Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentleman from California's amendment. I think there are a lot of well-thought ideas here. I appreciate the sentiment by which he approached the amendment. I do believe, though, that, in this particular case, this amendment goes a little bit too far in the wrong direction and ultimately can prove to hurt a number of small businesses and economic growth. Number one, a lot of what the gentleman is trying to achieve I think has already been achieved in the amendment by the gentleman from Michigan that we just approved on voice vote here on the floor. I would also add that, with the amendment from the gentleman from Michigan, who has the underlying title of this bill, the language now is identical to the bipartisan Senate language. We know how difficult it is to get laws passed. I think it is important, where we can, to align the language with the other side of the Capitol. I think this could ease passage of a bill which is bipartisan, again, on both ends of the Capitol. Again, I appreciate what the gentleman from California is trying to do, but I think that the gentleman from Michigan strikes the appropriate balance.

Mr. HENSARLING

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), the author of title IV of H.R. 1675.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in gentle opposition.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of the time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, every working American knows this economy stinks. There are no two ways about it. We have got to jump-start our small businesses and our emerging growth companies. Entrepreneurship is at a generational low. Let's do something to actually help our small businesses raise capital. You can't have capitalism without capital. The gentleman from Virginia, the author of title IV, provides a very simple optional exemption from the XBRL data filing requirement. It has nothing to do with the content of disclosure, Mr. Chairman. All it has to do with is the format--a format that is very expensive for a number of our emerging growth companies, some of whom testified that a lot of investors don't even use it. So what we are essentially hearing from the author of the amendment and others is a rough translation that this is in the small business' best interest because they will need it to attract investors. Well, why don't we let them make that decision? This is almost the analog of ObamaCare: the American people were too stupid to know what kind of health care they needed. If XBRL works for these small companies, they will use it. If it doesn't, then they will opt out of it. It is optional for emerging growth companies and smaller public companies. It is temporary. It is a huge burden on these companies at a time when we just had one of the worst quarters of economic growth we have seen in years and when the economy continues to lag at roughly half of its historic economic growth. At some point, I would hope the other side of the aisle would end the war on small businesses and emerging growth companies. We need title IV. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), the author of title IV of H.R. 1675.

Mr. HENSARLING

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the gentleman from Minnesota. He makes a number of important points. We have had this discussion previously. I know the gentleman from Minnesota is aware of my commitment that, within the committee, we will have a hearing that will include the subject matter of his amendment. I think the gentleman's amendment, obviously, addresses the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is not part of this underlying housing bill. Again, we will debate his issue, research his issue, and take testimony on his issue in the future. I do not believe that this is the appropriate bill for his particular amendment, so I am going to urge rejection at this time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, we all know on this House floor there is not enough we can ever do for our veterans, the brave men and women who served us in uniform. I think that the author of the amendment, in attempting to get HUD and the VA to work more closely together to address problems like veterans' homelessness, is an important thing to do. I hope it has some benefit. Mr. Chairman, again, I just want to accept the amendment and urge all Members to adopt it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I think the comment period does need to be reopened. It is an important issue. Voices need to be heard. The gentleman from California is now batting a thousand. I am not sure if he has any other amendments. He may be pressing his luck after that. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Vermont. I appreciate his amendment. I think that this helps equalize for a number of Section 8 users the ability to use manufactured housing to help equalize this with other housing options. So I think it is an important step forward. I thank the gentleman from Vermont for his leadership, and I recommend Members vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

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

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

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Texas. I thank him for his leadership in this area of rural housing. I think it plays a role in helping develop a more modern and efficient management and underwriting system to assess mortgage credit risk, prevent foreclosures, and manage a billion-dollar portfolio. This is a bipartisan amendment and a bipartisan bill. We are happy to accept it. I urge Members to adopt it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 3700, the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act, offered by my friend, Chairman Luetkemeyer of Missouri. I want to thank him for his leadership on this bill that he has worked on for many, many months. It represents a true bipartisan approach to housing reform. I also want to thank his fellow Missourian, the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee, again, another gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), for his input into this legislation and for his leadership on his side of the aisle as well. H.R. 3700 passed the Financial Services Committee with broad bipartisan support back in December. Again, it is designed to help promote greater efficiency in our existing housing assistance programs. In many different ways, Mr. Chairman, it modernizes a lot of outdated rules and regulations which, in some cases, have not even been updated in a generation. And so, in that respect, it takes the resources that we have and targets it to those who need it the most. So you will find provisions here dealing with Section 8 rental assistance, public housing, rural housing, homeless assistance, and FHA mortgage insurance for condominiums. It is a very broad bill, and, again, it enjoys bipartisan support. Let me talk a little bit about what H.R. 3700 doesn't do or what it is not. Few have been more critical about the poor focus of our HUD programs than I have been because, regardless of whatever their good intentions may be, the undeniable truth is current Federal housing policy remains fractured, remains costly, remains inefficient, and oftentimes does not help those who truly need it. In 2012, the GAO found that 20 different Federal Government entities administer over 160 different programs, tax expenditures, and other tools that support home ownership and rental housing. The Department of HUD has received approximately more than $1.6 trillion in real dollars since it was born 50 years ago and today spends over $45 billion annually on at least 85 active programs, again, many of which have not been modernized or updated in a generation. And the results of all this? Well, all too often housing affordability remains a very real challenge for many Americans. Too many neighborhoods still suffer from blight and neglect with substandard housing options for low-income families. Most tellingly, the national poverty rate has remained essentially unchanged in the 50 years since HUD was first created. Mr. Chairman, we can do better. Now, we all know that the best housing program is a job, a career path, one with a future. We know that the best housing program is economic opportunity for all, boundless economic opportunity for all. But there are still some that need assistance. So that is not what this debate is about today. Today the debate is: What can we do on a bipartisan basis? Where can we come to agreement on current existing programs to try to make them work better for the poor and for our low-income people who need assistance through the HUD programs? What is it we can do to help move more people out of poverty to lives of self-sufficiency? How do we reform HUD's complex bureaucratic web of programs? How do we spread economic opportunity to all? Those should be what our goals are. H.R. 3700 addresses the question by finding many ways within HUD's bureaucracy to streamline the inspection protocol for rental assistance units, to simplify tenant income review so local housing officials can focus on housing, not data collection, and to target assistance, again, to households with the greatest need. For the first time, H.R. 3700 will state that any occupant of a public housing unit that exceeds the area median income for 2 consecutive years either gives up their government subsidy or moves out of the unit. That provides more resources for those who deserve it. H.R. 3700 also addresses the problem of over-income occupants. It creates for the first time a financial asset test for public housing residents. Currently, there is only a one-time income test. Again, these are just two ways, Mr. Chairman, that we ensure that the resources that are devoted to these housing programs are targeted to those who are most in need. I could go on and on about the benefits of the bill. But let me just say that, with any great project, there are those who are always saying we could do more. And, yes, we could do more, and we are working faster to implement even more reforms. But today represents a start of a process, not the end of a process, a very ambitious project to transform how we deliver government housing assistance in America and help people graduate from Federal assistance to lives of self-sufficiency and financial independence. Again, I congratulate the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of our Housing and Insurance Subcommittee, for his great leadership. I commend the ranking member of that committee as well for working on a bipartisan basis. I hope all Members will support H.R. 3700. It is a bipartisan first step in fixing a broken housing system that we have. I reserve the balance of my time.

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 materials on the bill, H.R. 3700, to provide housing opportunities in the United States through modernization of various housing programs, and for other purposes.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee. He happens to be the author of the bill.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, if nothing else, I would just like to throw the ranking member a curve ball and actually accept one of her amendments, just to show that minor miracles can still occur within the Halls of Congress and on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Particularly after a very robust debate this morning on the budget views and estimates, this might be a welcome departure. Anyway, I am prepared to accept the ranking member's amendment. Again, as she said, H.R. 3700 will allow only families to deduct childcare expenses that exceed 5 percent. The ranking member's amendment would revert back to current law. I think that in this particular case there are some trade-offs to be made, and I am willing to accept this particular trade-off and work with the ranking member to forward the overall bill. I urge all Members to accept it and vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.