Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, as originally introduced, H.R. 1195 was that rare piece of legislation with bipartisan support. It supported the simple proposition that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) could benefit from the guidance of advisory councils comprised of representatives from small businesses, credit unions, and community banks. As introduced, the legislation would have required the CFPB to hear from small business representatives regarding the impact of proposed rules on financial products used by consumers for family and household purposes. The bill also encouraged the CFPB to ensure the participation of credits unions and community banks that serve traditionally underserved communities. The CFPB--and all relevant government agencies--should continue to focus on expanding banking opportunities in underserved communities, which are too often subjected to the worst forms of predatory financial practices. According to the Corporation for Enterprise Development, my hometown of Baltimore, Maryland, is one of the top ten unbanked large cities in the country--13.9 percent of residents have no checking or savings account, and more than one in four residents is underbanked. Too many of these folks rely on alternative financial services like check- cashing stores, rent-to-own agreements, or pawnshops. While Maryland has instituted a 33 percent usury cap and storefront payday lending operations do not exist in the state, Maryland residents with small-dollar credit needs have continued to turn to on-line lenders--lenders that are too often perpetrating fraudulent and abusive practices. But this does not need to be the reality in Baltimore or any American city. According to the Urban Institute, the small-dollar credit market in the United States reached approximately $21.4 billion in 2012. Credit unions and community banks across the country have begun to tap into this market by experimenting with small-dollar, short-term loans that help consumers stretch their monthly budgets or pay for emergency expenses without trapping them in a cycle of debt. The CFPB has taken a critical first step toward reforming the small- dollar industry by releasing proposals for a potential rule that would require short-term lenders to either ensure borrowers have the ability to repay their loans or to provide affordable repayment plans. This is why I was so disappointed by a recent amendment to H.R. 1195 from the Rules Committee that would pay for the new advisory councils the bill would create by capping or reducing the CFPB budget by $45 million over five years and $100 million over ten years. In contrast, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the new councils would cost only $9 million over ten years--confirming that the new amendment is nothing more than an attempt to slash the CFPB budget. By transforming a simple bill into a major budget cut, this amendment is simply another in a series of continuing attacks on the work of the CFPB, which has provided $5.3 billion in relief to consumers since its creation. Just as the CFPB embarks on its latest effort to protect consumers from predatory and abusive practices, we simply cannot afford a weakened consumer protection agency. As amended, H.R. 1195 is not only a disappointment--it's an insult to the same underserved communities the bill would have helped the CFPB to better serve. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and its attempt to undercut protections for working American families.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1563, the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2015. The bill seeks to resolve a problem of tax compliance that simply does not exist--a fact confirmed by the Internal Revenue Service. This measure is based on ideology rather than on facts, and it will perpetuate a negative image of Federal workers. This legislation is very similar to H.R. 249, introduced in the last Congress, which I opposed in committee and on this House floor. I remain opposed to this legislation because the purpose and intent of the bill is the same as the measure from last Congress. It would require Federal agencies to fire Federal employees who are delinquent in paying their taxes. Everyone, including Federal employees, should pay their taxes. There is no argument on that. My Republican colleagues seem to believe that there is a serious problem with Federal employees not paying their taxes and that it requires a legislative fix. There is not, and the chairman, I think, admitted that. Last Congress, after committee consideration, former committee chairman--Chairman Issa--and I sought information from the IRS on their rules and procedures regarding debt collections, options for resolving delinquencies, and payment options. Without waiting for these answers, the Republican leadership rushed this bill to the floor. During this Congress, we were able to obtain valuable information from the IRS which the Republicans have chosen to ignore by bringing this legislation to the floor. The IRS has a mechanism in place already to recoup funds from Federal employees who fail to pay their taxes. It is known as the Federal Payment Levy Program. Under this program, the IRS can impose a continuous levy on Federal salaries and pensions up to 15 percent until the debt is paid. The IRS can initiate additional levies in cases when it determines that it is appropriate to do so. Data from the IRS shows that all Federal employees who owe taxes and who do not qualify for financial hardship exemptions or who are not involved in bankruptcy, litigation, or pending offers in compromise are subject to having their wages levied. That can happen today. Since the start of the levy program, the IRS has been extremely successful in recovering delinquent taxes from Federal employees. According to the IRS, the levy program has collected over $5 billion since 2000. These facts indicate that the IRS is succeeding in recovering delinquent taxes in 100 percent or in nearly all cases involving Federal employees. The fact is that the IRS has confirmed that it does not have a problem in collecting delinquent taxes from Federal employees. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not see a problem with the government's ability to recover delinquent taxes from Federal employees. I do not understand why, despite this fact, we are debating this measure on the floor today. According to the IRS, the 2014 tax compliance rate for the Federal community was 97 percent. This is higher than the 95 percent tax compliance rate for Members and staffs of the House of Representatives. It is also much higher than the 91 percent compliance rate for the general public. This legislation is designed to demonize Federal employees rather than to help the government recoup delinquent taxes. It is interesting to note that we want to collect the taxes, but we will never get them if we fire people. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that these proposals would increase costs, by the way, to the taxpayers. Let me repeat. The CBO determined that these provisions would actually increase costs. That is because it would require agencies to spend time and resources in reviewing public records to find tax liens filed against current or prospective employees even though the gains would be minimal. Keep in mind that we already have a process to levy these funds that might be delinquent. For these reasons and more, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this measure. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want somebody to answer for me: How do you get the money from somebody who is fired, who has no job? With that, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend.

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), my good friend.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Unfortunately, all that is in this bill is pure symbolism without any substance, and it is very, very sad. I am disappointed to say that the House majority seems more interested in ideology and political messaging rather than facts and evidence. Here are the facts. There is no problem to solve. The IRS confirmed that they have no problem collecting delinquent taxes from Federal employees. Federal employees have a much higher tax compliance rate than the American public and even Members of Congress and their staffs. CBO has estimated that implementation of this measure will actually increase the cost to American taxpayers. I, again, ask the question: When somebody is fired and does not have a job, where does the money come from? The fact is that we already have mechanisms in place to get the money. I do believe with all my heart that this is another effort to demonize our Federal employees, and it is very, very sad. I urge all Members to vote against this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act included provisions that prohibited mortgage lenders from using their title insurance affiliates to gouge consumers. Dodd-Frank created a new category of mortgages called Qualified Mortgages (QM). Lenders that issue these mortgages are granted special legal protection in exchange for keeping costs for consumers below a certain threshold. The costs considered under the QM standard encompass all compensation a mortgage lender receives--including title insurance costs a consumer pays to a company affiliated with a lender. These provisions recognized an unfortunate reality: many lenders use their title insurance affiliates to charge consumers unnecessarily high fees. According to a 2007 report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), for example, 70 cents of every dollar paid for title fees go toward lining the pockets of agents--not covering losses for the lender. And the nature of the title insurance market has also opened the door to fraud against homeowners. Just recently in my home state of Maryland, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Maryland Attorney General negotiated a $35.7 million settlement against Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase after finding that loan officers at these banks received illegal kickbacks to steer customers to a Maryland-based title company. Americans seeking to purchase a home deserve better from the title insurance market. And by including affiliated insurance fees in its definition of costs, the QM standard represents an important first step in protecting consumers from collusion and price-gouging. Rather than strengthen these protections, however, H.R. 685 would create loopholes to exempt affiliated insurance fees from the QM cost definition and allow lenders to hit borrowers with hundreds and even thousands of dollars in unnecessary mortgage costs. By rolling back protections for borrowers and raising mortgage costs, H.R. 685 would hurt homebuyers just as our housing sector is beginning to stabilize from the consequences of a financial crisis caused by unscrupulous and abusive practices. I urge my colleagues to reject this destructive bill.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1562, the Contracting and Tax Accountability Act. This bill is nearly identical to a bill introduced in the last two Congresses by Chairman Chaffetz and is very similar to legislation reported by the Oversight Committee and passed by the House in the 110th Congress. I supported this legislation each time it has been introduced, and I continue to support it today. The Government Accountability Office has reported that government contractors owed more than $5 billion in unpaid Federal taxes in 2004 and 2005. Unpaid taxes owed by contractors include payroll taxes-- amounts required to be withheld from employee wages--as well as corporate income taxes. GAO has also found that some contractors with unpaid tax debts are repeat offenders that have failed to pay their taxes over many years, including one case for almost 20 years. This legislation will allow the Federal Government to make sure that contractors seeking to do business with the Federal Government have paid their taxes before they can receive a Federal contract. The Federal acquisition regulation was revised in 2008 to require contractors to certify that they do not owe a delinquent tax debt to the Federal Government. This bill builds on that requirement by providing Federal agencies the means to verify contractors' claims. This legislation will also ensure that responsible contractors no longer have to compete with tax delinquents. I would just like to reiterate that I fully support the legislation. It is imperative that we ensure that all contractors that are doing business with the government have complied with their tax obligations. I believe this bill does just that. I urge all of our Members to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to remind the gentleman before he leaves the Chamber that there is truth here. The truth is that the CBO has already estimated that this bill will cost some $18 million. There is also truth here with regard to what has happened to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--the very bureau that this Congress established to protect our consumers on a day-to-day basis--and its losing some $36 million. That is the transparency. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to really oppose this amendment. This amendment would add a requirement that agencies evaluate the impacts of a rule on private property owners. I do not object to this requirement in isolation. The problem is that this amendment adds one more requirement to the layers of red tape this bill already adds to the rulemaking process. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 12 of the bill. Section 12 would require an agency to perform a retrospective analysis of any existing rule any time a committee chairman or ranking member asked for it. Under this section, any one of nearly 100 Members of Congress could tie an agency up in knots, forcing review after review of any existing rule. I asked the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service to analyze the constitutionality of this section. CRS provided my staff with a memo that found that section 12 of H.R. 50 raises a serious constitutional question. CRS evaluated the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha. In that case, the Court held that Congress can exercise its legislative authority only through bicameral passage of legislation that is then presented to the President. CRS evaluated whether giving individual Members of Congress the authority to demand agency action would violate that requirement. Here is what CRS found: ``It could be argued that imbuing certain Members with the authority to demand that an agency prepare a report under section 12 is an action of sufficient legislative character and effect as to trigger the bicameralism and presentment requirements of article I.'' CRS also found there is a ``tenable argument that the provisions of section 12 raise constitutional concerns of the magnitude addressed in Chadha.'' Congress certainly has a legitimate interest in conducting oversight of agency actions. It is appropriate for House committees to request information about agency rules and how they can be improved, but committees already have the opportunity to conduct that type of oversight. We don't need to require in legislation that an agency conduct an entirely new cost-benefit analysis for potentially every rule on the books at the whim of individual Members of Congress. CRS notes that Congress could conduct these reviews as part of its oversight prerogative. CRS goes on to note, however, that if these reviews were considered part of congressional oversight rather than an exercise of legislative authority, they ``would leave open significant and unresolved questions regarding the parameters of congressional oversight authority.'' These questions are significant enough to warrant stripping this section from the bill. In addition, section 12 would threaten the ability of agencies to carry out their missions. The more time an agency spends responding to demands for rule reviews, the less time it is spending performing the work it is supposed to be doing. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the things that we have to keep in mind, the President is the President. You are talking about 100 Members of Congress, as opposed to the President. The President has done this, and the chairman admits that they are already behind. So now what we are going to do is bring in a whole new 100 people, at a whim, to say, We don't like something and let's pull it back. No. I think we are better than that, and I think it does have constitutional problems. I think enough is being done, and I am glad to hear somebody giving the President some credit for something. The fact is that he has been most aggressive in this area. I don't think that this provision is needed, and I would urge Members to vote in favor of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this commonsense amendment. The legislation we are considering today has been sold by supporters as a jobs bill. Give me a break. This amendment simply says that if the economy doesn't improve the way the bill's supporters say it will, then the bill will sunset. It is as simple as that. The amendment would leave the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act untouched. This sunset provision would only impact the changes made by this bill. For those reasons, I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.