Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. This did pass our committee on a unanimous basis. I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for her leadership and for her other areas of leadership on our committee. As a very senior Democrat, her counsel is always important; her leadership is always important. This is indeed, as was described, Mr. Speaker, in many respects, a technical correction that needed to take place. We need to ensure that our family offices, that those investment funds can be put to their highest and best use to help grow the economy. I was happy that the ranking member used the phrase ``unintended consequences'' because, indeed, Mr. Speaker, from time to time, there are unintended consequences of regulation. We do wish to ensure that these family offices that otherwise meet the definition of accredited investors have the full range of investment opportunities before them. This bill will do this. Again, it came out on a strong bipartisan, indeed, a unanimous basis from the Financial Services Committee, and so I would urge all Members of the House to adopt it.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the terrible tragedy and suffering from Harvey, Irma, and Maria. We have seen the shattered homes, and we have seen the shattered lives. I have been to Houston and my native Texas to visit with a number of the victims. There are many tragedies, Mr. Speaker, out of these hurricanes and flooding, but one of the tragedies--one of the tragedies--is that in Harris County, where Houston is, 80 percent of the homes that were flooded didn't have flood insurance. Now, why didn't they have flood insurance, Mr. Speaker? I believe one of the reasons is because we have a government monopoly called the National Flood Insurance Program. Many people don't even know of its existence. Many people think they were safe because they were 3 feet outside of the government designated 100-year floodplain. Many thought that somehow this was simply rolled into their homeowners' insurance policy, but it wasn't. So, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to make sure that people have more affordable options for flood insurance. Wouldn't it be wonderful that for every time you saw a life insurance commercial or an auto insurance commercial, you saw something about flood insurance to help educate the American people about the need for this basic insurance policy? We could see the savings occur as people rolled this into their homeowners' policy. In the very small portion of the market, Mr. Speaker, where there is competition, people are saving not just hundreds of dollars, but thousands of dollars. We have heard from the Megoulas family in Pennsylvania: ``NFIP insurance would have cost me $2,700 a year, but I was able to find private coverage for only $718. . . . '' We heard from the Cyr family, also of Pennsylvania: ``I have benefited from switching to private market flood insurance from FEMA. I save about $1,000 per year.'' So, Mr. Speaker, there is a piece of legislation known as the Flood Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act, also known as Ross- Castor. I want to thank my colleague from Florida (Mr. Ross) for his leadership on this issue. It is very simple. It simply clarifies congressional intent that people ought to have more options. In particular, Mr. Speaker, as people begin to rebuild after these hurricanes, they need better options for flood insurance, particularly with the NFIP $30 billion in debt, facing another bailout, and facing an uncertain future. Now we need to take care of that. That is why I have proposed, along with Chairman Duffy, a 5-year, long-term reauthorization. We are currently operating under a temporary 90-day authorization. But as we do, let's work on something that we can all agree on. The last time this bill came up in the House, Mr. Speaker, 419-0. It has recently come out of the Financial Services Committee 58-0. I am not sure you can get that kind of vote tally for a Mother's Day resolution. It is bipartisan. It is the very definition of bipartisan. So let's take one important step today to help the victims of Harvey, Irma, and Maria as they begin to rebuild their homes, to have more flood insurance options, more affordable insurance options. As we work through what we might disagree on in the NFIP authorization, let's pass today what we can agree on and help the victims today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), who is the author of the bipartisan Flood Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act, which passed this body in the last Congress 419-0. He is the vice chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee and the real leader for affordable private flood insurance.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee and a leader on flood insurance in the House today.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is so obvious to all as we have looked in horror on our television screens to see the devastation of Harvey, Irma, and Maria. There have been lots of tragic stories, harrowing tales of survival. I have been to Houston. I have met with a number of the victims. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about one tragic story. One tragic story is that there are people who are living in homes that repeatedly flood five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, even twenty times. Something is fundamentally wrong in America and something is fundamentally dangerous in America when people are living in harm's way. Many of these people are ready to move. Mr. Speaker, last week I made a comment about these repeatedly flooded properties that was clearly inartful. It was not meant to be taken literally, but it was. I regret the comment because it diverted from a very important point that needs to be made, and the point is this: if we care about our fellow citizens, if we wish to be compassionate, then Federal aid and Federal policy will help move these people to safer ground. It is time to either help mitigate these homes or to help move these homes. For this small set of properties, we must help. Otherwise, I fear that the fatalities and the economic carnage will continue. If we simply rebuild the same properties in the same manner, in the same place, and expect a different result, we are not helping our fellow citizens, we are not helping our first responders, and we are certainly not helping the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, another tragedy of these storms is how many people needed flood insurance but didn't have it. Many of them had no idea that they actually needed it. In Houston, by some reports, 80 percent of the damaged homes didn't have flood insurance. Why? One of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, is because we have a government monopoly in flood insurance. Many people don't understand that flood is not included in their typical homeowner's insurance policy. Many people, unfortunately, took false security from living outside the government-designated 100-year flood plain. Many have seen no options. But help is on the way. Bipartisan help is on the way with the Flood Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act, known as the Ross-Castor bill. It is a critical piece of legislation to give more people more affordable options for flood insurance. In the small part of the national market where we have competition, particularly in Pennsylvania and in Florida, people are saving hundreds of dollars, if not thousands of dollars, in many cases on their flood insurance premiums. The very respected firm of Millman, which studies insurance matters, said that half of policy owners in Florida, two-thirds in Louisiana, and 75 percent in Texas--my native State--could all save with private flood insurance. Think about it, Mr. Speaker. If we had a real competitive market with multiple companies advertising and selling multiple policies, more people would become educated about the need for flood insurance and have that rolled into their normal homeowner's policy. This is vital. Mr. Speaker, last year this bill passed this House 419-0. You can't get any more bipartisan. It recently passed the Financial Services Committee 58-0. If there is one thing that we need to do--and it is urgent that we do it now, with the National Flood Insurance Program, which is in debt, facing another bailout and an uncertain future, which we must remedy-- as folks begin to rebuild, let's get them more affordable flood insurance policies. I appreciate the bill included in this package, and for the sake of all the victims of the hurricanes, I urge its adoption.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chair, I raise a point of order against section 7080 of H.R. 3354 for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. This provision proposes to directly amend existing law by changing the statutory quorum requirement of the Export-Import Bank. This constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the following provision of H.R. 3354 for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI: Beginning with the semicolon on page 535, line 12, through ``(12 U.S.C. 3907(b)(2).'' on page 536, line 14. This provision proposes to change existing law by altering the Federal Reserve's conduct of the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review regime. This constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently voted YES on Roll Call Vote 433 and would like to have it reflected that I meant to vote no

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), who is the sponsor of the legislation and vice chairman of our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, hardworking Americans want something different in their Nation's Capital. They want to change the toxic culture in Washington, D.C., that for far too long has allowed unaccountable bureaucrats to overreach and overregulate. The best way we can change Washington is to begin to drain the bureaucratic swamp, but it is not easy because we have seen in the last 6 months the swamp fights back. The most recent example of this is a rule issued by one of the swampiest of Washington bureaucracies, the Orwellian-named Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We all know that this is a rogue agency with a checkered past, chock- full of rampant allegations of abuse, racial and gender discrimination, and Big Government nannyism, which constantly makes credit more expensive and less available to hardworking Americans. Mr. Speaker, so radical is this agency and so extreme in lacking accountability that a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the Bureau's governing structure unconstitutional. Now, this unaccountable bureaucracy has joined forces in an unholy alliance with one of the Democratic Party's favorite special interest groups; namely, the trial lawyers lobby. And this unholy alliance will specifically deprive consumers of a low-cost, easy way to resolve legal disputes that can be accomplished without hiring trial attorneys. What the Bureau and the wealthy trial lawyers want is to take away arbitration for consumers and, instead, force them into class action lawsuits, which just so happens to require consumers to hire the very trial lawyers who will benefit most from this rule. Americans were promised a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but, instead, they obviously got a trial lawyer enrichment bureau. Oh, by the way, the director of this swampy bureaucracy rushed this regulation onto the books because it is widely reported he is on the way out the door to run for political office in Ohio. Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker, one accountable bureaucrat has decided that he knows better than the American people, and he has acted unilaterally to dictate the terms of contracts in a way that will actually increase consumer costs and reduce consumer choice. In a free and Democratic society, no one unelected individual should possess this much power. Mr. Speaker, making consumers pay more for less is the exact opposite of consumer protection, but it is exactly what this regulation means for every American. This regulation will perpetuate a justice gap that takes away a quicker, less expensive legal option for low-income and middle-income Americans. Even the CFPB's own study says this: the Bureau's own study found that 87 percent of the class actions it examined resulted in no consumer benefit whatsoever. In the mere 13 percent that actually provided some benefit, Mr. Speaker, the average payout per consumer was $32. How much did the trial attorneys make? 31,000 times that amount. So, again, Mr. Speaker, we have an average payout of $32 for the consumers and millions for the trial attorneys. So no wonder the powerful trial attorneys lobby is so eager to see this rule go into effect. The Bureau's own study also concludes that arbitration is less expensive for consumers and up to 12 times faster than litigation. Consumers who obtain relief in arbitration recovered in a CFPB study an average of $5,389. Again, Mr. Speaker, compare that to $32 the average consumer received under the CFPB study. Now, we are about to hear from some Members on the other side of the aisle that somehow consumers will lose their day in court and that somehow big banks will be helped. The CFPB's own study shows that not a single class action it examined, not a single one, resulted in trial by a judge or a jury. So no consumer got his or her day in court under the Bureau's preferred class actions. Instead, we know consumers are far more likely to obtain decisions on the merits in arbitration. With this rule, we once again see our colleagues in the other party hurting small community banks and credit unions. I have a statement that has been published already from the Independent Community Bankers of America. They are not Wall Street. This is small town community banks, and their statement says they strongly oppose the CFPB rule. Also, I have a statement from the Credit Union National Association-- again, Mr. Speaker, not Wall Street, but credit unions, our neighborhood credit unions. They say that the CFPB's rule will limit options for resolving disputes and could increase the number of frivolous lawsuits and that credit union members ``could suffer when costs rise and resources are depleted as a result of this rule.'' Indeed, the CFPB, itself, estimates its final rule will increase costs for American businesses over $1 billion per year. That is money that our community banks and credit unions won't be able to lend to our small businesses, to our families, and to American workers. The CFPB's rule is bad for consumers, it is bad for community banks, it is bad for credit unions, and it is bad for our economy. Washington should be focused on creating more jobs, not more class action lawsuits. So, Mr. Speaker, it is time to fight the bureaucratic swamp. It is time to pass the resolution offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus). I appreciate his leadership in helping protect consumers instead of enriching trial lawyers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) be allowed to control the remainder of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 468, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Arbitration Agreements'', and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) for yielding, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue, as I do the gentleman from Pennsylvania as well. Mr. Speaker, since 1925, this institution, the United States Congress, has recognized the right of consumers to engage in arbitration, which we know for so many consumers is their avenue for redress of grievance. We know that this has been upheld on multiple occasions by the Supreme Court. We have almost 100 years of precedence. And now this rogue agency, the Orwellian-named CFPB, decides to promulgate a rule, and it is not even an agency. Mr. Speaker, it is one unelected, unaccountable individual who has decided that Americans no longer have the right to contract, they no longer have the right to decide that they would prefer to arbitrate instead of go through a class action lawsuit. Mr. Speaker, let's let people know what this is truly about. What this is about is the trial attorneys relief act. Theirs are the voices that we are hearing on the other side of the aisle, and we are hearing them loud and clear, because what we know is that, in class action lawsuits, consumers end up with almost nothing and the trial lawyers make out like bandits. Even in the CFPB's own study, they figured out that those who go through class action are doing well to get $32.35, yet the trial lawyers make out with millions. We also know in the CFPB's own study that those who went through arbitration ended up with settlements of $5,389. Mr. Speaker, here are just a couple of different class action lawsuits that have happened recently. A Dell Computers class action lawsuit: $500,000 for class members, $7 million for the lawyers; Subway sandwiches: $50,000 for the class members, $500,000 for the trial attorneys. Oh, here is a good one, Mr. Speaker, Coca-Cola class action: $0 for class members, $1.2 million for the lawyers; L.A. Fitness International: $7,000 for class members, $200,000 for lawyers. Mr. Speaker, the American people are not foolish. It is time to drain the swamp and to start off with the bureaucracy that is taking away their rights to have dispute resolution through arbitration. They are tired of seeing others go and kowtow to the trial lawyers lobby in this town to give them what they want. It is time to make sure that Americans' consumer rights can be protected, and so it is time that we pass this Congressional Review Act for all Americans.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and certainly for his leadership on this very important bill. I rise in support of the Russia, Iran, and North Korean Sanctions Act. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to highlight the provisions that are the product of the hard work of the Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance. The inclusion of these provisions will undoubtedly assist our government's anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing efforts. For instance, this bill includes language directing the President, acting through the Secretary of the Treasury, to develop and maintain a national strategy for combating the financing of terrorism and related forms of illicit financing. The opportunistic nature of terrorist groups, combined with the emergence of financial technology, creates new challenges for our law enforcement community and their efforts to disrupt terror finance. The national strategy should also seek to enhance partnerships with the private sector that prevent and detect illicit financing, and increase efforts to facilitate compliance with our anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing laws. I would like to commend Congressman Ted Budd for introducing the National Strategy for Combating Terrorists, Underground, and Other Illicit Financing Act, which is almost entirely incorporated in section 2 of the underlying legislation. I would also like to recognize Congressman Pearce and Congressman Pittenger, the chairman and vice chairman of the Terrorism and Illicit Finance Subcommittee of our committee, whose leadership on these issues has been instrumental to achieve the legislation that is before us today. Mr. Speaker, we know that Thomas Jefferson once famously said: ``The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.'' And that is indeed true. Thanks, in no small part, to the hard work of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance, the bill before us today ensures that we remain vigilant to address the evolving threats to our financial system. I am proud to support it and I encourage all Members to support it. Again, I thank Chairman Royce for his leadership today on this bill and in our committee.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize 100 years of aviation at Mineola Wisener Field Airport located in Wood County, Texas. On July 4, 1917, a United States Army Signal Corps Curtis JN-4 ``Jenny'' aircraft, piloted by Lt. Ralph W. Stone, landed just outside Mineola, Texas. The site was established as ``Massingale Meadow'' and was used as an emergency landing site for Love Field Airport. The site was published in books in 1920 and 1921 and many early aviators and pioneers frequented the site. Robert ``Henry'' Wisener, Jr. was 12 years old when he observed the first landing from his family farm in 1917. When he was 17, Henry was taught to fly by Roy Wilson, a Hollywood stunt pilot who spent time at the field. Henry's love and passion for aircraft grew from there. On June 1, 1926, Henry leased ``Massingale Meadow'' and named the airport the Royal Field. Here he built the first airplane hangar and offered flight training, aircraft repairs and fuel. He later based the Royal Flying Circus here and together with his brother Bryce, performed aerial acrobatics throughout Texas and the Southwest and Midwest regions of the U.S. In 1941, Henry purchased ``Massingale Meadow'' along with a 50 acre tract to lengthen the runway. In 1946, an aircraft maintenance shop, classroom, and flight office were built to provide training under the GI Bill. During that year a decommissioned Department of Commerce Airways Beacon Tower and Beacon were disassembled and moved to ``Massingale Meadow''. From 1963 to 1983, the city of Mineola leased the airport and it operated as the Mineola Municipal Airport. The airport was renamed Mineola Wisener Field Airport at the expiration of the lease. Wisener Field and its early founders and operators have been recognized throughout the years on many occasions, including by the Texas Historical Commission. The Texas Aeronautics Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration recognized Mineola Wisener Field Airport as the ``second oldest, continuously-used, uncontrolled airport in the state.'' As Wood County's first airport, Wisener Field has made a long-lasting impact on the economy, as well as aviation enthusiasts. As the Representative of the 5th Congressional District of Texas, it is an honor to recognize Wisener Field on the 100th Anniversary of its first landing.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and let me thank him for his leadership of the Republican Study Committee and what that committee means to the conservative movement and what it means to the cause of freedom and opportunity for so many working men and women. I especially want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his work on the American Health Care Act and what that means to so many of our constituents to truly be able, after this rise of premiums where people are paying more to get less in healthcare, to really bring us to a moment where we can have patient-centered healthcare. I just want to thank him for that. These are actually hopeful times for the American people. Regrettably, as we know, working America hasn't received a pay increase in almost a decade. Their savings have remained decimated since the financial crisis. So to get this economy moving again, our President knows, this Congress knows that, number one, we do have to return to patient-centered healthcare, not for what that means just to our families, but what it means to our economy. We have to have fundamental tax reform as well, and I know that our House Ways and Means Committee is working on that assiduously, but we also have to have fundamental reform of our regulations. There is no regulation that has imposed more burden on our economy than the Dodd- Frank Act. In fact, it is more burdensome to our economy than all Obama-era regulations combined. It is simply that bad. When they passed this bill in the wake of the financial crisis, they told us that it would lift the economy. But instead of lifting the economy, we are mired in the slowest, weakest recovery in the postwar era. They told us that it would end bank bailouts, but cynically, it codified them into law and backed it up with a taxpayer bailout fund. They told us and they promised us it would make the economy more stable, but instead, the big banks have gotten bigger and the small banks have gotten fewer. They told us and promised us it would help the consumer, but instead of helping the consumer, free checking at banks has been cut in half. Bank fees have increased. Has anybody within earshot tried to get a mortgage recently? They are harder to come by. They cost hundreds of more dollars to close. There are fewer credit card offerings. What has happened here is, under Dodd-Frank, those who are seeking credit are now paying more and receiving less. This is hurting not only our families, but it has hurt our economy. Small business lending hasn't recovered, entrepreneurship is at a generational low. So that is why it was so important that on Thursday of last week this body, this House, took action and passed the Financial CHOICE Act. The Financial CHOICE Act represents, for all of America, economic opportunity for all, bank bailouts for none. It replaces the era of bank bailouts with bankruptcy for these large financial institutions. It replaces Washington micromanagement with market discipline. That is how we help to grow this economy. It will create more credit for more people. There is a whole part of this legislation that is totally devoted to our small banks and credit unions because it is our small community financial institutions that help finance our small businesses. It is our small businesses which are the job engine of America. That is what has been choked off by this heavy hand of Obama regulation. So I was proud to play a very small role in the House to bring the Financial CHOICE Act to the House so that we can indeed, as the acronym suggests, create hope and opportunity for investors, for consumers, for entrepreneurs. We want the animal spirits in the American economy to move again. We want that budding optimism that tomorrow can be a better day, that you can be your own boss, that you can start your own small business. We want that opportunity to flourish yet again in America. That is what we managed to do with the Financial CHOICE Act. I am very happy that we have now sent it over to the Senate. We look forward to having the Senate act upon this. The American people can't wait to get this economy moving again. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for highlighting this for the American people, and I want to thank him again for his leadership of the Republican Study Committee. Without this august group, the Congress' largest caucus, the caucus of conservatives, this would not have happened, and I want to thank him for that.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Michigan an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is a leader on our Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments Subcommittee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).