Ander Crenshaw

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. This happens to be one of the most bipartisan accounts in the bill, and it is a lean program; it fills a niche that provides capital and credit in areas where often it is difficult. These are competitive grants and it is complicated to a certain extent. It is not as simple as just kind of flowing money back and forth. So I just want to urge people, to say: We don't want to reduce the funding in these areas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, first, let me say that the IRS made a real mess of this 501(c)(4). You remember, that was the section of the Code that they used to single out individuals and groups of individuals based on their political philosophy, then they went around to intimidate them, to bully them, to put extra scrutiny on them, and they made a real mess of it. But let me interrupt my opposition to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), my good friend, the ranking member, to speak in support, and then I will continue.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment Nos. 5, 6, and 7, printed in House Report 114-639, be considered en bloc.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I said, the IRS made an incredible mess of this section of the IRS code, the 501(c)(4). After they messed it up and they intimidated people and they bullied folks, then they said: Well, let's just write a new regulation. So in 2013 they came along and said: Here is how we are going to determine tax-exempt status. A lot of people said: Well, here is an effort to just kind of shut down freedom of speech. What is interesting is, instead of clearing the air, the IRS generated this incredible firestorm of criticism from all across the political spectrum. Not surprisingly, the American Center for Law and Justice, which represents Tea Party organizations targeted by the IRS, described the regulation as an attack on free speech. But among the other 160,000 comments that came, the American Civil Liberties Union said: ``The proposed rule threatens to discourage or sterilize an enormous amount of political discourse in America.'' The IRS has got plenty to do. They always complain they don't have enough money. They don't need to go out and try to write a new rule to kind of clear the air of what they messed up a couple of years ago. The only thing this new regulation did was it just kind of united liberals and conservatives. So the best thing to do is leave it like it is and reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a valued member of our subcommittee.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, for 9 years arbitration agreements have been legal, and they have been upheld by the courts. They provide an alternative method of resolving disputes. They are quicker and cheaper than the slow, more expensive court system. The provision in our bill before you merely requires the CFPB to stop and further study the use of arbitration before moving forward with this arbitration rule. In their own study, it is noted that consumers didn't select financial products like credit cards or cell phones based on whether they were subject to dispute resolution clauses or may require arbitration. And actually, studies have shown that consumers receive more compensation in arbitration than they do in class action. So you have to ask yourself: Why is the CFPB trying to go after something consumers say they don't care about but actually financially benefit from? I urge rejection of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendments.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike one of the very best and most important provisions of the bill, that is, putting the CFPB under the appropriations process. That is number one. It also would strike a provision of the current law, which merely requires the CFPB to notify Congress whenever they request money from the Federal Reserve. That is the law today. And the third thing it does is it strikes the provision that changes this CFPB, the Director, to a five-member commission. Now, the combination of these provisions introduces ordinary and customary congressional checks that most every other agency abides by. We are not asking the CFPB to do anything the Department of Defense or the State Department or the Department of Justice or the Treasury Department doesn't already do. I think it is truly ironic that the agency responsible for making consumer financial products more transparent and financial institutions more accountable is nontransparent to the Congress and to the American people. The Dodd-Frank authorizes the CFPB to fund itself by drawing money from the Federal Reserve to the extent their Director deems ``necessary.'' Now, the Federal Reserve doesn't oversee the agency. It doesn't exercise any authority over it. But the Federal Reserve must transfer the CFPB whatever funds the Director requests without asking any questions. So the Bureau has already diverted over $2 billion from the Treasury's general fund and, therefore, increased the Federal debt by $2 billion without any congressional input or approval of its activities. Now, other consumer protection agencies, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission or the Federal Trade Commission, they are both funded through the appropriations process. Why not the CFPB? With regard to the five-member commission structure, I think some more diverse viewpoints would help the CFPB understand stakeholder concerns and would make the direction of the agency a little bit more accountable. Other consumer investor protection agencies, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, they are all funded through the appropriations process, and they are all led by five-member commissions. Why not the CFPB? So this provision in the bill neither abolishes the Bureau; they don't eliminate the Bureau's funding. Instead, they will increase the Bureau's transparency and leadership, allow us to understand what it is that they are doing and how they are going about it. Let's just make the CFPB a little more transparent and a little more accountable. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, the bill before us today takes a measured approach to the Securities and Exchange Commission. A lot of people don't realize that that agency has received some of the largest increases over the last decade that a lot of agencies wish they had received. Today, we cut the SEC's funding by $50 million from the 2016 because the Commission estimates that $50 million is carryover funding from last year. In addition, we rescind money from the SEC's reserve fund, which was set up kind of like a slush fund under Dodd-Frank. That is totally outside congressional oversight. Because the Commission has been using the reserve fund for important information technology projects, we have increased funding for the IT in the bill. Now, I believe that, if we upgrade information technology, the Commission will be better able to leverage its resources, catch bad actors, and provide the quality of review that security filings deserve. To that end, the bill targets funding for another area of need within the Commission, and that is the economic analysis. I believe continuing to set aside funding to fully fund the SEC's Division of Economic and Risk Analysis is going to help the SEC's work withstand any kind of judicial review. I happen to believe that the current Chair, Mary Jo White, is steering the SEC towards prioritizing enforcement and investor protection and not so much the politically charged rulemakings. Because of that, we have kept the SEC's funding at a reasonable level. The level of funding included in this bill is more than fair and does not need to be adjusted in any way. The fact that this agency is fee-based in no way diminishes the need for congressional oversight over the Commission's funding. I would say the SEC is not starved for resources, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I just want to reiterate that we are treating the SEC very fairly. We want to make sure that the markets are safe and that they are orderly, and they are. Just giving more money to the SEC is not necessarily going to make things better. Over the years, as my colleague understands, we have increased their funding, and they still miss an occasional Madoff scandal and things like that. You don't just buy the regulation. You spend the money where you ought to spend it--cost-benefit, help them keep the markets orderly--and that is what we do in this bill. I urge the rejection of this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I think most of us would hope that we won't ever need to use the draft again, but I think the agency is an important insurance policy that we can use against unforeseen threats. In an emergency, in a wartime situation, the effects of this amendment could be disastrous. This is a small price to pay for an agency that has the potential to avert a crisis should the draft ever need to be reinstated. The voluntary military we have maintained for 40 years is, certainly, the preferred method of defending our Nation. We have got the best- trained and the best-equipped military in the world. But the decision on the issue to support and to maintain the Selective Service System is a decision that should be made by the Department of Defense. I believe that this is a small price to pay to make sure that we have this ability should we ever need it. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I just want to note that the overwhelming ``fantasy'' that the gentleman refers to was shared on a bipartisan basis, overwhelmingly, in rejecting this amendment a couple of years ago. This is not a brand new idea. And we appreciate the gentleman's bringing it before us, but in the military, they talk about things that you don't know. You do not know what you do not know. I believe that this is a small price to pay to make sure that we have this ability, should a crisis occur, in that we might save thousands-- if not millions--of lives. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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