Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, this morning at 9, I held a gun violence roundtable. We had extraordinary presenters from those who are gathering information and disseminating that information around the country to address this subject. What the Gun Violence Research Act would do is give the Centers for Disease Control the authority to research the causes, mechanisms, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of injuries with respect to gun violence. It would also encourage the improvement and expansion of the National Violent Death Reporting Systems and empower healthcare providers by not inhibiting a physician or other healthcare provider from asking a patient about the possession of a firearm and speaking to a patient about gun safety or reporting to authorities a patient's threat of violence. If there is anyone in the House of Representatives who does not believe that we have a gun violence epidemic in our society, then I would ask him or her if they would speak with me and other Members of Congress that have been about the business of trying to cause there to be a reduction. This actually does fit into the circumstances that we are addressing in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Many of the violent acts that take place--not just mass shootings, but on a day-to-day basis--regrettably, take place in some of the low-income areas, where we have inadequate housing, inadequate education, and inadequate educational opportunity. I hope at least the research can be done that may give us the data for this Congress to have the courage to tell the American people that, yes, we have a gun violence epidemic, and, yes, we are going to do something about it. The bill underlying this rule would enact several incremental reforms to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 tenant- and project-based rental assistance and other public housing programs. Many of these reforms have been around for several years and have, as my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) has pointed out, broad support from a wide range of stakeholders as well as both parties in Congress. However, returning again to the subject of the matter of deductions for child care, it is an important issue that needs to be addressed. Representative Waters has an amendment that was made in order yesterday by the Rules Committee to resolve this issue. Like my colleague from Ohio, I plan to vote for that amendment, and I would urge Members to recognize that this makes a good bill better, and I would urge my colleagues to support Ms. Waters' amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS

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

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, which provides for consideration of H.R. 1927, called the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, which in practice will unfairly hamper large numbers of injured parties from effectively seeking redress in court, including civil rights, employment discrimination, consumer protection, and asbestos victim litigants. Let me put my bona fides on the table here. I have filed class actions, particularly in civil rights cases. Each of them were certified as class actions. They led to the desegregation of schools in the county that I am privileged to serve, the desegregation of juvenile detention facilities, and several others too numerous to mention. As a United States district court judge, I also had the privilege of presiding in cases where certification was sought for class actions. The great majority of those cases were not certified by me, largely for the reason that they did not meet the rigorous test that is already in place and that has been in place for nearly 40 years, with many changes having taken place over the years through the Federal process. That is what I would argue would be the best for us to do. First, this bill includes language that prohibits Federal courts from certifying that a group can file a class action lawsuit unless the group demonstrates by admissible evidentiary proof that each proposed class member suffered an injury of the same type and scope of the injury of the named class representative. A footnote right here. My read is that Brown v. Board of Education, the most significant school desegregation case in the history of this country, would not have qualified as a class action under this measure, as proposed. My friends in the majority claim that this measure is necessary to reduce fraud and exploitation in the class action system, maintaining that, under current rules, Federal courts have certified classes that include individuals who have not been injured, but have been forced into a class action lawsuit against their will. This claim and the legislation it inspired has been met by much opposition from a broad range of legal, civil rights, labor, consumer, and public interest groups, including the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, AFSCME, NAACP, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, Public Citizen, Public Justice, and American Association for Justice, among a myriad of others. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the American Bar Association, Public Citizen, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All of those organizations that I just identified are opposed to this legislation. Their language speaks for itself, for those who may peruse the Congressional Record. American Bar Association, Washington, DC, June 23, 2015. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Goodlatte: On behalf of the American Bar Association and its almost 400,000 members, I write to offer our views as the Committee considers class action reform. I understand that your Committee intends to mark up H.R. 1927, the ``Fairness in Clam Action Litigation Act of 2015'' tomorrow. The ABA has long recognized that we must continue to improve our judicial system; however, we cannot support legislation such as H.R. 1927, because it would unnecessarily circumvent the Rules Enabling Act, make it more difficult for large numbers of injured parties to efficiently seek redress in court, and would place added burdens on an already overloaded court system. This proposed legislation would circumvent the time-proven process for amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure established by Congress in the Rules Enabling Act. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs determinations whether class certification is appropriate. This rule was adopted in 1966 and has been amended several times utilizing the procedure established by Congress. The Judicial Conference, the policymaking body for the courts, is currently considering changes to Rule 23, and we recommend allowing this process to continue. In addition, the Supreme Court is poised to rule on cases where there are questions surrounding class certification. For example, the Court agreed to hear Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, where they will determine whether a class can be certified when it contains some members who have not been injured. We respectfully urge you to allow these processes for examining and reshaping procedural and evidentiary rules to work as Congress intended. Currently, to proceed with a class action case, plaintiffs must meet rigorous threshold standards. A 2008 study by the Federal Judicial Center found that only 25 percent of diversity actions filed as class actions resulted in class certification motions, nine percent settled, and none went to trial. These data show that current screening practices are working. However, if the proponents of this legislation are concerned about frivolous class action cases and believe that screening can be even more effective through rule changes, those changes should be proposed and considered utilizing the current process set forth by Congress in the Rules Enabling Act. In addition to circumventing the rulemaking process, the proposed legislation would severely limit the ability of victims who have suffered a legitimate harm to collectively seek justice in a class action lawsuit. The proposed legislation mandates that in order to be certified as a class each individual member must prove he or she suffered an injury of the same type and scope to the proposed named class representative(s), and requires plaintiffs to show they suffered bodily injury or property damage. We were pleased learn that a manager's amendment is expected to be offered during tomorrow's markup that removes the requirement that the alleged harm to the plaintiff involved bodily injury or property damage. This improves the bill, but the remaining requirement leaves a severe burden for people who have suffered harm at the hands of large institutions with vast resources, effectively barring them from forming class actions. For example, in a recent class action case against the Veterans Administration, several veterans sued for a variety of grievances centered on delayed claims. The requirement in this legislation that plaintiffs suffer the same type of injuries might have barred these litigants from forming a class because each plaintiff suffered harms that were not the same. Class actions have been an efficient means of resolving disputes. Making it harder to utilize class actions will add to the burden of our court system by forcing aggrieved parties to file suit in smaller groups, or individually. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our input and urge you to keep these recommendations in mind as you continue to debate class action reform legislation. If the ABA can provide you or your staff with any additional information regarding the ABA's views, or if we can be of further assistance, please contact me or ABA Governmental Affairs Legislative Counsel, David Eppstein. Sincerely, Thomas M. Susman, Director, Governmental Affairs Office.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the current screening practices for certifying which individuals may file a class action lawsuit are working. Currently, plaintiffs must meet, as I said earlier, rigorous threshold standards to proceed with a class action. In fact, a 2008 study by the Federal Judicial Center found that only 25 percent of diversity actions filed as class actions resulted in class certification motions. In the cases I presided in, there were less than 25 percent. 9 percent settled and none went to trial. Why must we begin this new year with yet another piece of legislation that is a solution in search of a problem? In short, this ill-conceived and unneeded bill unnecessarily circumvents the Rules Enabling Act, the process established by the Congress to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, making it more difficult for large numbers of injured parties to effectively seek redress in court and would place additional burdens on an already overloaded court system. I should add that the Judicial Conference, the policymaking body for the Federal courts of this country, is currently considering changes to rule 23, which governs determination of whether class certification is appropriate, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear cases where there are questions surrounding class certification, including Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo. It would behoove us to allow these processes for examining and revising procedural and evidentiary rules to work as Congress intended. The requirement in this bill that each proposed class member must prove he or she suffered an injury of the same type and scope of the injury of the named class representative effectively bars individuals who have suffered harm at the hands of large institutions with immense resources from forming class actions. I am also highly concerned that the injury language included in this bill will exclude from the courts entire categories of lawsuits, most significantly, victims of discriminatory practices or civil rights violations seeking redress. A commonsense reading of this provision, as I indicated, might well have excluded class actions such as Brown v. Board of Education. Brown served as a catalyst for the modern civil rights movement, ultimately leading to full equality for African Americans. Under this legislation, class action plaintiffs must effectively prove the merits of their case as a condition of class certification, making most class actions nearly impossible to pursue. A mechanism must exist to hold corporations and other entities accountable when they engage in systemic discrimination, unfair and deceptive practices, consumer fraud, and other wrongdoing that harms large numbers of people. This bill undermines this vital tool. Let me give you an example, which is the cases brought against airbag deception that are currently being litigated and that we see much of in the news. If we were to look at scope of injury, some people were killed, and some people received minor injuries. Some people who had those airbags did not receive injuries. But it seems logical to allow that all of the persons who had those automobiles should have an opportunity for corrective procedures, regardless of whether or not that was a wrongful death or whether or not there was an injury. The scope becomes nebulous when you look at it from the perspective of actual circumstances that we are confronted with sometimes in class actions. H.R. 1927 also includes a provision--and this troubles me deeply and should trouble everybody that is in Congress and in this Nation--that would delay the work of asbestos compensation trusts. Formerly, the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, section 3 of this bill, will shield the asbestos industry from accountability while exposing trust claimants to scams, identity theft, and other privacy violations. This portion of the bill is similarly opposed by a number of groups that I have identified, including the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, and the Environmental Working Group, just to name a few. For instance, the bill requires trusts to respond to any and all corporate defendants' requests for information. Ladies and gentlemen, that could take years. By that time, many of the complainants may very well have died. And what troubles me a lot is that the trust fund is making money. It is similar to what automobile insurance companies do. When there is an automobile accident, if they think that there was harm perpetrated by their insured, they immediately establish a fund that would cover that liability. Then their lawyers go to work to not pay the claim at all and, next, to delay the claim. The longer they keep it away from an ultimate settlement, the more money the insurance company makes. And they make enough money sometimes to pay the claim that they could have settled or paid the claim of the injured victim in the first place. The measure also requires public disclosure of personal claim information, including portions of those with asbestos-related diseases' Social Security numbers. Interestingly, this legislation does not impose these same burdensome reporting requirements for the companies that exposed Americans to asbestos. Despite its promise, this bill does nothing to improve judicial efficiency or reduce fraud in the court system and, instead, severely hampers justice for victims of corporate wrongdoing. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), a good friend of mine.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), my good friend and former member of the Rules Committee; and we miss him.

Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Representatives cast its 62nd vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That we began the second session of the 114th Congress in this manner sends the regrettable, but undeniable message that it may be a new year, and we may have a new Speaker, but we are dealing with the same old majority Congress, intent on advancing partisan measures with little chance of becoming law. H.R. 1927 will serve to close the courthouse doors to concerned and vulnerable citizens injured by large corporations. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that will close a glaring loophole in our gun laws, allowing suspected terrorists to legally buy firearms. This bill would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. HASTINGS

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

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate Ms. Terri Crook as she retires from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), after serving 37 years as a Revenue Officer in the Collection Function. Terri received a Bachelor's of Science degree from Florida State University (FSU) in 1980. In 1991, she was selected as a Group Manager in the Collection Function. She later became an Analyst and served 401 Taxpayer Assistance Centers nationwide. In 2009, she was selected as the Local Taxpayer Advocate for South Florida and was ultimately selected to head an Innovative Training Team within the Taxpayer Advocate Service. Terri's passion for advocacy and counseling to various taxpayers and organizations throughout South Florida is to be commended. She has devoted herself to serving as a Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Volunteer every year during Filing Season. In this capacity, she has prepared tax returns for people living in low-income areas. In her personal time, she co-wrote and directed a one woman show entitled, ``Don't Be No Whole Fool Cause Life Ain't No Dress Rehearsal,'' and donated all the proceeds from the show to charity. Furthermore, she has also helped children at her local Boys and Girls Club develop their public speaking skills. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to recognize Ms. Terri Crook on her retirement from the IRS. I want to thank her for her years of service, and wish her all the very best as she embarks on a new chapter in her life.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill, the Avonte's Law Act of 2015, which was inspired by the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Avonte Oquendo of Queens, New York. Avonte was an autistic child who wandered away from his school. His lifeless body was not found for more than a month. ``Wandering'' is very common in children with autism and other disabilities, and sometimes children who wander are non-verbal or cannot communicate well with others, leading to dangerous interactions with strangers or even law enforcement. This bill authorizes a new grant program within the United States Department of Justice to provide local law enforcement agencies with the resources to procure response tools and increase education and training for first responders, schools, and families with the goal of preventing situations like Avonte's from happening again. The bill also requires the Attorney General to establish standards and best practices for the administration of any type of voluntary ``tracking'' system used by law enforcement agencies that are awarded these funds. Tracking devices are one of the many ways we can help prevent another tragic situation like Avonte's. Mr. Speaker, by taking a holistic approach to this issue, we can help children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) live safe and happy lives all around the country.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and legacy of my dear, longtime friend Mr. Sheldon ``Shelly'' Schlesinger of Broward County, Florida, who sadly passed away on Wednesday, December 2nd at age 85. Shelly was born in Brooklyn, New York, and later moved to Florida where he attended the University of Miami and the University of Miami School of Law, and met his wife of 60 years Barbara. Shelly's passion for the law and his skills in the courtroom were unrivaled. He practiced for 60 years and worked on landmark cases across the nation representing individuals and consumers. Shelly was recognized in every edition of the book ``The Best Lawyers in America'' throughout his career. His other honors include induction into the Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame and receipt of the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Florida Verdicts Hall of Fame by the Daily Business Review. Shelly was not only celebrated for being one of the best trial attorneys in the country, but also fervently served the South Florida community. He was a member of the Board of Governors of Nova Southeastern Law Center and chairman of the Board of Trustees of Broward Community College. Shelly was also one of the founders of the Broward County Trial Lawyers Association and served as the organization's president. I offer my deepest condolences to Shelly's family. He is survived by his two sons, Scott (m. Anne) and Gregg, as well as his six grandchildren, Charlotte, Alexander, Molly, Theodora, Samuel, and Theodore; and his brother-in-law, Larry Butler (m. Grace). His presence will be profoundly missed, however his impact in the sphere of law and public service will never be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay my respects to Sheldon Schlesinger and his family. He was a great friend to me throughout the years. His spirit, loving memory, and legacy will always live on.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to restore the partnership between the federal government and counties for the health care costs of inmates who have not been convicted of a crime. This legislation will provide some relief to our nation's local economies, while embodying the fundamental principles of our legal justice system. In almost all states, a person who is incarcerated in a county jail or juvenile detention facility loses their Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP or SSI benefits even if they have not been convicted of a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the 8th Amendment requires government entities to provide medical care to all inmates. As a result, local governments are burdened with the expense of providing health care to thousands of men, women and children currently awaiting trial. Providing health care for inmates constitutes a major portion of local jail operating costs. Requiring county governments to cover health care costs for inmates who have not yet been convicted of a crime places an unnecessary burden on local governments, which have their fair share of widespread budget deficits and cuts to safety net programs and other essential services. Terminating benefits to inmates who are awaiting trial violates the presumption of innocence, which is a cornerstone principle of our justice system. The current practice does not distinguish between persons who are awaiting disposition of charges and persons who have been duly convicted and sentenced. This disproportionately affects low- income and minority populations who are often unable to post bond, which would enable them to continue receiving benefits. Mr. Speaker, my legislation addresses this problem by prohibiting the federal government from stripping individuals of their Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI benefits before the inmate has been convicted of a crime. It preserves the partnership between the federal and local governments and ensures that local governments are not burdened with an unfair share of meeting the mandate to guarantee medical coverage. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense bill that addresses a problem affecting communities all across the nation.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to recognize the importance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). As a graduate of the Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University (FAMU), I know all too well the importance HBCUs play in the fabric of our country. They prepare students for careers that span all disciplines, teach students the value of self-worth, the importance of culture, history, and legacy. Growing up during a time when colleges were not readily available for African-Americans, HBCUs played a vital role in educating African American youth. They continue to play an important role in educating students from all walks of life. They offer students, regardless of race, an opportunity to develop their skills and talents to serve both domestically and internationally. According to the United Negro College Fund. HBCUs are responsible for producing approximately 70% of all black doctors and dentists, 50% of black engineers and public school teachers, and 35% of black lawyers. I am extremely proud of all the HBCU Caucus is doing to recognize the importance of HBCUs and proud to be a member of the caucus. As a member of the caucus and an HBCU alumnus, I am committed to continue funding these critical institutions and ensuring our nation's youth have access to quality affordable education. Mr. Speaker, I once again want to stress the importance of HBCUs and urge my colleagues to continue to support them. They are the bedrock of our nation and symbolic of how our nation came together to ensure all students have access to quality affordable education.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish my very dear friend Lottie Albert a happy 100th birthday. Lottie was born on December 25, 1915 to Eva and Louis Wernick in New York City. Twenty-one years later, Lottie married Sol Albert and the two enjoyed 55 years of marriage, and have two lovely daughters, Harriet and Doreen. Lottie is the grandmother to Eric, Glenn, and Lowell, as well as a great-grandmother to Kyle, Samantha, Heather, and Seth. Lottie has been a resident and community leader of Broward County for over 40 years. I am truly grateful for her selflessness and tireless service. In 1988, she was inducted into the Area Agency on Aging's Dr. Nan S. Hutchinson Broward Senior Hall of Fame. Additionally, Broward County honored Lottie in 2005 by declaring November 12th as ``Lottie Albert Appreciation Day.'' In 2012, Lottie was inducted into the Broward County Women's Hall of Fame for her work with the Ann Storck Children's Center, the Elderly Interest Fund's MEDIVAN Program, and the Alzheimer's Family Center. It has been my honor to witness Lottie's commitment and passion for serving her community. Her civic engagement is an example to us all. I have enjoyed a personal friendship with Lottie over many years, and look forward to celebrating her birthday with her on December 5th in Sunrise, Florida. Mr. Speaker, on the momentous occasion, please join me in wishing Lottie Albert a happy and wonderful 100th birthday.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. My question to you is, even though the germane amendments were made in order, under the structured rule, am I correct that other Members of the House of Representatives who did not, at the time, file an amendment before the Rules Committee that you and I serve, that they are precluded? That is basically what I am arguing.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman, my friend from Ohio, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to this rule, which provides for consideration of both H.R. 1210, the Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act, and H.R. 3189, the Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act of 2015. As the first matter of business, I would like to recognize that yesterday's rule, H. Res. 526, marked the 45th closed rule of this congressional session, making it the most closed session in history. I join my colleagues in the minority in their distaste for this closed and exclusive process and echo their calls to Speaker Ryan to maintain his pledge to usher in a more transparent and open debate process that includes input from Members of both parties. Very occasionally I talk about when I first came to Congress in 1993. The radio at that time was hammering those who were perpetrating closed rules. My party was in the majority and was being rightly, in my opinion, accused in that regard. I didn't know what a closed rule was. I didn't come here and start on this committee. But now that I have had a considerable amount of experience on this committee, I have come to believe that it is wrong for either party in the majority to conduct a process that disallows Members in this body from having an opportunity to participate in refining the underlying bills that come here for our consideration. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1210 seeks to amend the Truth in Lending Act to provide that depository institution creditors be subject to a legal safe harbor for mortgage loans meeting specified limitations that, since origination, have been held on the institution's balance sheet. The bill would extend this legal safe harbor to mortgage originators that steer borrowers to a nonqualified mortgage loan if the originator and borrower are notified that the lender intends to hold the loan in its portfolio. We have seen firsthand the consequences that ensue when underwriting standards are virtually abandoned by both large and small lenders. This phenomenon, which contributed to the financial crisis and a bank bailout to the tune of $700 billion in taxpayer money, enabled predatory lenders to offer loans, the terms of which individuals could not afford or, worse, incentivize their brokers to steer families into more expensive loans, even when they qualified for lower rates and a standard mortgage product. African American and Latino borrowers and single persons were disproportionately affected by these bad loans. This legislation would eliminate effective reforms that require lenders to verify a consumer's ability to repay and would allow lenders to once again steer families into the same risky mortgage products with the same predatory practices that destroyed the savings and investments of American families a few short years ago. Today's rule also allows for consideration of H.R. 3189, the Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act. This bill will fundamentally change the way the Federal Reserve implements monetary policy. In doing so, this bill will change the current proven nonpartisan approach to monetary policy the Fed currently embraces and will replace it with a rule-based and politically partisan regime. H.R. 3189 will tie the hands of the Federal Reserve whose objective with regard to monetary policy is to maximize employment, stabilize prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. This legislation will require the Fed to engage in a rulemaking to provide a ridged mathematical formula for setting the interest rate. This notion is not only bad policy that will prevent the Fed from acting swiftly and nimbly to address a potential financial crisis, but Fed Chair Janet Yellen has stated that it ``would be a grave mistake for the Federal Reserve to commit to conduct monetary policy according to a mathematical rule.'' Additionally, this bill will create a partisan commission, with twice as many Republican Members as Democrats, to review the Federal Reserve monetary policy and make changes to its current vital role in determining that policy. The objectives of the Fed and the policy behind our money supply are much too important to be subjected to political pressure from a partisan commission. This legislation will do serious harm to the Federal Reserve, leading us down a path of politicizing monetary policy and hamstringing the agency with onerous and unnecessary rulemakings. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS. Will the gentleman continue to yield?

Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. My ultimate point was that in this year, we have had 45 closed rules and, clearly, Members are precluded. That 45, I might add, has been achieved in this year, and that is more than in the previous session of Congress. That is the point I wish to make.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record Statements of Administration Policy. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 1210--Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act (Rep. Barr, R-KY, Nov. 17) As a result of the Ability-to-Repay rules issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, American consumers are protected against harmful mortgage products and abusive lending practices that were common in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. Among other protections, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Qualified Mortgage (QM) rule requires a lender to make a good faith effort to determine that a borrower has the ability to repay a mortgage, and that the loan does not include excessive upfront points and fees. The final rule also contains special provisions and exemptions that are available only to small lenders or to small lenders that operate predominantly in rural or underserved areas. H.R. 1210 would broaden the definition of qualified mortgages--those that qualify for the safe harbor--to include all mortgages held on a lender's balance sheet. Under the bill, depository institutions that hold a loan in portfolio would receive a legal safe harbor even if the loan contains terms and features that are abusive and harmful to consumers. The bill would limit the right of borrowers to file claims against holders of such loans and against mortgage originators who directed them to the loans. H.R. 1210 also would open the door to risky lending by allowing balloon loans made in any geographic area to qualify for the safe harbor as long as they are held in portfolio. The Administration strongly opposes this bill because it would undermine critical consumer protections by exempting all depository financial institutions, large and small, from QM standards--including very basic standards like verifying a consumer's income--as long as the mortgage loans in question are held in portfolio by the institution. This bill would undermine the essential protections provided under the Qualified Mortgage rule. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the mortgages offered legal protections under the bill would likely default at a greater rate than the qualified mortgages with current legal protections. For these reasons, if the President were presented with H.R. 1210, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to help us to get to a time constraint and, unfortunately, on either side we don't have a lot of speakers. Therefore, I would not ordinarily have done anything other than include in the Record Statements of Administration Policy. But to try to help us meet our deadline, what is said in the Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 1210, Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act, is: ``As a result of the Ability-to-Repay rules issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, American consumers are protected against harmful mortgage products and abusive lending practices that were common in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. Among other protections, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's qualified mortgage rule requires a lender to make a good faith effort to determine that a borrower has the ability to repay a mortgage, and that the loan does not include excessive upfront points and fees. The final rule also contains special provisions and exemptions that are available only to small lenders or to small lenders that operate predominantly in rural and underserved areas.'' Skipping one paragraph, getting to the heart of what the administration says: ``The Administration strongly opposes this bill because it would undermine critical consumer protections by exempting all depository financial institutions, large and small, from QM standards--including very basic standards like verifying a consumer's income--as long as the mortgage loans in question are held in portfolio by the institution. This bill would undermine the essential protections provided under the qualified mortgage rule. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the mortgages offered legal protections under the bill would likely default at a greater rate than the qualified mortgages with current legal protections. ``For these reasons, if the President were presented with H.R. 1210, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.'' Mr. Speaker, not to belabor the point that my good friend from Ohio and I were speaking about with reference to rules, I join him in saying that the new Speaker at least has had only one closed rule. But I would remind him, of the 45 closed rules that we had previously, the new Speaker voted for every one of those closed rules. So if it is a precursor of what is to come, we will have to judge that in the future. Now, as to H.R. 3189, the administration says--and I will cut to the heart of the matter: ``H.R. 3189 also would impose numerous, burdensome requirements for the Federal Reserve Board rulemaking authorities, including the imposition of a duplicative requirement that the Federal Reserve Board undertake a proscriptive cost-benefit analysis and a post-adoption impact assessment when promulgating rules.'' When a Federal agency, including an independent agency such as the Federal Reserve, promulgates a regulation, the agency must adhere to the robust act--the Regulatory Flexibility Act--the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Congressional Review Act, among other statutes. Additionally, Executive Order No. 13579 encourages independent regulatory agencies to conduct reasoned cost-benefit analyses, to engage in public participation to the extent feasible, and to conduct a systematic, retrospective review of regulations. The provisions in this bill, referring to H.R. 3189, would therefore create unnecessary, duplicative, and onerous requirements for an entity tasked with ensuring the financial safety and soundness of the Nation's financial system. In addition, the bill would add a number of procedural hurdles that would impede the Federal Reserve's ability to engage within our national regulatory bodies and divert its resources to unnecessary reporting requirements. In addition and at the heart of the matter, the bill would add a number of procedural hurdles that are too numerous for me to mention at this time. These provisions, along with provisions imposing parallel notification and consultation requirements on several other executive branch entities, could impair the President's exercise of his exclusive constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's diplomatic relations. Again, if the President were presented with H.R. 3189, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. As I have said time and again, far too much important work still remains. In fact, Congress has only 9 legislative days before the December 11 deadline to avert yet another Republican government shutdown and pass an omnibus spending bill. The clock is ticking. Quite frankly, this Nation cannot afford to shut down once again due to my friends'--the House Republicans--continued manufactured crisis. The American people need and deserve better; so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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