Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was listening carefully to my ranking member, and I think the translation is: I was for the bills before I was against the bills. I think she just said she supported all of these on the committee and the floor, she just doesn't support them tonight. And, apparently, the reason has something to do with the fact that the Senate, the other body, the other Chamber, perhaps hasn't gone through the same process that we have. I didn't know it was our business to do the Senate's business. Our business is to propose and support what the House has done. So I don't know if the ranking member sees the other body as a group of shrinking violets who cannot take care of themselves, who will somehow be overwhelmed by one particular amendment. I would remind all Members there is this thing called a conference committee between the House and the Senate to work out differences. They have many matters in the Senate bill that have not been debated in the House, yet those will be taken up in conference committee. So it is late in the evening, Madam Chair, as you well know, and I have heard a lot of very, very interesting things throughout the hours and hours of debate. But I simply cannot understand how Members will come to the floor and essentially tell us: ``We were for all of these bills, but we are no longer for all of these bills. We were for them before we were against them because we are just afraid the Senate somehow can't take care of themselves.'' I think we should reject that. These are bills that were passed unanimously and near unanimously in the House. They are bipartisan. They include Republican bills, Democrat bills. As much as I respect the ranking member, this argument makes no sense to me whatsoever. The House has already spoken on these matters. Let's get the people's business done. I urge all Members to adopt the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), who is last, but not least, on the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I would just urge all Members to vote for freedom, to vote for opportunity, to vote for empowerment of the farmers, the factory workers, the low- and moderate-income people, the single moms, all building a retirement security. Reject the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and vote for H.R. 1090, the Retail Investor Protection Act from the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner). I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the author of H.R. 1090, the Retail Investor Protection Act.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), a very important member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), another valued member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), another valued member of the committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the distinguished chairman of our Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume simply to say, Mr. Speaker, at one time this administration told us, if you liked your doctor, you could keep them. Now this same administration is telling us, if you like your financial adviser, you can keep them. The first promise was broken, and now they are in the process of breaking the second promise due to something called the Department of Labor fiduciary rule. It will take away investment advice from hundreds of thousands, if not millions of low- and moderate-income people all around the Nation who rely upon this advice to save for retirement. This is something that should be considered by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and there has been outstanding work by the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) who has been at the forefront of protecting retail investors, the small moms and pops planning for their retirement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, let me remind all that the administration that told the American people, ``If you like your doctor, you can keep them'' is now telling us, ``If you like your financial adviser, you can keep them.'' Not--not--in the face of the Department of Labor fiduciary rule. The ranking member just brought up the U.K. experience. Well, it is funny, we heard something completely different from what she described in our hearing. What we heard was, ``In the wake of the U.K. commission ban''--which, Mr. Speaker, is similar to what the DOL fiduciary rule is--``the largest banks have significantly raised the minimum account balances required before they will offer financial advice to investors.'' The number of advisers serving retail accounts plunged by 23 percent. Tens of thousands are going without financial advice because their accounts aren't large enough. What my friends on the other side of the aisle would do by backing this DOL rule is take it away. You don't count. You are not rich enough to get any financial advice. You can't grow your savings. How ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the very same Department of Labor has come out with a study saying that investors who do not use investment advice are losing $114 billion a year. And yet what do my friends on the other side of the aisle do in cahoots with the Department of Labor? They take away--they take away--their professional advice. Here is a radical idea--and I admit it is radical--it is called freedom. Why don't we let the customer have the freedom of choice? My friends on the other side of the aisle use a red herring about disclosure and conflict of interest. There already are rules on the books. FINRA has disclosure rules, conflict of interest rules. We believe them. They ought to be enforced. If they are not obeyed, broker-dealers can have fines, they can lose their license. If they are fraudulent, the Department of Justice can criminally prosecute. That is a complete red herring. The issue here today is whether or not low- and moderate-income people can get access to financial advice under a commission-based model in order to grow their retirement accounts, so they can have the safety and security that so many Members of Congress already enjoy. Mr. Speaker, isn't that what is fair? Isn't that what is right? Why don't we have disclosure, and then why don't we let people choose? I just want to come here urging all Members to support H.R. 1090. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner). She has been at the forefront of this battle all over the Nation. She should be recognized as the hero she is in fighting for working Americans' retirement security. I would urge that we all support this bill. It is so critical to the future retirement security of all those who struggle every day. We have got a case study right now in the U.K. We do not want to repeat this. Let's protect them. Let's enact H.R. 1090, the Retail Investor Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining, please.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), one of the hardest working members on the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the distinguished chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee that held a number of key hearings on the Export-Import Bank.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We had a rather spirited debate here between those who believe the Ex-Im Bank is about economic development and trade, and those who believe it is about corporate welfare, cronyism, and an unfair economy. For those who claim that the Ex-Im Bank creates jobs, the Congressional Research Service would tend to beg to disagree and citing economists who say they largely rearrange jobs. We know for a fact they have rearranged jobs away from Delta because they have said they have lost jobs when the Ex-Im Bank subsidizes Air India. Valero Refining, in my native Texas, has said they lose jobs in America when the Ex-Im Bank will subsidize a Turkish competitor. Cliffs Natural Resources of Cleveland, Ohio, will say they lose jobs when the Ex-Im Bank subsidizes an Australian competitor, which has caused economist Donald Boudreaux to say, at best, the Ex-Im Bank creates jobs in export industries by destroying jobs in non-export industries. How is that fair? How is that fair, Mr. Speaker? We are told that the Ex-Im Bank makes money for the taxpayers. Well, yes, if you use special insider Washington accounting rules. But if you use fair value accounting, something that the rest of America has to use, the Congressional Budget Office says that it actually loses money, and in fact, it has received an actual bailout from the Federal taxpayers before. We are told they help small business. And you know what? That is true in a number of cases. But yet two-thirds of the benefits go to Fortune 50 companies like Boeing, like GE. They are great companies with great people doing great things. I just wonder why they have to receive taxpayer subsidies? And 40 percent goes to benefit one company, Boeing; that is why it is affectionately called the ``Bank of Boeing.'' So I know it helps some small businesses, but other small businesses aren't too fond of the Ex-Im Bank. We hear from the chairman of Michael Lewis Company in McCook, Illinois: ``Over the long run, Ex-Im subsidies for foreign carriers creates a tilted playing field that means fewer U.S. airlines jobs-- which translates into economic pain for thousands of businesses like ours and our employees.'' That is the voice of small business. Chris Rufer, founder of the Morning Star Company: ``When a company profits from the Bank's support, it pockets the money. If it defaults, taxpayers' pockets gets picked . . . it is private gain at the expense of public pain.'' That too, is the voice of small business. We are told that as long as global competitors do this, well, we have to do it. I mean, that is an argument I hear from my children: everybody else is doing it, so we have to do it. But the truth is, almost two-thirds of the Ex-Im Bank book has nothing to do with a countervailing duty. And almost 99 percent of all U.S. exports, Mr. Speaker, are financed without the Ex-Im Bank. So we need to help our exporters. We need to help our small businesses. But the way we do that is through expanded trade. It is through fundamental tax reform that the National Association of Manufacturers has said is 50 percent of our competitive disadvantage. Let's make a fairer, flatter, simpler Tax Code. Let's have regulatory reform with the REINS Act. Let's pass the Keystone pipeline and drive energy prices down and become more competitive that way. So the arguments of those who propose to support the Ex-Im Bank--and these are good people, and I know they believe in their hearts and heads in what they are doing. But I don't think their arguments bear scrutiny. They don't stand up to the light of day because the true face of the Ex-Im Bank is about cronyism. It is about misplaced priorities. It is about foreign aid. It is about corruption. Again, this is a bank that benefits a handful of Fortune 50 companies that lobby and lobby well. Now, I would defend their First Amendment right to do it. I just wish they would lobby for more competition and more freedom and not subsidy and special privilege. We know that so much of this support, Mr. Speaker, ends up in countries like China and Russia. We asked the chairman of the Export- Import Bank: So we are supposed to compete with China by subsidizing China? And, Mr. Speaker, you know what his answer was? Well, it is complicated. No, Mr. Speaker, it is not complicated; it is stupid. It is stupid for us to subsidize China in the thought that somehow we are going to compete with China. Almost $1 billion to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which Freedom House says is the third worst human rights offender in the world. The cronyism, money to Solyndra, money to Enron, $33 million to a Spanish green energy company that Bill Richardson, former Energy Secretary, sat on the advisory board of the Ex-Im Bank and then sat on the advisory board of the Spanish green energy company. How cozy. The Fannie and Freddie business model. Corruption, the last 6 years, 75 years total prison time, 90 criminal indictments, 49 criminal judgments. One employee just recently pleaded guilty to 19 counts of bribery. Mr. Speaker, the genius of our system, the fairness of our system is about the free enterprise system. It is not about crony capitalism. Your success in America should depend upon how smart you work and how hard you work on Main Street, not who you know in Washington. Crony capitalism is a threat to our free enterprise system. This is America. If you dream big dreams, if you play by the rules, you can make it on Main Street. But not in this Washington insider economy. And there is no better poster child of the Washington crony economy and corporate welfare than the Export-Import Bank. So I have no doubt that an overwhelming number of Democrats are going to support the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. They are always happy to allocate credit and our economy as part of a political process. They are always happy to subsidize corporate America, as long as they can also regulate and control it. But that is not fair to the people on Main Street. It is the free enterprise system which is fair. It is the free enterprise system which is moral. It is the free enterprise system which is based on merit. It is the free enterprise system which is empowering to people. It is the only economic system that frees ordinary people to achieve extraordinary results. So, Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate is all about. It is about a fair economy for everybody in America: those who can't afford the high- priced lobbyist in Washington, D.C., and those who want to work hard and play by the rules. It is time for us to say ``no'' to crony capitalism, say ``yes'' to free enterprise, say ``yes'' to a fair economy, and reject the Export- Import Bank. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, in order to help equalize the time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to quote President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1985: ``Why won't the Congress stop its export subsidies to a handful of corporations which account for less than 2 percent of US exports?'' I reserve the balance of my time.

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