Ken Buck

Mr. BUCK

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Just 3 weeks ago, we hosted a small lender in my district office who was being hindered in his efforts to serve home buyers in eastern Colorado. Why? Washington, in its unyielding effort to regulate every decision of Americans, lumped this lender into a broader regulation that came out of the housing crisis 10 years ago. This isn't some theoretical exercise. These regulations have real impact on Coloradans. The last time I was on the floor debating these issues, I discussed the affordable housing situation in Colorado. Without completely recounting that debate, I want to reiterate the basic facts. From 2009 to 2016, Colorado had a net increase of 600,000 people. In that same time, housing costs skyrocketed by more than 57 percent. Since 2016, our growth has begun to fall off considerably. When The Denver Post researched why a State with a high quality of life and decades more growth potential had a dramatically slowing growth rate, they found that a substantial part of it had to do with rising housing costs. We must reconsider our Washington-knows-best regulatory approach. We here in Washington can't possibly know what is the best for a potential home buyer in Trinidad or Las Animas or Fort Morgan or Greeley or Castle Rock, Colorado. I, for one, am tired of the arrogance of Washington telling us in eastern Colorado which banks we can and can't use to finance our mortgages. It is time that we bring financial accountability to the place that needs it most: Washington. That is what these two financial bills do. They return power to the American people. They reduce unnecessary regulations on small community banks and credit unions, thereby freeing up capital that small businesses and employers can access to create new jobs. They make commonsense changes to Federal laws so that regulators have to routinely review their regulations to ensure that the regulations are not overly burdensome. Eastern Coloradans are frustrated with the Washington-knows-best mindset of their government, and I am listening to them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a member of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to close debate by reviewing a few basic truths. In the aftermath of the financial meltdown last decade, Washington embarked on a campaign to reduce the power of Wall Street over Americans. In typical Washington fashion, we, instead, got a monstrosity of a new regulatory infrastructure that has all but snuffed out Main Street lenders. The plan to reduce Wall Street's influence actually increased it. This House--not the Senate, because the Senate has refused to act-- listened to the American people and passed the Financial CHOICE Act. Instead of embarking on a campaign that hurt American people and propped up Wall Street, we set out with one goal: increase the financial freedom of Americans. And we did that. We passed a bill that would make substantive changes to our financial regulations to the betterment of Americans. These bills before us today continue on that path. They recognize that this government should work for all Americans, not just those who can afford political connections. Eastern Coloradans should know that I serve them and them alone. As long as I have this responsibility to represent them, I will work to reduce Washington's role in their life. I thank Chairman Hensarling for his leadership on the Financial CHOICE Act and these bills. I hope that he will remain engaged in this effort as he commences the next chapter in his life at the end of this Congress. I thank Chairman Sessions for his leadership in bringing this debate to the floor today. We must never yield in putting Americans first in our public policy. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BUCK

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. This rule makes in order two bills reported favorably by the Committee on Financial Services and one bill reported favorably by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I just want to take a moment at the beginning to point out that there are no amendments made in order by this rule because there were no amendments offered to any of these bills. Both of the Financial Services bills were the subject of hearings in the committee last year. Both bills were reported out of committee with bipartisan support of 75 percent or more of the committee members. The Energy and Commerce bill was reported favorably by the committee with a large bipartisan vote of 39-14. The rule also provides us with the necessary tools to ensure that we can bring government funding measures to the floor quickly to prevent a government shutdown. Mr. Speaker, we have three bills before us today. Each of these bills deals with one underlying problem: Washington overregulation. That is it. These are not bills protecting Americans from some foreign hostile force. These are bills protecting Americans from the overreach of their own government. It is a sad time in which we find ourselves when we must dedicate legislative effort to undoing the harmful effects of the American government on the American people. Mr. Speaker, in 2013, the CFPB issued its rule commonly referred to as the qualified mortgage rule, or the QM rule. The QM rule requires creditors to make a good faith effort to determine a customer's ability to repay a loan if the loan is secured by a home. However, the rule creates a legal safe harbor from liability under the rule for qualified mortgages. One aspect of a qualified mortgage is that it cannot have total points and fees exceeding 3 percent of the total loan amount if the loan amount is at least $100,000. However, some fees may be excluded from the points and fees cap if they are reasonable and the lender or any affiliate of the lender receives no compensation from the service. This all sounds well and good. We certainly don't want predatory lending institutions referring business to themselves just to pad their bottom line at the expense of unsuspecting borrowers. But this is a great example of how massive, one-size-fits-all Washington regulation often ends up hurting Americans. The result of the points and fees cap within the QM rule has been to place low- and moderate-income borrowers in a position where they end up spending more money to secure a loan. Mr. Speaker, my home State of Colorado has been experiencing explosive population growth over the past decade and longer. Between 2009 and 2016, we added a net increase of more than 600,000 people. But home prices also increased significantly over that time, more than 57 percent. In 2016, according to The Denver Post, we had the lowest growth we have experienced in many years at only a 30,000-person net increase. In part, the slowing growth rate has to do with rising housing costs. This is why it is vitally important that many first-time homeowners and others have access to affordable loans. Government regulation should not be a part of driving up housing costs. Why does this happen? Why does a Federal regulation result in hurting the very people it is intended to help? It is simple: Washington regulators cannot take into account the unique circumstances of each individual American. This is a crucial difference between the common sense of Americans across this land and the self-importance of some here in D.C. Many in D.C. believe firmly that the Federal Government is able to protect every American from every bad experience. They express enormous faith in so-called experts who believe they can effectively govern from afar the lives of Americans. I reject this notion. I reject the belief that a class of enlightened experts and bureaucrats in Washington can better run the lives of individuals. That philosophy deprives Americans of the freedom to make their own choices. When Washington's power expands, individual liberty retreats. So we have to have bills like the ones before us today. The Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill required the CFPB to issue the QM rule. The QM rule was supposed to help low- to moderate-income borrowers save money, but, instead, the QM rule created a situation where low- and moderate-income borrowers cannot take advantage of discounted services offered by their lender. The rule forces these borrowers to secure these services from third parties which almost always charge more than the lenders would charge for the same services. The negative impact of this rule is so abundantly clear that half of the committee's Democrats voted with all of the Republicans in support of fixing this provision of Dodd-Frank. Passing this bill will not magically cause housing in Colorado to become more affordable, but it will eliminate an unnecessary regulation that needlessly drives up borrowing costs. Mr. Speaker, in addition to rolling back Dodd-Frank regulations, the second Financial Services bill that we have before us today protects the ability of small banks to issue debt and raise capital. The Federal Reserve generally discourages bank holding companies from using debt to finance acquisitions, particularly the purchasing of banks. However, the Federal Reserve carved out certain small bank holding companies. In order to be considered a small bank holding company, these companies had an asset cap of $150 million. By 2015, the cap had been increased to $1 billion. The bill before us today increases the cap to $3 billion. As we have heard last night during testimony at the Rules Committee, there is no science or data behind the level of the cap. Think about that for a second. The government has established a cap that has a negative impact on our community banks, and the cap has no basis in anything, not science, not data, not historical financial patterns, nothing. The cap is simply a whim of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. It is time we allow our community banks to have an avenue to continue being locally owned and based in our communities rather than being bought out by Wall Street. Today we have two Financial Services bills before us that reduce regulations and allow Coloradans and all Americans greater freedom in the choice of banking services. I urge support of these two bills. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUCK. He does.

Mr. BUCK. I don't believe he owns more than 20.

Mr. BUCK. I will pass that information on to Lamont, although I disagree with your reading.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 725 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to my friend from Florida that we were both here on the floor as the House of Representatives passed all 12 appropriations bills in early September. As we look across to the other side of the Capitol, not much work has been done on those appropriations bills since they left the House and traveled to the Senate. The answer to the continuing problem that we have with continuing resolutions is to find Members of the Senate who are willing to work as hard as the House has and pass appropriations bills and fund the government. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening right now, and I hope we do pass a continuing resolution, I hope we do fund the military, and I hope we give some more stability to this government. But the finger pointing in this case I don't think is warranted in the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love).

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to turn now to the final bill made in order under this rule, the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act. Mr. Speaker, in 2016, I had the privilege to visit with one of my constituents, Lamont Muchmore. Lamont owns a Papa John's pizza franchise and invited me to come to his restaurant. He even taught me how to throw, or how to toss--maybe throw, maybe toss--a pizza. It was a great experience. I got to meet members of his team and hear about their professional goals. I am happy to say that the American Dream is alive within the hearts of the people of Colorado. However, my visit with Lamont was not without concern. You see, recently, Washington had decided to push a hugely disruptive regulation on our food service industry. In the interest of ensuring Americans had information on their food choices, Washington crafted a one-size-fits-all mandate that every menu item be labeled with its nutritional content. As someone who has become extremely aware of the quality of foods that I consume, I certainly understand the do-good intentions behind this kind of regulation. But the impact on businesses like Lamont's has been substantial. In fact, some businesses have no realistic way of complying with the rules. Further, the law that put these regulations in place, ObamaCare, placed criminal penalties on those who fail to comply. How ridiculous is that? If you mislabel or fail to properly label the calorie count on a menu item, you could be fined and go to jail. The bill before us today rectifies some of the harm done by this rule. The bill allows multiple avenues for businesses such as Lamont's pizza restaurant to comply with menu labeling requirements in the most cost-effective manner possible. While I don't believe the Federal Government needs to require the calorie count of a food item on a menu in Colorado, this bill offers a compromise. Americans will still have access to nutrition information about the food they are purchasing, while businesses will be able to provide a variety of prepared and local foods without fear of major penalties if one serving happens to be slightly different in its calorie count than the last serving. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to visit with Coloradans who are working hard to build their businesses, provide for their families and community, and employ people, only to be met with the constant headwind that our Federal Government blows in their faces through its Washington-knows-best regulatory schemes. Washington should get out of the way and let Americans do what we do best: cultivate our resources for the good of our family and neighbors. I think often of Coloradans like Lamont. It is men and women like him all across this great land that are doing the important work. I am committed to ensuring that this Federal Government stops jeopardizing their hard-won success, and that Washington's so-called experts give honor where it is due: to the hardworking American people. I thank Lamont for taking the time out of his day to visit with me. This bill answers the needs of his team, and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUCK. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Washington is out of step with the vast majority of the American people. It is true that we often do work here that moves our country forward, that protects this great land, but it is also true that there is a competing worldview in this City which seeks to rule over the American people. In Colorado, we have experienced the negative effects of overreach by the Federal Government. How is it that regulators living 1,700 miles away from us believe they can create rules that take into account our needs and that respect our way of life? It is just not possible. Washington is good at stamping out large Federal programs. The problem is that it usually stamps out individual liberty in the process. This City must stop telling the people of Colorado how to live every detail of their lives. Washington's so-called experts must stop burying Colorado businessmen and -women under piles of rules. If we truly free our people to grow and pursue their hopes and dreams, we will experience a renaissance of growth unmatched in our history. This Congress has done good work in rolling back the strong arm of the Federal Government, but there is more work to do. These bills before us continue what should be a never-ending pursuit of giving back to the people their personal liberty which has been confiscated by overreaching Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling and Chairman Walden for their work on these bills. I thank Chairman Sessions for bringing these bills to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bills and the rule.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BUCK

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. BUCK

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 693 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. This rule makes in order two bills reported favorably by the Committee on Financial Services. In addition, the rule makes in order a majority of the amendments submitted. These bills were the subject of hearings in the Financial Services Committee, and both were marked up and reported favorably to the House. Both bills received bipartisan support in the committee, and I expect that we will see bipartisan support for both bills on the floor this week. Mr. Speaker, formed in 1944, the World Bank is the oldest multilateral development bank. As a post-World War II effort of international cooperation, the goal of the World Bank was to fund reconstruction efforts in war-torn nations. In 1960, the United States pushed for the creation of the International Development Association within the World Bank. Where the original World Bank division funded middle-income countries, the IDA was created to make concessional loans; that is, loans with low interest rates and long repayment periods to the world's poorest countries. The number of countries served by the IDA currently stands at 75. The IDA is typically the single largest source of funding for critical social programs in these low-income countries. However, the bill before us reduces the United States' contribution to the IDA. The IDA is funded through replenishments by donor countries. We are currently in the 18th replenishment period, known as IDA-18. The bill reduces the United States' contribution in IDA-18 by 15 percent. Further, the bill requires that the Treasury Department certify that the World Bank reform its practices and lending controls in relation to the IDA. A 2016 report commissioned by the World Bank reveals serious problems with one particular IDA project in Uganda. While IDA's role is to reduce inequality and support the development of civil society, the report outlines numerous failures to achieve these objectives on the part of the IDA. The report details how IDA financing of a project in Uganda led to systemic spreading of HIV/AIDS, sexual abuse of minors, child labor, retaliation against local citizens, gender-based violence, and other gross abuses of powerless Ugandans. While the IDA took several steps, including withdrawing some loans from this particular project, there is much concern that this project is indicative of many others. The House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing at which testimony was received from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists indicating that governments that allow or participate in the abuse of their citizens and the subjugation of the poor have not been turned away by the World Bank. The testimony reads in part: ``We found instead that the bank repeatedly funded governments that not only failed to adequately resettle communities, but in some cases were accused of human rights abuses such as rape, murder, and violent evictions associated with bank projects. We found in several cases that the World Bank continued to bankroll these borrowers even after evidence of these abuses came to light.'' Mr. Speaker, the IDA has a quality control problem, and we are right in reducing their funding. As if the abuse of citizens by corrupt governments is not enough, the committee has also uncovered evidence that the World Bank has serious internal problems as well. According to the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank staff has long been incentivized to simply get more loans out the door without any incentive to ensure the quality of the projects. This has been a longstanding trend documented since the early 1990s. But it is not just perverse incentives. The World Bank has not focused enough on rigidly guarding itself against internal corruption. A professor from Caltech testified before the committee that it was common for World Bank projects to be captured by corrupt governments and that World Bank staff try to suppress corruption investigations. She said: ``Corruption investigations can shut down projects and derail careers. They are also inconvenient for senior management in the bank who are balancing delicate relationships with their country clients.'' Due to these problems, the underlying bill protects American taxpayers by withholding funding from the World Bank until these deficiencies are fixed. Mr. Speaker, not only should we be holding international organizations accountable, we should also be holding our own government accountable, and the second bill made in order under this rule does just that. In 2011, Dodd-Frank transferred to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulatory authority over home mortgages. Since then, CFPB has made information reporting by lenders more extensive. The impact of these increased regulations has led to greater costs to lenders. Consequently, smaller lenders have had to pass on these costs directly to potential borrowers. This has reduced access to affordable credit to borrowers who would typically seek out smaller lending institutions. The underlying bill is simple: exempt small lenders from CFPB's onerous reporting requirements. Under the leadership of Chairman Hensarling, House Republicans have consistently put forward a plan to reform the CFPB. However, until we can pass broader reforms, we should do everything we can to protect Americans from harmful regulations pushed on them by the CFPB. Today, we have two bills before us that hold powerful organizations accountable to American taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and these bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend from Colorado that the House did pass the Children's Health Insurance Program bill in November. We did send it to the Senate. Perhaps if he could talk to the leadership in his party over in the Senate, we could get that bill passed in the Senate instead of blocked, and we could deal with a very important issue, an issue in Colorado that is absolutely essential, because the money is running out in Colorado, one of the few States where it is even more important than many of the other States. I appreciate my colleague's concern on this issue. I share his concern. The House acted responsibly in a broad, bipartisan bill. Hopefully, we can get our friends over in the Senate to get more done. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), my good friend and the sponsor of one of the bills today.