Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my friend from Virginia, and he is my friend, but I also must say that rarely in the history of the House have I ever seen a motion to recommit that has less to do with the underlying bill than this one. I know that my friends on the other side of the aisle, over a year later, still cannot accept the outcome of the election, which, unfortunately, is a complete slap in the face of democracy. I know there is an element that works full time on the other side of the aisle to impeach the President. This is their full-time avocation. Meanwhile, on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, we continue to work in order to try to improve the lot in lives of the common working man and woman. So we were very proud to work with the President on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that has brought us the lowest unemployment rate in America in 17 years. Under their economic policies, Mr. Speaker, what we saw were high levels of unemployment. What we saw were stagnant wages. What we saw was 1.6 percent GDP growth when in the postwar era we have averaged 3 percent economic growth. What we saw under their economic policies was that people couldn't make ends meet. Too many were still living paycheck to paycheck. And now I hear from my constituents. I heard from one the other day who said: Guess what? They just announced at my husband's business everybody is getting a 5 percent pay increase. I just heard from Michael in Terrell, who is a doctor, and he said: Thanks to President Trump--who they are trying to impeach--thanks to President Trump and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, now I can afford to buy a new ultrasound machine for my rural practice, and I am going to actually hire an additional ultrasound technician. All due to the President, again, they are trying to impeach. I heard from Charles in Winnsboro who said: You know what? The new tax reforms will drop my tax bracket by 17 percent, and this will allow me to rebuild my shop that had been destroyed. And then I look at the employers in my hometown of Dallas, Texas: American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, AT&T, Comerica. So many of them, Mr. Speaker, are offering $1,000 bonuses. Many are offering increases in minimum wages. Many have increased 401(k) plans. All, again, due to the activities of the Republicans, because not one single Democrat supported the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. So I understand how my friends on the other side of the aisle wish to attempt to change the subject because they are probably now embarrassed they didn't support it, because they have seen how much good it has done, how much of a difference it makes. So if they want to waste the House's time by once again trying to find ways to undermine the President, impeach the President, I know it is a full-time job for many, but on this side of the aisle, we are going to continue to make sure that the lot of the common man and woman is improved. We are going to make sure that our community banks and credit unions can lend to them. We are going to ensure that there is great economic growth so that we can continue to fund the American Dream. That is what we are going to do on this side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit and to support the underlying TAILOR Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who is vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 747, I call up the bill (H.R. 4607) to amend the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 to ensure that Federal financial regulators perform a comprehensive review of regulations to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on covered persons, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 to submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the bill before us in the House, not unlike yourself, I am a proud Texan--in my case, a fifth-generation Texan. In listening very carefully to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe, I do wish to remind all my colleagues that it was this day in 1836 that brave men in Texas took on the minions of tyranny at the Alamo. And although they lost that battle, they inspired their nation at the time, Texas, that would later become part of our Nation. So, on this day that is special to all Texans, it should be special to all Americans. We remember the cradle of liberty. Remember the Alamo. God bless Texas. Mr. Speaker, otherwise, I rise also, today, in support of H.R. 4607, which is a very important piece of legislation brought to us by a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk). It is a bill that helps address the burden of unnecessary, duplicative, and outdated regulations that too often have imposed cost on our community financial institutions that ultimately make credit more expensive and less available to our constituents. It passed out of our committee with a very strong bipartisan vote of 38-17, and I congratulate him for his bill. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this bill requires that all of the prudential financial regulators that now include the CFPB and the NCUA, the National Credit Union Administration--it ensures that all of our financial regulators, not just some, but all, will participate in the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, known as EGRPRA, a law that dates back to the Clinton era, and this ensures that our agencies review all rules that are prescribed by themselves that impact our insured financial institutions. The purpose of this review, again, is to reduce regulation that is proven overly burdensome, duplicative, or outdated, while maintaining our safety and soundness standards. And, again, Mr. Speaker, all this is is a review. It ensures a review. Additionally, H.R. 4607 will require that these agencies meet every 7 years for a comprehensive regulatory evaluation, as opposed to the current 10-year standard. This is especially important. I salute the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership, because we have seen our financial sector of the economy suffer under the weight, the load, the burden of regulation, particularly because six of the seven heaviest regulatory years occurred under the last administration; so we need a more thorough review of these regulations. And requiring our Federal agencies to simply review their actions in a transparent manner on a more frequent basis, it is simple; it is fair; it is straightforward; it is wise. Mr. Speaker, a healthy financial system that provides equal opportunity to all Americans to achieve financial independence can only exist if we have smart regulation. And the explosive growth of regulation, following the enactment of Dodd-Frank, has made it significantly harder for our community banks and credit unions to serve their customers and members. And, in fact, the complexity and cost of this regulatory burden has forced many of them out of business or has forced them to cut back services to their customers and members, and it is one of the reasons why, on average, we continue to lose one community bank or credit union a day, or every other day, in America. This should not be happening. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, it is not the banks and credit unions we are so concerned about. It is their customers. It is customers like Missouri mom, Michele, who explained to us how frustrating it has been for her 20-year-old daughter, with a full-time job, to get a loan to buy her first car. And, again, her daughter has a first-time job. And as Michele explained to us: ``It's a catch-22. You need credit to get credit, but no one will give you the credit to begin with. I would like to see our young adults be able to build the credit they need so they can have a decent future.'' Mr. Speaker, it is for people like Michele and her daughter that we need this regulatory review. It is why we need the bill from the gentleman from Georgia. These are the people we are trying to help. Like Anne in Wisconsin, who was trying to get a loan to remodel her attached garage when her son was born, and she said: ``My husband and I have very high credit scores, and we have equity in our home, but because my husband has a seasonal job and finds other employment in the winter, the many banks we contacted rejected our loan request. They base that on our annual income only on the job he was currently in and said it was part of the new regulation.'' Well, of course it is, Mr. Speaker. That is why they need to be reviewed. It is people like Anne in Wisconsin we need to help. Or Dan, a Navy veteran from Illinois, who actually had to close down--close down the small auto finance company he started with his wife 25 years ago, and he had to close it down because of new Federal regulation. He explains: ``Large companies can afford a separate legal department to deal with these issues and the myriad of new regulations. A small business like ours cannot. We had to make a decision. It was just not worth the risk to continue operations in this antibusiness environment.'' So, Mr. Speaker, it is people like Michele, it is people like Anne, it is people like Dan who deserve the opportunity to have credit for their homes, their autos, their small businesses, and so we must ensure that all of our Federal regulators--all of our Federal financial regulators take a thorough comprehensive review of their regulatory burden so that we can continue to support the people who need credit. H.R. 4607, again, has garnered strong bipartisan support. It is practical; it is common sense; and I urge all of my colleagues to adopt it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee and the author of H.R. 4607.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is the chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), who is yet another hardworking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), who is a Democratic member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 30 seconds. Mr. GOTTHEIMER: It requires regulators to consider tailoring regulations when appropriate. In short, the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act will cut bureaucratic red tape and help our economy thrive without putting consumers at risk. There should be nothing partisan about helping entrepreneurs and businesses of all sizes grow, create jobs, and expand the economy. With this measure, Democrats and Republicans join together to ensure outdated, unnecessary, and burdensome regulations are eliminated or reformed to better fit the needs of individual financial institutions, which ultimately saves Americans money, helps consumers and families grow--and businesses, too--and it protects, always, American consumers.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who is a real leader on our committee for commonsense regulation and the chairman of our Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my friend on the other side of the aisle. Again, her comments were very heavy on thematics, very heavy on extraneous material. Unfortunately, it was a little light on the facts of H.R. 4607. The text of the bill is 3\1/2\ pages long; so it doesn't take very long to read. But I remind all of my colleagues that this is common sense. In and of itself, this bill changes no rules. All it does is tell our regulators that every 7 years, why don't you look at what you have done and publish a report. If you want to change any rule, you have to go through the formal rulemaking process to repropose a rule, to get public comment. So, again, in and of itself, it changes no rules. I almost want to ask my friend on the other side of the aisle: What is she scared of? What is so wrong with simply looking at the rules that have been promulgated to see if they are actually working? Are they helping our constituents? Are they making economic opportunity more available for all? What is so odd is, the original EGRPRA legislation that dates back to the Clinton era was overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the aisle. So what the gentleman from Georgia is doing in H.R. 4607 is simply saying all financial regulators, including the National Credit Union Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which really didn't even exist in the Clinton era, ought to do the same thing. They are saying, instead of doing it every 10 years, let's do it every 7 years. Just take a look and report. That is all it is. It is a self-reporting requirement, which I think, Mr. Speaker, is why this has already been supported overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis in the House Financial Services Committee. So with all of the various scare tactics and horror stories that we have heard from the other side of the aisle on a mere reporting requirement, again, I ask, Mr. Speaker: What are they scared of? What we are ultimately trying to do here is make sure that the regulatory burden is not such that it harms the very people I spoke about earlier in my opening comments: that it doesn't hurt Dan, a Navy veteran from Illinois who, because of the regulatory burden, was forced to shut down his small business; that it doesn't hurt Anne in Wisconsin, who is just trying to get a loan to remodel her garage; that it doesn't hurt Michele and her daughter in Missouri. Her daughter was just simply seeking a car loan to buy her first car. These are the people whom we are trying to help. And by the way, all banks--small, medium, and large--are lending to businesses and to consumers, and we want them to do that in a robust but responsible way. So, from time to time, let's look at the regulations and ensure that they are still helping us achieve equal financial opportunity for all so that our constituents can achieve their share of the American Dream, that they can achieve financial independence. This received strong, bipartisan support, Madam Speaker, in the House Financial Services Committee. It ought to receive strong, bipartisan support on the House floor. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for and adopt H.R. 4607, and I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. HENSARLING

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 747, I call up the bill (H.R. 4296) to place requirements on operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations established by an appropriate Federal banking agency, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. Mr. Speaker, I rise, today, in strong support of H.R. 4296, an important bill authored by Mr. Luetkemeyer, who is a real leader on our committee. He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit and has led many bills on this floor. This particular one addresses the burden that unnecessary operational capital requirements have imposed on our financial institutions and then, consequently, on our hardworking families and small businesses that are seeking credit. The Basel Committee requires U.S. financial institutions to hold excessive capital based upon a look-back approach to an organization's risk, previous earnings, and other provisions that provide no indication of future risk. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is about holding operational capital for past activities. This methodology employed by the international standard setters has forced our banks to hold hundreds of billions of dollars in reserve rather than putting that money to work in the real economy--in loans and investments--for people to buy cars, to launch small-business enterprises, or maybe to make a downpayment on that first home. Again, Mr. Speaker, let me say it so that all can hear. Hundreds of billions of dollars is currently sitting in banks across the country not being utilized to fund mortgage loans, car loans, and other day-to- day financing that American families and individuals demand. On top of this is the increased cost of compliance that banks have had to shoulder under Dodd-Frank's onslaught of regulation. Banks like Coatesville Savings Bank, the only remaining bank in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, has told us that, now, 25 percent of their annual budget is nothing but compliance cost, Mr. Speaker. This is detrimental to the Coatesville, Pennsylvania, community. That is 25 percent. That is a huge figure, Mr. Speaker, that cannot be used to fund the American Dream in Coatesville, Pennsylvania. So, again, Chairman Luetkemeyer brings us a very commonsense reform and a very necessary reform. Most agree and recognize the importance of our financial institutions to hold capital in the event of future crisis or distress. Nobody denies that, and this legislation does not remove those requirements. But, Mr. Speaker, requiring banking organizations to look back in the rearview mirror and hold operational capital against discontinued activities or products is just not nonsensical, it is crazy. It makes no sense. H.R. 4296 simply amends the method of how reserve capital is calculated by establishing standards based on an organization's current business activities, making the requirements more accurate and tailored to a bank's current risk profile. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is just common sense. That means banks would still retain sufficient reserves to weather an economic storm, but they would be able to put the billions of dollars currently sitting on the sidelines to work to help make the economy grow, to make it healthier. In short, this method-based approach proposed by H.R. 4296 properly calibrates operational capital while also ensuring strong, healthy financial institutions and, thus, a stronger economy for our constituents. Again, to be very clear, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4296, does not prevent Federal financial regulators from instituting operational risk capital requirements. It does not eliminate the authority of a regulator to assess operational risk, nor does it prevent regulators from requiring that capital be held against riskier activities or businesses. The bill simply puts forth a thoughtful framework that sets parameters, while allowing regulators the flexibility needed to ensure that capital standards are appropriately tailored. A healthy financial system, Mr. Speaker, will enhance individuals' financial freedom and will lead to a healthier and better regulatory system. H.R. 4296 has garnered strong, bipartisan support in our committee, passing by a vote of 43-17, again, because it is practical and common sense. I again want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who chairs our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, for his leadership on this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bipartisan measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, and the bill's sponsor.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. As I listen to my colleague from Ohio, she uses the complete wrong analogies. What happens is we don't pay our home insurance premiums on the home we sold; we pay it on the home we own. If you lived in a swamp and then you moved to a mountaintop in Colorado, you pay different insurance premiums; and if you cease to be a skydiver and you become an accountant, maybe you pay different life insurance premiums. This has to do with your risk profile today, not yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets.