions, again, without any controls whatsoever. Runoff from these sites literally turn rivers orange, leaving them devoid of life. The cost to clean up all of this is astronomical. Pennsylvania's environmental regulator estimates that fixing abandoned mine lands could cost over $16 billion, over $2 billion of which would be needed for coal refuse piles alone. We needed an innovative solution to this tough challenge, a commonsense compromise. This was necessary to get the job done and to protect the environment. That is where the coal refuse-to-energy industry comes in. Using advanced technology, this industry has been able to use previously worthless material to generate electricity. This activity is what powers remediation efforts and has successfully removed over 200 million tons of coal refuse, reclaiming polluted sites across Pennsylvania and other historic coal regions. Thanks to the hard work of the dedicated people in this industry-- again, many union workers in this industry--landscapes have been restored, rivers and streams have been brought back to life, and many towns have been relieved of hazardous waste coal piles. Here is an example of what this industry has been able to do. Here you have an abandoned waste coal pile, but through the restoration efforts, the countryside has been reclaimed. This is a picture of success done without taxpayer money, improving the environment. I want to highlight again private sector leadership on this issue that has saved taxpayers millions of dollars in cleanup costs; and if the SENSE Act becomes law, taxpayers will continue to save millions. I should also note that the waste-to-energy industry pays millions in tax dollars, too, something that my colleagues should be mindful of, because many of the plants in these areas are areas where there is still a struggle economically. Multiple groups have previously endorsed the SENSE Act, including Pennsylvania's abandoned mine reclamation groups and clean water advocates. Unfortunately, intensifying and, importantly, inflexible EPA regulations threaten five plants in western Pennsylvania and West Virginia. This would leave hundreds of millions of dollars of vital cleanup unfinished, lead to job losses, and leave many localities exposed to the harmful conditions waste coal piles pose. Mr. Speaker, we are talking a handful--a handful--of plants. The sky is falling. The catastrophic scenario the opponents of this legislation are arguing about, they don't appreciate the nuance of what we are trying to do here. The SENSE Act, as it has been amended, addresses a significant challenge arising from the implementation of the existing rules, including those under the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards. Importantly, these plants comply with mercury emission standards. There is an issue with how they deal with HCL, hydrogen chloride, and sulfur dioxide, SO2. This is a targeted piece of legislation, a customization, as it were, to recognize the important and vital work that this industry has been doing. Contrary to what critics allege, the SENSE Act simply provides operators with additional alternative MATS compliance standards, but it is still strict and it is still achievable. Despite opponents' claims, this bill is not a sweetheart deal for the coal refuse-to-energy industry. This bill only prevents a few plants from being regulated out of existence. This industry represents a tiny fraction of the energy industry, but it provides enormous environmental benefits. Again, this legislation brings a stark contrast to the difference between elites in this town and what is out there in flyover country, that you cannot even go in and see the specific issue and that you have to apply this one size fits all because you are operating from some ideological framework. It is really unfortunate, because it is the environment that is going to hurt; it is jobs that are going to be lost. The industry works with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to identify especially dangerous piles and prioritize remediation. Mr. Speaker, the amended version of this bill accurately reflects the spirit of previous SENSE Act versions, and I thank my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee for their work on it. It is my hope that we can continue to build support for this bill, especially in the Senate, where Senators Toomey and Casey, Republican and Democrat, have previously offered a bipartisan amendment relating to it in the past. Despite that prior bipartisan Senate support, previous efforts have failed to achieve the supermajority necessary to pass, but I am hopeful that the SENSE Act can win enough support to pass both Chambers. What we are looking to achieve today is this: a narrow and limited addition to existing rules for a very small but pro-environment industry. This should not be a controversial or partisan issue. We want to hold this industry to high standards, but to standards they can actually reach. But for the EPA emission extension that expires in 2019, current regulations discount the environmental remediation benefits this industry provides. My bill will help keep the coal refuse industry in business so that local communities, economies, and the environment will continue to reap the benefits. The people who live near coal refuse piles and all of the communities downstream of these hazards expect us to find a solution. Many workers at the endangered power plants, folks throughout the supply chain, and their families, are counting on us to protect their livelihoods. We owe it to them to pass the SENSE Act, including people like Bill Turner. Bill is a shift supervisor at the Colver refuse facility in Cambria County. He has worked at Colver for over two decades. He has also lived close to coal refuse piles. Bill and his colleagues at Colver are proud of the reclamation work they do. He has put three kids through college thanks to his job. I know I have said this before, but his children even played soccer on a field reclaimed from a coal refuse pile because of this industry. Bill said it would be a travesty if the coal waste- to-energy industry disappeared. Another industry worker is Dennis Simmers. He is an engineer at Colver. For him, this issue is personal. He said three generations of his family lived in the shadow of a large coal refuse pile. Unfortunately, his relatives died without ever seeing this environmental catastrophe corrected. He said: ``There is a real shot now that I will see it in my lifetime.'' Finally, I would like to recognize Vince Brisini, who testified at the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing last fall. Vince not only worked for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, but he also lives next to a waste coal pile. Like Bill and Dennis, he has devoted so much of his time and energy, both professionally and personally, to solving this problem. Madam Speaker, we owe it to the environment to keep these five endangered plants open. We owe it to people like Dennis and Bill and Vince to see if we can solve the waste coal problem during this generation. The SENSE Act will help ensure that that remains a probability. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, pro- environment bill.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will see the benefits that can come from this. This isn't a special interest carveout, unless you consider cleaning up the environment in western Pennsylvania to be a special interest. Again, are we capable of making judgments about what this town puts out, one size fits all, seemingly with blinders on, not having the ability to recognize that in certain circumstances customization is appropriate? That is what this underlying bill, the SENSE Act, does. It does make sense: satisfying energy needs and saving the environment. I hope my colleagues would see the sense in that and work with us to allow the environmental cleanup to continue and to protect hundreds of family- sustaining jobs across western Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, just listening to the other side's comments about the SENSE Act, I am wondering if they have read the same bill or if they have ever visited the hills of western Pennsylvania where we see the environmental damage that waste coal piles have done and the tremendous progress that we have seen over the last number of decades in actually cleaning up the environment. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of H. Res. 762, the rule that is under consideration, and I want to talk about the SENSE Act, which is included within this rule, H.R. 1119. This is a pro-environment bill. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that coal refuse-to-energy facilities can be held to strict but achievable standards. To be clear, these plants comply with nearly all standards as it is, including mercury emissions. We are talking about a modification, a customization, as it were, in recognition of the tremendous benefit that these plants have made to the environment. I have introduced versions of this bill during prior Congresses, and I am hopeful that this bill can become law. It enjoys bipartisan support. As many of you know, coal refuse is a by-product of historic coal mining operations. Throughout many parts of coal country, towering black mounds of this material loom beside cities and towns, especially in Pennsylvania and in West Virginia. I would invite my colleague from Florida to come up to western Pennsylvania and take a look at the scarred landscape and polluted rivers we have there as a result of these coal refuse piles. Many of these piles can smoulder, can spontaneously combust, giving off emissions with no controls, zero controls. They catch fire, burning uncontrollably, sending hazardous smoke into the air and into surrounding communities. Local governments are then forced to spend increasingly scarce taxpayer resources fighting these fires. Rainwater leaches terrible chemicals from these mounds, polluting nearby rivers and streams. Fortunately, the coal refuse-to-energy industry turns this material into energy, while cleaning up and remediating many polluted sites, at no cost to the taxpayer. These power plants are really the only practical solution to this massive environmental problem that we have in Pennsylvania and West Virginia that could cost, in Pennsylvania alone, an estimated $2 billion to remediate. This is being done without taxpayer funding right now, the cleanup, because of these plants. For several years, I have spoken about the tremendous work being done by hardworking folks in this industry, which I have seen firsthand. I have stood on coal refuse piles in the process of remediation, and I have also walked on restored sites, many of which are parks and meadows, now regarded as community assets rather than liabilities. I have seen the streams that were once dead that now have fish. Despite all the good that this industry does for Pennsylvania and West Virginia, five coal refuse-to-energy facilities are under threat from Federal regulations, seemingly incapable of needed flexibility to accommodate private sector work that is actually improving the environment. If rigid EPA orthodoxy makes no exceptions for this pro-environment industry, it is not just the environment that will continue to suffer. These plants support family-sustaining jobs, and thousands of jobs are at stake if these plants are regulated out of business, both direct and indirect. I should note that many of these jobs are in localities that have already been hit exceptionally hard by both the last recession and the ongoing opioid crisis. The people expect us to stand for them, especially when their livelihoods come under threat from heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all Washington policies. So as we debate the SENSE Act, please keep in mind what the bill's supporters are fighting for. Here is what is going to happen if this law doesn't pass: rivers and streams aren't going to come back to life; hillsides aren't going to be restored; and these piles, they can spontaneously combust, again, with no emissions control whatsoever. The SENSE Act is about protecting family-sustaining jobs and ensuring the continuation of the environmental success story of the coal refuse- to-energy industry. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule and the SENSE Act. Again, are we capable of making judgments in this House? Are we capable of customizing one-size-fits all. The EPA, frankly, has recognized the work of this industry. ``Coal refuse piles,'' the EPA has said, ``are an environmental concern because of acid seepage and leachate production, spontaneous combustion, and low soil fertility. Units that burn coal refuse provide multimedia environmental benefits by combining the production of energy with the removal of coal refuse piles and by reclaiming land for productive use. Consequently, because of the unique environmental benefits that coal refuse-fired EGUs provide,'' the EPA said, ``these units warrant special consideration. . . .''

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Barr for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the National Strategy for Combating the Financing of Transnational Criminal Organizations Act. I want to thank my colleague Representative Kustoff for his work on this important issue. The Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance has been examining global criminal organizations and the threat they pose to the United States financial system. These sophisticated and dangerous organizations, like drug cartels, increasingly pose a direct threat to the safety and security of all Americans. They have fueled the opioid crisis that continues to kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, including the spread of human trafficking, among a host of other illicit activities. I want to remind my colleagues that entire communities are still plagued by this crisis, including hard-hit communities in western Pennsylvania. Beyond the opioid crisis, though, I want to highlight an exceptionally dangerous situation in which the United States finds itself. Some of the cartels are now working directly with organizations like Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, as reflected in a recent Politico article. Fortunately, the new administration is taking a tougher stance now with the announcement of a newly created Hezbollah Financing and Narcoterrorism Team. Mr. Speaker, it is about time America fought back against this growing international threat, and this bill will help ensure the government has a strategy to stay in this fight. Lives depend on it. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Mr. King for his work on the Heartbeat Protection Act. It gives us an opportunity to reflect on some of those bigger issues that we have going on in our society. This is personal to everybody. We all have our own stories of when we are in a family situation and somebody becomes pregnant. I certainly remember that when my wife and I had our first child. The first visit to the doctor when you got to hear the heartbeat was just amazing. I remember also having a subsequent appointment where the doctor couldn't find the heartbeat. We were very concerned, very worried, so they sent us to the hospital. They wanted us to have another test. It is a small town we were in. The hospital was where they had the sonogram. My wife and I were praying all the way: Please, let this baby be okay. Well, we got to the hospital and the technician did a sonogram, and, lo and behold, we saw the baby, we saw the beating heart, and we were just in awe at this new human life. Mothers and fathers are forever changed when they first hear that heartbeat, that tiny pulse that reinforces the big and beautiful reality of a precious human life. Mr. Speaker, that is why I rise in support of H.R. 490, the Heartbeat Protection Act. As a lawmaker, I took an oath to our Constitution to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. That is why I am cosponsoring this bill. This legislation protects a pre-born baby's life when his or her heartbeat is detected. A heartbeat is a very basic sign of life. The pulse represents a unique person with inherent dignity and natural, human and constitutional rights that extend throughout the continuum of life through conception until natural death. And where do these rights come from? The Founders who signed the Declaration knew, for the Declaration itself says: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.'' That is interesting, Mr. Speaker, because the first unalienable right that is identified is the right to life. Do you know who else knew? President Kennedy. President Kennedy reminded us in a different context, in the struggle against atheistic totalitarian communism. He said these words: ``And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.'' The right to life, defined in our Declaration, protected in our Constitution, and reiterated time and again by leaders across the religious and political spectrum, applies to every human life. It is easy to see who is human, if you look. Twenty-six years ago, the late Governor Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, and others, including Sargent Shriver and Eunice Kennedy Shriver, signed onto a statement regarding abortion as true today as when it was published. Under the section of that document that was titled ``Without a Doubt, a Human Life,'' Governor Casey and his coauthors observed: From the beginning, each human embryo has its own unique genetic identity. Three and a half weeks after conception, its heart starts beating. At 6 weeks, brain activity can be detected. At the end of 2 months, the limbs, fingers, and toes are complete. By 3 months, the baby is quite active, forming fists, bending arms, and curling toes. At 4 months, vocal cords, eyelashes, teeth buds, fingernails, and toenails are all present. By 5 months, the baby is sucking its thumb, punching, kicking, and going through the motions of crying. By 6 months, it responds to light and sound and can recognize its mother's voice. The statement went on: Advocates of unrestricted abortion do not want the public to focus on these undeniable facts of fetal development, but the facts cannot be ignored. They may claim that abortion is a violent act, not against potential life, but against a living, growing human being, a life with potential. Governor Casey subscribed to that belief. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Intentionally stopping a heartbeat is not healthcare. H.R. 490 recognizes what science has already affirmed: that there is a baby growing in her mother's womb, one with her own distinct heartbeat. Therefore, we have an obligation to protect the most vulnerable among us: to defend the defenseless. How can our country continue to flourish and claim itself as a champion of human rights when we allow our society to rid ourselves of our own future generations? That is why I came to the floor today to urge support for the Heartbeat Protection Act, to give our country a chance to reflect on some of the deeper questions and deeper values, to walk in solidarity with one another when one encounters a difficult situation, and to stand in each another's shoes with empathy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, as Black History Month draws to a close, I wanted to recognize one of my constituents who left her own mark on history. Just 2 days ago, on February 25, 2018, Beaver County lost one of its treasures. A Mississippi native and alumni of Viterbo University in La Crosse, Wisconsin, Maria Delitha Green, fondly known as Dee, received a registered nursing license from the St. Francis School of Nursing in 1954. In 1955, she moved to Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, where she was hired on at Providence Hospital as the first African-American registered nurse in Beaver County. Eventually, she was promoted to head nurse. Dee faced many obstacles as an African-American nurse in the 1950s, such as the reality of segregated dormitory housing. However, she did not let those barriers discourage her, believing that people would accept her for who she was. A trailblazer and diligent worker, Dee loved her job and continued her career as a nurse for 36 years, until she retired in 1990. She was a blessing to those with whom she came in contact and remained a caregiver until her health declined at the end of 2017. We are grateful for her decades of exemplary service and the outstanding model that she was. May God grant her eternal rest, and may her family be consoled with many blessed memories.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, together with my colleague Representative Beatty, I am pleased to introduce today the State Insurance Regulation Preservation Act. This legislation will ensure that the regulation of insurance savings and loan holding companies reflects our state system of insurance regulation while protecting policyholders and depositors. The Dodd-Frank Act brought insurance savings and loan holding companies under Federal Reserve Supervision for the first time. As such, these insurance companies are currently regulated by both the states, and the Federal Reserve. Consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act's reaffirmation that insurance should be regulated by the states, our legislation remedies the current structural inefficiency by allowing the Federal Reserve to ensure that the holding company is well capitalized, while leaving the day-to-day regulation to the states. The bill accomplishes this providing that insurance savings and loan holding companies that meet state and federal capital standards are regulated day-to-day by the states. The Federal Reserve would remain the backstop regulator for these companies and would retain the ability to step in if capital levels were insufficient, and also would retain general emergency authority to step as the day-to-day regulator. The thrifts in these companies would continue to be regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Federal Reserve would retain the ability to examine material subsidiaries. This legislation is important and helpful because Dodd-Frank did not provide specific instructions on how the Federal Reserve supervision should complement state insurance supervision for companies that are subject to both. We believe this legislation would create greater regulatory efficiency, without constraining the Federal Reserve's ability to fulfill its statutory mandate to protect the safety and soundness of these institutions. As we developed this bill, both members of Congress and regulators identified potential improvements to ensure that the objectives of this bill are met. In particular, we are committed to preventing gaps in regulation, and ensuring that the Federal Reserve has adequate information and authority to step in when needed. Our objective is to pass a bill that embodies sound public policy and enjoys broad bipartisan support. We look forward to continued dialogue and hope our colleagues can support this needed legislation.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, just listening to some of this debate, it seems like some folks just want to find a way to vote ``no'' on this bill when there are many reasons to vote ``yes.'' I am pleased to rise today in support of Vice Chairman McHenry's bill, H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017. I also want to commend him for his hard work on this very important issue. Under the valid-when-made doctrine, the interest rate on a loan that complies with Federal law when it is made will remain valid, regardless of whether that loan is transferred to a third party. This is an important principle, and it is essential to maintaining a vibrant secondary market and fostering continued growth in the online lending industry. The Second Circuit's decision in Madden v. Midland, which challenged the valid-when-made doctrine, introduced significant uncertainty and risk, threatening both the secondary market and fintech lending partnerships. This ultimately hurts consumers. At the Financial Services Committee, we have extensively discussed the difficulty that many Americans face in getting credit. Madden v. Midland will only intensify that challenge for families and Main Street businesses as it jeopardizes the ability of banks to sell loans into the secondary market. If banks find it difficult to sell debt to nonbanks, a common and healthy practice, they will be forced to become more restrictive in offering credit, and they may do so at a higher cost. Because of this, fewer consumers will be able to access the funds they need to build, invest, and innovate. Throughout the course of the slow and uneven postcrisis economic recovery, we settled into a two-speed economy. The biggest and richest and best-connected firms have done just fine. They have a relatively easy time accessing funds. Small businesses, however, have been struggling to keep up. In fact, many haven't even gotten off the ground. Researchers found that our economy is currently missing 650,000 small businesses; that is 650,000 fewer businesses that can innovate, create jobs, and invest in our communities. And those 650,000 businesses would have represented 6\1/2\ million jobs, 6\1/2\ million taxpayers, 6\1/2\ million people contributing to help Social Security and Medicare and helping to pay for our veterans' care. Anyone who travels this country talking to small-business owners knows that access to credit is a major cause. By codifying valid when made, this bill will help to address one of the most pressing threats to our economic recovery and the resurgence of American small business. As the OCC's former Acting Comptroller Keith Noreika noted, this ``proposal supports economic opportunity.'' H.R. 3299 will help to keep credit flowing through to those who need it, while ensuring that consumers are protected. This is a commonsense fix that provides the market with the clarity needed to support continued economic growth. I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act. I also want to thank my colleague from Utah, Representative Love, for her hard work on this important issue. We have extensively discussed the challenges that small banks face in the current regulatory environment, both on the House floor and in the Financial Services Committee, including, just yesterday, a debate on the Mortgage Choice Act. These challenges contribute to the continued retreat of community banks from small towns and underserved communities across our country, including those that dot my district in the hills and valleys of western Pennsylvania. This hurts families and Main Street businesses by depriving them of the access to financial services that they desperately need. The Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act will allow more institutions to operate under the Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement, which will help them raise additional capital by issuing debt. It will also make it easier for covered institutions to form new holding companies, fund existing holding companies, and make acquisitions. Altogether, this is a smart, targeted bill that will help more small financial institutions grow and adjust to the changing economic and regulatory landscape. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 1153, the Mortgage Choice Act. As a cosponsor of the bill and the vice chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support its passage. As we all know, community financial institutions continue to close or merge at an alarming rate. We just saw an article the other day that about 1,700 branches across the country have closed, and to go through some of the towns in western Pennsylvania where you see the only branch closed is striking. As we all know, community financial institutions continue to close or merge at an alarming rate. Bit by bit, families across America are losing access to vital financial products like home mortgages. Regulations like the qualified mortgage, or QM rule, make it even harder for Americans to get a mortgage and realize the dream of homeownership. For small mortgages, points and fees can often exceed 3 percent, which leads these mortgages to be designated as higher priced non-QM loans. This discourages financial institutions from lending to Americans with moderate incomes and first-time home buyers; that is why, because loans aren't there. Chairman Huizenga's bill wisely addresses this issue by excluding several items from the calculation of QM points and fees. The bill excludes charges paid to an affiliate of the lender for title examination or title insurance services and insurance premiums held in escrow. By excluding these items from the calculation, the bill will allow more loans to qualify as QM, opening up more credit to potential home buyers, and it will facilitate one-stop shopping. This is good for the community financial institutions that many Americans rely on for their financial service products. It will help our constituents back home access the funds they need to accomplish the dream of homeownership. Chairman Huizenga's legislation provides smart, targeted relief from the unintended consequences of burdensome regulations. Again, banks aren't making loans. We want to encourage those first-time home buyers, the moderate-income home buyers to be able to have access to mortgages. That is why I support this bill, and I again urge my colleagues to vote for the Mortgage Choice Act.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, today is State of the Union day, and it is an opportunity for the Nation to hear from the President on the progress we have been making and the challenges that lie ahead. One thing I am looking forward to is hearing about how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the regulatory reforms we have seen over the past year are causing our economy to roar back to life, creating more jobs and putting more money in people's pockets. Fifty-five years ago, President Kennedy delivered a State of the Union that recognized the power of tax cuts that put money back into the private sector. Talking about the economy, President Kennedy said: ``To achieve these greater gains, one step, above all, is essential . . . a substantial reduction and revision in Federal income taxes.'' I am glad President Trump and Congress have followed President Kennedy's and President Reagan's model. The economic revival happening today is not only lifting incomes, it is what is going to generate the tax revenues that will help us meet the challenges that lie ahead. That is something for all Americans to celebrate.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I have said it before and I will say it again: Last summer, the House passed all 12 appropriations bills before the 2018 fiscal year started on October 1. In those bills, we appropriated the funds necessary to equip our servicemembers with the resources they need to defend this country in the face of threats from North Korea, China, Russia, al-Qaida, ISIS, Iran, and cyber threats, just to name a few. Yet our servicemembers have been routinely denied access to these resources as Senate Democrats have been holding back the full funding of our armed services. In doing so, they ask our servicemembers to go into battle with aging equipment and insufficient resources, risking their lives to defend America. Just 10 days ago, we had another helicopter accident and we lost two pilots who were in an Apache. Our men and women in uniform haven't even had a modest pay raise in a very long time. It is time to deliver on this commitment. Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity at times to visit our troops overseas. I had the opportunity at the end of last year to look into the young faces of our men and women over there. They are expecting us to do this. I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle that our adversaries are on the move. Russia and China are expansionists now. North Korea and Iran fire off ballistic missiles at our allies, destabilizing those regions. There is no doubt that our inaction only emboldens them. Mr. Speaker, we must rebuild our military before it is too late. The choice is easy: we either deter our enemies through superior strength, or we risk greater conflict by demonstrating weakness. Let me be clear: what we spend on our defenses should not be a function of any other program. It should be a function of the threats our Nation faces and what we owe our servicemembers in the field. Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues across the aisle to fund our military today.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of this important bipartisan legislation, and especially the lead Democratic cosponsor, Representative Jim Himes from Connecticut. The Federal Savings Association Charter Flexibility Act is a commonsense reform bill that will help to ensure that community banks, many of which have histories stretching back generations, can continue to serve the needs of Main Street businesses and families. Specifically, this bill focuses on Federal savings associations, also known as thrifts. These institutions are similar to national banks in the sense that they are both chartered and regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the FDIC. But these banks are constrained in their ability to pursue certain lines of business under the Home Owners' Loan Act, also known as HOLA. Specifically, HOLA subjects Federal thrifts to commercial lending limits. Under what is known as the qualified thrift lender test, at least 65 percent of a Federal thrift's portfolio assets must comprise certain mortgage and consumer-related assets. These institutions are also constrained in their ability to hold commercial loans, paper, or corporate debt. In contrast, national banks enjoy the ability to engage in a much wider range of lending activities. These restrictions originally made sense because thrifts also enjoyed advantages not afforded to national banks. But changes in law have eliminated or curtailed many of those benefits, and some thrifts have expressed frustration that these restrictions prevent them from being able to meet the changing needs of their local communities. Unfortunately, thrifts have not been immune to the industrywide trend of consolidations and closures that has accelerated over the last decade. The Federal Savings Association Charter Flexibility Act provides these banks with additional flexibility to adjust to changing times and continue to serve their communities, despite these persistent headwinds. Under current law, the only option available to Federal savings associations is a costly and complicated conversion to a national bank charter. This is a particularly burdensome process for mutually chartered Federal thrifts since it requires that they first convert to stock form before converting their charter. The Federal Savings Association Charter Flexibility Act provides another, less disruptive option. Under my bill, Federal thrifts will have the ability to pursue a path that will allow them to operate with the same rights and duties as a national bank. But these banks will not have to go through the costly and cumbersome process of converting to stock form and then rechartering. Instead, the bill sets up a simple 60-day election process that will allow these institutions to become covered savings associations. It will also require the OCC, which has been supportive of this legislation and has responsibility for regulating Federal savings associations and national banks, to establish an orderly and streamlined transition process. This bill also includes important safeguards to prevent potential fire sales of assets and subsidiaries during the transition process, and it protects the OCC's ability to prevent firms from abusing the new structure. Altogether, this effort will help to ensure that time-tested community financial institutions will continue to be able to serve their customers for years to come. The Federal Savings Association Charter Flexibility Act has the support of the American Bankers Association and the Independent Community Bankers of America. It is also bipartisan, and it passed the Financial Services Committee with a 55-0 vote. Similar language has been included in the bipartisan Senate Banking Committee package, also. In short, this bill represents the sort of reasonable, commonsense, across-the-aisle reform that our constituents want to see. I want to briefly share some comments from the Pennsylvania Bankers Association, which represents a wide range of banks in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In their letter of support for this bill, they wrote: ``. . . this legislation represents sound, sensible regulatory relief.'' They also added that ``Federal savings associations are known for being responsive to their communities' needs, and this legislation will help them to expand and continue to do so.'' I ask that my colleagues support H.R. 1426, the Federal Savings Association Charter Flexibility Act.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I said, at this podium, that the resolution to the Schumer shutdown is simple: Senate Democrats need to vote ``yes'' on the short-term funding bill, and the government reopens, paychecks get processed for our troops, and the Children's Health Insurance Program is up and running. It is that simple. Understand this: the Senate Democrats chose to shut down the government because they have more interest in creating a false deadline to address the DACA issues. The fact is the legislative process is already underway to address DACA. I'm cosponsoring the Securing America's Future Act which not only addresses DACA but actually takes measures to make sure we actually solve the problem in the long term, including securing our borders, which is a big part of addressing the heroin crisis we have in our country. Let's end the Schumer shutdown, reopen the government, and continue our work to address the critical issues facing our country.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, it is simple until you make it complicated. There is a poster in my office that says just that, and it kind of describes where we are at today. We are having a lot of debate in this House about the current government funding situation, our military, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, which, by the way, House Republicans actually voted to extend more than 2 months ago and did again this past week. Here is the simple part: the Children's Health Insurance Program can be reauthorized, the government can be reopened, and paychecks sent to our troops without delay if Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey and other Senate Democrats change their votes to make that happen. The short-term funding bill and Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization is about as bipartisan and noncontroversial as you can get around here, yet Senator Schumer decided to make a crisis out of it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to ask Senator Schumer and Senator Casey: Would you vote to reopen the government today? Would it make a difference, if I said ``please?''

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, last November, more than 2 months ago, this House passed the reauthorization for the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP. The House again passed the reauthorization for CHIP this week, but last night, in addition to voting ``no'' on CHIP, Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats voted ``no'' on keeping the government funded, and here we are. The funding that Senate Democrats rejected last night includes funding for our Nation's servicemembers, tens of thousands of whom are deployed throughout the Middle East, the Pacific, and Korea. They could have voted ``yes'' to the families waiting for the Children's Health Insurance Program and ``yes'' to our troops, but they did not. There is no excuse for this. The issues of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and securing our border are being negotiated separate and apart from this funding bill and CHIP, and there are serious proposals to address these issues. Mr. Speaker, I urge Senate Democrats to change course, end the Schumer shutdown, and do what is right for the American people: pass the government funding and Children's Health Insurance Program that we sent over days ago.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This should not be a controversial vote. This bill should pass unanimously. If a little girl is born alive, she should be protected. It is that simple. Everyone in this House, everyone hearing my voice, was at a point of just having been born, and all of us had a right to live at that point, whether we were wanted or not. I wonder what the great pro-life Democrats of yesterday would think of what we are hearing from the other side today, pro-life leaders like Eunice Kennedy Shriver; Sargent Shriver; Thomas Eagleton; and, of course, the late great Governor Casey of Pennsylvania. Their rhetoric reminds me of what Governor Casey said 25 years ago: It is a bitter irony that abortion has found a home within the Democratic Party, which claims to be a champion of the poor, despite the fact that the interests of the poor are in direct conflict with the interests and the agenda of the abortion industry. Madam Speaker, this is a simple bill. Please vote for humanity. Please vote for this bill.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, last summer, the House passed all 12 appropriations bills before the fiscal year started on October 1. We appropriated nearly $650 billion to provide our servicemembers with the resources they need to defend this country in the face of threats from North Korea, China, Russia, al-Qaida, ISIS, and Iran. The House funded other Federal programs at nearly $550 billion. For the past 3\1/2\ months, however, our military and servicemembers have been operating under continuing resolutions, also known as CRs, which means they are stuck at the funding levels they had last year. That is because Senate Democrats are holding back the full funding of our defenses so they can add billions of dollars more in other Federal spending. The defense of this country, Mr. Speaker, is not some bargaining chip, and preventing our servicemembers from getting the resources they need, especially after we have seen servicemember deaths resulting from the lack of training and proper equipment, is unconscionable. As Secretary Mattis told us last year: ``Long-term CRs impact the readiness of our forces and their equipment at a time when security threats are extraordinarily high. The longer the CR, the greater the consequences for our force.'' It is way past time for Senate Democrats to end their filibustering of our Nation's defense and to start helping our servicemembers in harm's way.