Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, for coming to the floor. I know how busy he is with his impeachment activities, so we are glad he has had an opportunity to come and share his views on this particular bill. He spent a lot of time telling us who wasn't for the bill, but he didn't tell us who was for it. And I would, once again, inform my friend, my colleague from Texas, that not only is every single Republican member of the House Financial Services Committee for this bill, but a majority of the Democrats on the committee are for this bill. Perhaps that is why he could find so few Democrats to speak out against it. So what we have heard, Mr. Speaker, is my colleague and the ranking member vociferously defend the whole idea that there should be institutions that are too big to fail. As they defend the Dodd-Frank Act, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, yet again, the big banks have gotten bigger. Under their regulatory scheme, the big banks have gotten bigger and the communities banks have become fewer. And now what they are telling us is: Oh, no, we have got to protect this regime. Well, I don't believe in it. But what I do believe in, Mr. Speaker, and what Mr. Luetkemeyer believes in, is that we need to try to find some bipartisan solutions, some common ground, to try to make some common sense out of some of these regulations. What is fascinating to me is so many of the Obama-era regulators have said this $50 billion threshold makes no sense. Usually, my Democratic colleagues will quote Mr. Tarullo, they will quote Janet Yellen, or they will quote Mr. Curry. Well, all of them have said that the $50 billion threshold is essentially arbitrary and does not work. So, at the end of the day, what it is doing, Mr. Speaker, is putting in an additional regulatory burden on banks that pose no systemic risk to our economy, making it more difficult to extend credit to hardworking Americans who need it. But for people who just voted against tax relief for hardworking Americans, I guess that is what I would expect. Now they want to make sure that they don't have tax relief, they don't have mortgages, and they don't have credit cards. That is what they are defending, Mr. Speaker, and it is wrong. On a bipartisan basis, today, I believe we are going to vote for H.R. 3312 and make some sense out of this SIFI rule, and we will have a better America tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a member of the Financial Services Committee and our Republican whip.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), a very hardworking member of our committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I might point out to the ranking member that she should read her mail, since I responded to her letter. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I happen to have the letter in my hand. I would be happy to share it with the ranking member if she has misfiled it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. GOTTHEIMER), a Democratic colleague.

Mr. HENSARLING. Is the gentleman prepared to yield me time?

Mr. HENSARLING. How much time does the gentleman yield me?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to yield me time?

Mr. HENSARLING. I inquire of the gentleman how much time is he yielding? I don't wish to be cut off.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the chairwoman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who is the Republican sponsor of the legislation and the chairman of our Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 3312, the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act of 2017. This very important piece of legislation was introduced by my friend, Mr. Luetkemeyer, who serves as chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee, and is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Members of the House. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the bill was approved in October by the Financial Services Committee with a very strong bipartisan vote of 47-12, so strong, Mr. Speaker, that even a majority of Democrats on the committee voted to support the bill. This bill reforms what Republicans and now many Democrats acknowledge is a flawed and arbitrary framework under the Dodd-Frank Act to designate so-called systemically important financial institutions, also known as SIFIs. In fact, one of those Democrats who acknowledges that it is a flawed and arbitrary framework is none other than former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, the very Frank of Dodd-Frank, the coauthor of the Dodd-Frank Act. He, himself, has said that this provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that many of us are trying to reform today is ``arbitrary'' and ``a mistake.'' Those are his words, Mr. Speaker, not mine. That arbitrary and mistaken provision is Dodd-Frank's one-size-fits- all standard that subjects banks with $50 billion or more in assets to the same costly and cumbersome SIFI regulatory standards as trillion- dollar global systemically important institutions. We should take note that this flawed standard has now been criticized by Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, former Federal Reserve Board Governor Dan Tarullo, former Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry, and many other Obama appointees. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is that bad. Mr. Luetkemeyer's bipartisan bill--again, very strong bipartisan bill--replaces this inflexible, flawed, $50 billion threshold that has been criticized by so many with a series of well-established, critical standards that more accurately measure systemic importance. Specifically, his legislation requires the Federal Reserve to review a financial institution's size, interconnectedness, global cross- jurisdictional activity, and complexity, before determining whether the institution should be subject to heightened SIFI regulatory standards. In other words, this bipartisan bill tailors regulations based on a bank's actual level of risk, instead of Dodd-Frank's one-size-fits-all system that ensnares smaller regional and midsize banks that, essentially, have simple community bank lending models. These banks are not globally complex Wall Street banks and shouldn't be treated the same. It simply doesn't make sense to subject small regional and midsize banks with only $50 billion in assets to the same expensive and cumbersome SIFI regulatory regime as a bank like JPMorgan Chase, which has $2.5 trillion in assets. Based on size alone, the $50 billion bank is just 2 percent, 2 percent of JPMorgan Chase's size. What does make sense, Mr. Speaker, is to base the regulation of these financial institutions on their actual risk profile rather than their asset size alone, which is exactly what Mr. Luetkemeyer's strongly bipartisan bill will do. Now, while I personally do not support the SIFI architecture at all and do not believe any financial institution in America should be designated too big to fail, it is important that we always continue to work to find bipartisan reforms where we can find them and improve current law, and the legislation before us today represents a good faith effort to do exactly that. Let's keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, this is simply not a debate over an arcane definition in law. It is about the real world effect these regulations have on the U.S. economy and the working men and women whom we represent. Let me share with my colleagues what the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council has to say about the importance of the bill that we are debating today: ``Access to working and growth capital remains a challenge for many entrepreneurs and small businesses. H.R. 3312 would improve the lending environment and unleash capital by alleviating inappropriate requirements imposed on regional and midsize banks under Dodd-Frank. Midsize and regional banks, which many startups and small businesses have counted on for lending, have been negatively affected by this Dodd-Frank arbitrary trigger.'' Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. They deserve a healthy economy with growing paychecks, better jobs, and a brighter future. It is time to restore economic growth fueled by capital flowing from America's banks to American communities across our Nation. So I urge my colleagues to correct this widely acknowledged mistake in Dodd-Frank, even acknowledged by former Congressman Barney Frank himself, and put into place real, discernible, critical standards, and help our struggling small businesses on Main Street. Let's pass H.R. 3312. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, in order to better balance the time on each side, may I inquire if my colleague anticipates having speakers on the bill.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 667, I call up the bill (H.R. 3312) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to specify when bank holding companies may be subject to certain enhanced supervision, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HENSARLING. I am going to respectfully decline the opportunity.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember a dear friend, Judge Bascom Bentley, III, who passed away peacefully on December 11, 2017. Bascom was a life-long resident of Palestine, Texas and served almost 3 decades with distinction as the Judge for Texas' 369th District Court until his recent retirement. Prior to that he served as County Court at Law Judge, County Attorney for Anderson County and also the City Attorney for Palestine. Along with his time on the bench, Bascom taught as a professor at Trinity Valley Community College for 37 years. The totality of his awards and honors are too numerous to list here today, but he has been honored by civic groups, charitable organizations, educational institutions and veteran groups. And he was honored multiple times for his good work as a judge including one from the Texas Gang Investigators Association that seems to sum everything up-- the ``Damn Good Judge'' award. Bascom touched countless lives, including mine. His wit and humor were unmatched and his knowledge endless--likely fueled by his unquenchable thirst and love for history. For those who knew Bascom, they saw compassion and love for others that was unbounding. As the Representative for the 5th District of Texas, I am honored to have known such a wonderful and unique person, and I will forever treasure our many conversations through the years. I send my deepest and sincerest condolences to his mother, Kelly, wife, Carol, to his children Bonnie, Matthew, William and Hunter, as well as the rest of his family and innumerable friends. May we all remember a life well lived.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, again, I would encourage the ranking member and all Members on the other side of the aisle to read the underlying bill. It is 2 pages long. It has now been amended by perhaps a 1-page amendment. This has nothing to do with Wells Fargo. It has nothing to do with Equifax. It is limited to the annual paper notification from auto finance companies, pure and simple. Again, for those who listened to the earlier debate, the question is whether or not these auto finance companies are going to be forced to spend money that comes out of their customers' pockets to send out a paper notification of privacy policies even when the policy doesn't change, or whether or not we should modernize into the 21st century and ensure that there is continuous notification on a website and that a paper notification only goes out upon a change, an actual change. What the ranking member is doing with the motion to recommit is once again empowering the unconstitutional and unaccountable CFPB to engage in even more activities that harm consumers. It ought to be rejected, and we ought to ensure that we adopt H.R. 2396 and simplify and modernize one regulation that is harming consumers and harming financial institutions. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.