Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Utah.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3971, the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act. It is an important bill that is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Members--again, bipartisan. It was approved in the Financial Services Committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 41-19, and it has a long track record of bipartisan support, and all Members should take note of this. I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who is a fine member of the Financial Services Committee. I want to thank her for introducing the legislation and really helping lead our congressional effort to provide needed regulatory relief for our small community banks and credit unions, to give them relief from rules that are unfairly restricting our constituents' access to mortgage credit. This is mortgage credit that would help Americans achieve a greater level of financial independence by being able to achieve perhaps their version of the American Dream, a home they can actually afford to keep. H.R. 3971 is a narrowly focused, modest effort to resolve concerns related to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rules implementing Dodd-Frank Act provisions on escrows and mortgage servicing. The CFPB's escrow requirements for property taxes and insurance are unnecessary, they are impractical, and they are a significant expense that just makes it harder for community banks and credit unions to offer mortgage loans to their customers and members. These escrow accounts are the accounts that people use to pay their taxes and pay their homeowners insurance. With the amendment soon to be introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a cosponsor of this legislation, this bipartisan bill would simply relieve certain small community banks and credit unions from the obligation to provide escrow accounts if they have consolidated assets of $10 billion or less and hold the mortgage on their balance sheet for 3 years. Again, Mr. Speaker, if they are holding the mortgage on their balance sheet, they have every incentive--every incentive to protect the collateral and ensure that tax and insurance payments are current. There is no reason to force them, these community banks and credit unions, to go through this very expensive process of escrowing, particularly if the customer or the credit union member doesn't want it. A large majority of community banks do not currently escrow because of the cost of which I have spoken. And requiring them to do so, Mr. Speaker, is only going to stop them from making loans; fewer home loans, fewer people with homeownership opportunity. You know, a community banker in Missouri recently told us that the CFPB's rule has forced his bank to ``limit in-house residential real estate lending.'' The banker went on to say: ``This is hurting the housing market and our community.'' That just shouldn't be happening, Mr. Speaker. A credit union official in Pennsylvania told us that this bureaucratic CFPB requirement has caused his credit union members to become ``very upset and confused as to why they were unable to pay their taxes how they always had.'' He went on to write: ``These members had managed their tax and insurance payments for years without institution interference, but suddenly they feel like the government now told them they were not responsible enough to manage their own affairs.'' This echoes precisely what we learn from a credit union leader in Pennsylvania who wrote a letter saying that ``changes to mortgage servicing rules have made it more expensive and more time consuming. Servicing rules and regulations have become a full-time regulatory and compliance nightmare.'' Again, Mr. Speaker, fewer home loans means fewer homes for our constituents. It is not right. To fix these problems, H.R. 3971 would also increase the small servicer exemption threshold from 5,000 mortgages to 20,000 mortgages annually, which better delineates small servicers from the large servicers. A community bank or credit union that services fewer than 20,000 mortgages should not be subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as the big financial institution that has a $2 trillion servicing portfolio. Again, these important reforms will give smaller credit unions and community banks greater flexibility to ensure more of their members and customers can get a loan to buy a home and stay in their home. Again, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Tenney's bill has strong bipartisan support. It has in the past; I expect it will have it again today. It solves a real problem for our constituents, and I urge adoption of the measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say we are losing a community bank or credit union a day in America, and we are losing them because they are drowning in a sea of Dodd-Frank regulations; and as they perish, so do the dreams of many of our constituents. Mr. Speaker, if a small community bank or credit union makes a loan and keeps it on their books, guess what. They want the loan repaid. They are going to make sure that the taxes are kept current. They are going to make sure the insurance is kept current. They don't need the burdensome regulation coming out from some Washington bureaucrat telling them how to do their business. They want to ensure the loan gets paid anyway. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), a fellow Texan and a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 647, I call up the bill (H.R. 477) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to exempt from registration brokers performing services in connection with the transfer of ownership of smaller privately held companies, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that, again, this is a commonsense reform. It is a balanced reform. It is good for small business. It is bipartisan. I urge all of my colleagues to adopt H.R. 477. Again, I thank the ranking member and the gentleman from California for their leadership to work on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if it weren't for the last moment, a lot of things wouldn't get done in life, but last evening, the ranking member and I came to a meeting of the minds on a path forward for H.R. 477. So in the interest of efficiency of time for the House, I want to thank the ranking member for her willingness to work on a bipartisan basis to move this bill forward. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our small businesses labor under a gazillion regulations, some of which are quite good and quite helpful; but, in the aggregate, they can be a very heavy burden and cost upon our small businesses. One is an unnecessary registration system for small business brokers. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) for his leadership to ensure that they have a simplified registration regime, which can help our small businesses as they are ready to engage in sales or mergers or other transactions. It is a good, bipartisan piece of legislation. I thank him for his leadership. Again, I thank the ranking member for working on a bipartisan basis, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the distinguished chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is the sponsor of the legislation and the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

Mr. HENSARLING. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what we have heard this morning, unfortunately, is an assault on affordable housing from too many people on the other side of the aisle. We have Washington elites who are deciding that low-income people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. We have too many people on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, who want to take them out of their affordable homes--manufactured homes--and are saying: No, go rent, go find someplace on the street. Here is the reality: when Washington elites at the Orwellian named Consumer Financial Protection Bureau decided to make these manufactured housing loans ``high cost,'' we saw a 22 percent drop in these type of loans being made. But what we know is that this is vital for so many working Americans. I heard from one consumer in Windsor, New York: I was falling behind on my own site-built mortgage payments. I was drowning in debt. I needed a cheaper housing alternative that would meet the needs of my family. The manufactured home payment cut my overall housing expense by 57 percent. Mr. Speaker, that is just one example. I have story after story from consumers who this is their only option for affordable housing. But too many of my friends on the other side of the aisle say: No, no, we can't allow you to do that. You might pay a little higher interest rate. Well, here is a news flash, Mr. Speaker: their monthly payment is lower and they get to own their own home. Washington elites have tried price controls before. They have been tried since the dawn of man, and it always leads to shortages. We don't want to shortchange working Americans for affordable housing. We want to protect the vulnerable in society and we want to allow them to have affordable housing. That is why it is so important that today we pass H.R. 1699. Protect affordable housing, protect freedom, and let's vote this in today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), a member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, this is a vaguely worded and unneeded MTR. We continue to hear from our friends from the other side of the aisle that we don't have sufficient consumer protections in place, but I wonder how denying a low-income family access to credit to buy an affordable home is somehow construed as consumer protection. I wonder how denying a low-income family the ability to own a home at a lower cost with a lower monthly payment somehow can be construed as consumer protection. I wonder how a policy that has led to a 22 percent drop in the availability of manufactured housing credit can somehow be construed as consumer protection. Only in Washington could you have such an absurd result, but I have good news for all Members of the House. After the passage of H.R. 1699, guess what. Manufactured housing loans will still be subject to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. They will still be subject to the Fair Housing Act. They will still be subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. They will still be subject to the Truth in Lending Act. They will still be subject to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. They will still be subject to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. And the list, Mr. Speaker, goes on and on and on. What we have heard is an attempt again by Washington elites to take away affordable housing. No one who votes against H.R. 1699 ought to be able to look themselves in the mirror and claim they are an advocate for affordable housing, not when they take it away, not when we have seen a 22 percent decrease after the actions of the elites at the so- called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It shouldn't be done. It is time to reject this motion to recommit. It is time to stand for low- and moderate-income Americans. It is time to stand for affordable housing. It is time for us to vote for H.R. 1699. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), the land of moose, maple syrup, and lobster, a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.