Shelley Capito

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mrs. CAPITO. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to just start by saying I am absolutely amazed at this amendment and that my ranking member is in favor of it, considering that she voted for the bill and that she is voting to strike the section of the oversight, of the FSOC, that she and others who wrote the bill put in there, because that's basically what this amendment does. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say today is a nice day, but we have 9.2 percent unemployment. It is not a day that I want to keep repeating when there are so many people out of work. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining, please.

Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee and chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), and I thank him for his hard work on this issue.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the other side that we're not changing, taking any powers away from the CFPB. We're not reforming any of the reach of the CFPB. We are simply looking at the accountability structure of who is going to be governing the CFPB. The gentlewoman from New York was very helpful in committee when we amended the commission to have one commissioner particularly looking at specialty issues concerning veterans and elderly and children, and I thank her for her input on that. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), a great member of our committee.

Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the committee.

Mrs. CAPITO. No, I will not. So I say to myself, what kind of priority is this administration putting on this marquis part of the Dodd-Frank bill? I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), our vice chair.

Mrs. CAPITO. I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, a year ago, the President signed into law the most sweeping financial regulatory reform package in nearly a generation. The centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank Act was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. While there was nearly unanimous agreement that improvements were needed in the regulatory structure for financial services and consumer credit, we as Republicans did not agree that the best answer to the problems was creating an entirely new bureaucracy. No legislation is perfect, and Dodd-Frank is a law that needs to be improved and refined. The legislation before us today marks an important step in improving the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I would like to thank both Chairman Bachus and Mr. Duffy for their leadership on this issue. The creation of the CFPB presents the first time in which consumer protection and safety and soundness regulation will not be handled by the prudential financial regulators for institutions over $10 billion in assets. While we do not disagree that many of the prudential regulators failed to uphold their responsibilities in the years leading up to the financial crisis, there is a legitimate concern in separating consumer protection from safety and soundness. This is why H.R. 1315 is a much needed improvement to the Dodd-Frank Act. The act gives the Financial Stability Oversight Council, also known as FSOC, the ability to override a CFPB rule or regulation. However, the threshold is set so high for the FSOC to consider the overturning of a CFPB rule or regulation that, in reality, it will never happen. Furthermore, a two-thirds majority of the FSOC is needed to overturn the rule or regulation once the petition is filed. This simply sets the bar too high and further exacerbates the problem presented by separating consumer protection from safety and soundness. This is Mr. Duffy's bill, and it will lower the threshold for petitioning the FSOC to ``regulation which is the subject of the petition that is inconsistent with the safe and sound operations of United States financial institutions,'' and will require a simple majority of the FSOC to overturn a CFPB rule or regulation. This is a critical improvement to the CFPB that will ensure that CFPB regulations strike the balance between consumer protection and safety and soundness. The Rules Committee Print also includes two bills that the Financial Services Committee has reported favorably. The first represents an important change to the leadership structure of the CFPB that will provide greater stability in leadership and moderation in rulemaking. As we have seen over the last 9 months, the current leadership structure provided for the CFPB is subject to toxic political fights. Individuals and groups from across the political spectrum have advocated for whom they believe to be the ideal candidate and, in some cases, the only acceptable candidate. This is not good for consumers, and it is not good for the legitimacy of the agency. Rather than a single director, we are advocating for a five-person commission. This strengthens the leadership of the CFPB in two ways. First, a commission provides greater stability in leadership. We are all aware of the challenges in the Senate's ability to approve nominees. A commission where the individual commissioners are staggered in their terms will provide greater stability by ensuring there is always some form of leadership at the CFPB. A commission will also provide greater consistency, not only in rulemaking, but also in administration. I fear that a single director will set up a situation in which the leadership of the CFPB will be subject to the variances in ideology from one administration to another when the director is appointed. Consumers stand to lose the most if we have a situation in which the directorship of the CFPB swings back and forth between the extremes of the political spectrum. Finally, H.R. 1315 includes legislation that I introduced to prevent the transfer of full powers to the CFPB, which should begin today, until there is a Senate-confirmed director or chairman in place. Personally, I think this is really good government. We are talking about an agency that is sailing into unchartered waters without a captain of the ship. It is irresponsible to proceed without a leader confirmed by the Senate. In conclusion, I know that the creation of the CFPB is a source of great passion, and I look forward to discussing these bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPITO. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPITO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I really am just amazed at the hyperbole of the dismantling and the ruining of the agency and the weakening of the agency. The Bureau will go forward with all of the consumer protections that it's empowered with in the Dodd-Frank bill. The original intent was a commission. We go back to a commission. Let me just tell you, the President has had an entire year to nominate this very important person to lead this Bureau, and it wasn't until the beginning of this week, Monday, did he finally get around to it. What kind of signal does that send? At least to me, it sends a signal that it really isn't all that important to have that person there Senate-confirmed, as the minority leader said, with the oversight of the United States Senate. And let's talk about the Financial Services Oversight Commission. There are 10 people on there. I am going to go through them quickly because I don't want to use too much time. Secretary of the Treasury, he's confirmed; Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Bernanke, he's confirmed; Director of the CFPB, somebody was nominated 4 days ago, empty; Chairman of the FDIC, Acting Director, a nomination, but nobody confirmed; Controller of the Currency, Acting Director, no one confirmed; Chairman of the NCUA, confirmed; Chairman of the SEC, confirmed; Chairman of the CFTC, confirmed; Director of the FHFA, Acting Director, no nominee; and he just nominated the insurance specialist. Five of the people on this 10-person commission are not even permanently----

Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a leader on our Financial Services Committee and chairman of the Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1315 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. I would like to thank my colleagues here today for the opportunity to talk about something that is extremely important to every woman in America, every person in America. It is not really a man or woman thing, or a child or a grandparent thing. It is all of us. So I look at things a lot of times, like a lot of people, I try to put my own life filter over what is going on here. I'm in the sandwich generation. I have elderly parents who are having bumpy roads with their health. I just today for the very first time had my only and most beautiful granddaughter with me today on the House floor. I realized poor little Celia has $45,000 worth of national debt on her head. And then I think of my parents trying to manage their health care and their finances in their senior years: have they prepared enough, and did they make the right choices. I think about all of the in-between generation, the sandwich generation which I am, and I know that we want to make the right choices for ourselves so when our children are taking care of us, those decisions can be easier for them and we can be well prepared. Quite honestly, with a $14 trillion debt, I don't think we're going to be prepared. What kind of handcuffs are we putting on our future generation? I think about times in my life when maybe I have gone up to the limit on my credit card or maybe things haven't been as--particularly when we were younger, trying to buy a house for the first time and trying to figure out how we were going to manage the dollars when we were first getting started, and when we realized maybe we were going a little over the limit or spending too much, was the first thing we thought about, was it let's get a loan, let's ask our parents for more money? No, the first thing you think about is how are we going to cut back? How are we going to save? How are we going to live within our means? Because that is the reasonable and rational way. That is the way that our parents did it, and that's the way we've tried to do it. But that's not the way things go on here in Washington. A lot of people say why is it only about cutting spending. Because if we don't prove and show we can cut spending at the beginning before we talk about anything else, we are never going to do it. I think those are the hard decisions. Those are the kitchen-table decisions. All great change in America begins at the dinner table. That is a Ronald Reagan quote. That is absolutely true. That is why I think the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill that we passed yesterday makes so much sense to a lot of American women around the kitchen table because that's what they're doing. And so I think when we think about it in terms of the balanced budget, when I listened to the debate yesterday, I think about my home State of West Virginia. We have a balanced budget. We have hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus right now because we are not permitted by law to spend more than we bring in. And so we had a good year this year for a lot of different reasons. But I think some of it is the smart budgeting that we did up front as a State--make tough decisions as a State to make sure that at the end of the year we're not dipping into the rainy day fund, that we're not finding ourselves saying the only way we can save ourselves is to raise somebody's taxes. It's because the spending decisions that were made in the front end with a budget--we have a budget for the first time in, I think, 3 years in the House. And everybody around their kitchen table makes a budget. If they don't make it every year, certainly when they're in trouble they start making a budget. You do really simple things like decide not to go out to eat, stop your magazine subscriptions. The easy things first and then the really hard decisions. That's where we are right now are the hard decisions. I think as a daughter and as a mother of a daughter and a mother of now a granddaughter, I think women make a lot of these decisions. I see the generations changing. I see the decisions maybe that my mom made were not as involved as the ones that I'm making. And I certainly can see that my own daughter, independent, on her own, is going to be so much more empowered financially to make decisions. So let's not leave her and the next generations holding a big IOU on their back. Let's take the opportunity. Another question I get is that we've raised the debt ceiling how many times in the past--numerous times in the past. I think they were quoting 17 times under Ronald Reagan or something like that, if I recall correctly. And that is correct. We have raised the debt ceiling. I've voted to raise it before. But this is different. We need to seize this opportunity. Because if we don't seize the opportunity to clamp down on the spending now when the American people realize what an issue and what a problem and what a generational burden we're passing on--we have the ear of the American people, and that's the difference. That's the difference. A lot of things in our lives are all about timing. Certainly political lives are all about timing. Sometimes you can have the greatest candidate in the world, and if it's not the right time, they can't make it. And this is the time. This is the time for us to grab the reins, to say to the Senate and the President and the American people, We're ready, you're ready, and let's join together and do this. So I look forward to hopefully Cut, Cap, and Balance making it through the Senate. But at least if it doesn't make it in the form we pass today, the concepts within this--cutting, capping, and balancing our budgets--are everyday events in people's lives. We need to do it here. I look forward to joining with all my fellow women Republicans we're talking with today, with the rest of the women in the country, but also every man, woman, and child in this country, because it's all about every American, and we don't want to see an overburden on either the older generation, the younger generation, or the generations to come. Thank you for having us. I look forward to working together.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, we're broke. Everyone from the small business owner in West Virginia to Standard and Poor's and Moody's is looking to Washington to solve this fiscal mess. We have a responsibility to demonstrate that we can responsibly raise the debt ceiling by changing the way Washington treats the taxpayers' dollars. The reason we're in over our heads is not because we're taxed too little; it's because we spend too much. The bill before us today, Cut, Cap, and Balance, is a tangible idea that demonstrates we have to pay our bills while making sure our future credit card statements are not budget-busting. If we want to protect our seniors and our grandchildren, encourage small business, and create jobs and safeguard the American Dream, we need to get our economy back on track. That starts with living within our means. It's about time.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio, for his leadership on this issue. My amendment is a simple reaction to conversations that I've had with the administrator and others at the EPA and also with the President of the United States. In questioning the President, I asked: Mr. President, when you're going forth on your rules and regulations at the EPA, do you consider jobs and economic impact? He said we should and I say we should, and that is the purpose of my amendment. This requires the EPA to analyze the impact on jobs and economic activity prior to issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance, or prior to implementing any new or substantially altered program under the Clean Water Act. Earlier this year, the EPA retroactively vetoed a previously approved Clean Water Act permit in West Virginia at the Spruce Mine. This came as quite a surprise, and it was very unprecedented because I don't believe the EPA--if it has, it has been maybe once or twice in its history--has ever retroactively vetoed a permit. It had a very chilling effect not only on jobs but on the economic activity in our State. This action has caused a slow bleed of jobs throughout Appalachia. Reaching back to revoke a permit is particularly concerning because it causes great uncertainty for job creators in our State. This is at a time when we have as a Nation 9.2 percent unemployment. We need to get people to work. Why would a company invest in a new project that has been permitted when it would think that there would be a reach-back by the EPA under the Clean Water Act which could revoke this permit? To me, this just chills job creation in our State. The EPA's ideological war on our energy producers is manifesting itself in other ways in my district and across the country. In the eastern part of West Virginia, the EPA--listen to this--is using aerial surveillance of family farms with the goal of ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act. According to an article in a local newspaper, the EPA is going so far as to regulate the types of sheds that family farmers can have for their cattle operations. Yet, when asked about the economic impact of this kind of regulatory overreach, the EPA's representative made it clear that jobs are irrelevant. As the Nation faces 9.2 percent unemployment and as hundreds of thousands of jobs hang in limbo, the administration has refused to reconsider this agenda. The negative impact of the regulatory actions upon jobs is obvious. However, the EPA has been unable to give me a straight answer on whether it does or does not consider the negative impact on jobs or economic impact. So let's put it clearly in the law: You must consider this to strike that balance between environment and economy. All this amendment is asking for, quite simply, is transparency. It doesn't mandate what decision has to be made when considering what jobs or economic impact is discovered. It does say that, when jobs and economic impact are negative, the EPA has to go to the local governance authority, whether it's the Governor or the smaller community, and explain this action. So it's transparency. I think it will help further clarify decisions, but it will also help our energy producers figure out how to weave the balance between the economy and the environment. In closing, I've heard a lot of talk about our collective goal of clean air and clean water. We all share that--and no one more than everyone on the floor who is sitting here today and those of us across the country--but we cannot afford this continued unaccountable, nontransparent assault on our American jobs, so I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. CAPITO. I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia for his support because he and I are seeing firsthand--we want to see transparency; we want to see the information move forward on the economic impact. We are at a place where we need jobs, we want jobs, we just want to see the facts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge support of my amendment.

Mrs. CAPITO. I would just like to quickly respond in terms of the revocation of the one permit. Let's talk about the hundreds of permits that are sitting at the EPA, and try to figure out how to meet the balance here. Let's look at the total picture--that's all I'm saying--of jobs and the environment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the legislation that is before us today to reform the National Flood Insurance Program. I would like to thank the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters) for their hard work to bring forth a bipartisan bill which addresses many of the concerns to a program hampered by extraordinary losses and currently facing about $18 billion of debt. H.R. 1309 provides a long-term extension of the National Flood Insurance Program, but it makes a significantly indebted program more fiscally sound. A 5-year reauthorization will give the certainty that is needed to a program that has been without it for the past 2 years. It is irresponsible and unfair to communities and individuals, especially those who live in flood-prone areas such as mine, to pass short-term extensions and allow temporary lapses when more than 5 million policyholders depend on it for financial security against flooding. Unless congressional action is taken, on September 30, 2011, these policyholders will again be put in danger of losing protection. Unfortunately, the persistence of subsidized rates for properties in high-risk areas has left the NFIP underfunded and at risk. This bill makes needed reforms to put premiums more in line with risk by incorporating actuarial rates for at-risk properties. Increasing the limit on annual premium rate increases will gradually phase out subsidized premiums and help reduce taxpayer exposure. At the same time, this legislation allows properties relief from the mandatory purchase requirement for up to 3 years so they may be able to plan better for being newly mapped into special flood hazard areas. Most importantly, this bill gives us a chance to give long-term certainty to policyholders as well as insurers who participate in the program. In a still unsure housing market, it is critical that we provide as much clarity as possible to current and future homeowners. I am very pleased that this legislation looks at privatization initiatives and the possibilities that the private market as well as reinsurance can play in protecting communities against future flood damages. It is my hope that we will pass this bill. Again, I want to congratulate the chairwoman for her hard work.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, right now the President is hosting his first ever Twitter town hall to gather input from concerned Americans. Here's some input from some concerned West Virginians: People are having to choose whether to buy groceries or gas as energy prices skyrocket and the economy continues to remain slow and unrecovered. If West Virginians are wondering about one thing, it's why the President isn't doing more to lower energy costs and get our economy back on track. America is truly blessed to have an abundant supply of natural resources. But instead of tapping into these rich minerals, the President has approved extreme regulations that are killing jobs and are hurting our economy. Frankly, I am stunned as to why the President hasn't connected that a good, solid jobs plan is a good, solid energy plan. Just last month, AEP announced it will shut down five plants in West Virginia and Ohio, costing jobs and payrolls, and will raise electricity 10 to 15 percent. According to AEP, this is a direct response to new and burdensome regulations levied by the EPA within the last year. It's time to take advantage of the resources found right here in America. Doing so will launch our economy in the right direction and create thousands of good-paying jobs.