Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

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

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, ever since the Dodd-Frank law was passed, none of the promises that were made have been kept. It didn't end too big to fail. Big banks have gotten bigger. Small banks have gotten fewer. Working Americans continue to fall behind. They have seen their paychecks either remain stagnant or shrink. They have certainly seen their bank accounts shrink. After Dodd-Frank, we have seen free checking at banks cut in half. Since other financial laws of the Obama administration have been passed, we have seen 15 percent fewer credit card offerings, and on average, many of them have increased by 2 percentage points in cost, hurting working Americans who need access to credit. For purposes of the debate today, Mr. Speaker, what is undeniable is that we are losing a community financial institution a day in America. As we lose those financial institutions, we are also losing the hopes and dreams and financial security of millions of our fellow countrymen, particularly those who live in rural areas, like huge portions of the Fifth District of Texas that I have the honor of representing in Congress. I keep on hearing the ranking member talk about a ``deal,'' something from the last Congress. The last time I read my Constitution, there is nothing to say that because one Congress acted on a matter, another Congress can't act on a matter. And, indeed, I am not sure we have any more urgent matter in the House Committee on Financial Services than to save community banking. It is urgent, almost bordering on a crisis, Mr. Speaker, the loss of these banks. Small business lines of credit have been hampered, small business, the job engine of America, fueling our entrepreneurs, fueling new businesses, fueling the American Dream. So I was happy that we passed a number of bipartisan regulatory relief provisions in this Congress. Now, regrettably, many of them were opposed by the ranking member. So I hear the rhetoric in helping community banks, and yet she opposed H.R. 766, Financial Institution Customer Protection Act supported by community banks; H.R. 1210, Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act supported by community banks; H.R. 1266, Financial Product Safety Commission Act of 2015 supported by community banks; H.R. 1408, the Mortgage Servicing Asset Capital Requirements Act, supported by community banks; and the list goes on and on. So I think the proof is kind of in the voting card, Mr. Speaker. It is Members of this side of the aisle, especially, that are consistent in trying to help our community banks, our rural communities. So right now they are all, again, Mr. Speaker, suffering from the sheer weight, volume, load, complexity, and cost of this massive Washington takeover of our banking system--the micromanagement, the control by Washington. Again, that is the primary reason we are losing a community financial institution a day. And let me tell you, they are not going to get bought up by JPMorgan. JPMorgan is not coming to Jacksonville, Texas. Goldman Sachs isn't coming to Forney, Texas. If we don't allow these smaller banks to consolidate, we will lose them. That is the choice, Mr. Speaker. Are we going to lose our community banks in rural America? And again, if the other side of the aisle would want to repeal their number one threat--Dodd-Frank--maybe this bill from the gentlewoman from Utah wouldn't be necessary. But it is necessary. It is an urgent situation that we deal with today. So I want to urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3791. It is modest. It will help at least 400 community banks. Four hundred community banks will be helped. It will help them, hopefully, not only survive, but to thrive, so that they can fuel and finance the American Dream through better home mortgages, through better auto loans, through better small business lines of credit. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Utah for her hard work, for her leadership. And, again, I urge all my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3791. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say, number one, I find it incredible that the ranking member would say that this is going to harm community banks, which kind of begs the question: Why are they all for it? We already have their endorsements. If the gentlewoman is concerned about big banks gobbling up small banks, then maybe it is time to repeal Dodd-Frank since the big banks have gotten bigger and since the small banks have become fewer, and the small banks tell us that it is Dodd- Frank that is killing them. This is a bill that will help small banks survive. They will merge together as opposed to disappear from our rural communities. With respect to increasing risk, I would urge the ranking member to read the Fed's policy statement, which reads that the Board may, in its discretion, exclude any small bank company regardless of asset size. So that takes care of that issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), the author of the bill.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.

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

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), the author of H.R. 3791.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3791, which is a much-needed regulatory relief bill and economic growth bill, sponsored by an outstanding, energetic, and inspirational freshman on our committee, the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love). As we look at the state of our economy today, we know one thing is for certain, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the economy is still not working for millions of working Americans. The economy is underperforming dramatically by any historic standard. Given how far the economy fell from the Washington induced real estate bubble burst of 2008, history shows us that we should have had faster growth than normal during a rapid rebound phase. But it didn't happen, Mr. Speaker. There hasn't been a single year where economic growth has even reached 3 percent. One published report on this failure noted: There is no parallel for this since the end of World War II, maybe not since the beginning of the Republic. Last quarter's GDP growth of only 1 percent just punctuates the matter again for working families that find themselves working harder for less. They have seen their paycheck shrink by more than $1,600. No wonder 72 percent of all Americans believe the country is still in a recession, because they are living that reality every day. For them, the recession never ended. I don't need polls telling me, Mr. Speaker, that the economy is not working for working families because virtually every day I receive emails or letters like these: Carla from Mesquite, Texas, in my district writes: We are struggling to make ends meet. My husband had temporary work for 3 months. The last 2 years, he has been looking for work and not finding any. Michael from the town of Forney in my district back in east Texas writes: I hear on the news how the economy is improving and I see Wall Street making money. Average folks like me are not seeing any economic improvement. The painful truth is that the Washington hypercontrolled economy, again, is failing low- to moderate-income Americans. They simply want a fair shot, a fair shot at economic opportunity and financial security. Perhaps nowhere--nowhere--is the hyperregulation of Washington being felt more than when it comes to the customers of Main Street community banks. These banks are being buried under an avalanche of red tape, which is increasing costs for those customers, restricting their choices, and harming their personal finances. Let's just look at a few examples, Mr. Speaker. Credit card rates have risen drastically, making them unaffordable and unavailable for a number of would-be borrowers. Federal regulations now on auto loans could hit some borrowers hard with a nearly $600 increase in interest payments on a $25,000 loan over a 4-year period. Small business lines of credit have been cut back dramatically. And incredibly, the incredible regulatory burden placed on home buyers has now complicated the buying process and has led to fewer community banks offering home mortgages. The fact is all of these higher costs are being felt at the same time that paychecks and savings are stagnant for working families. It just compounds the problem. The sheer weight, volume, and complexity of all of these regulations is killing prospects for new jobs, killing opportunities to spur economic growth, and it is harming working Americans. It is killing their ability to achieve financial independence through their home mortgages, through their auto loans, through their credit card loans, and through their small business lines of credit. So it is on their behalf and on behalf of the Carlas and the Michaels of America, and millions of others like them, that we are here to pass a very simple, but very helpful, bill. It is a commonsense piece of legislation. The bill, again, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love), will make it easier for our small hometown community banks to raise capital so that capital, this very same capital, can be turned around and turned into local jobs and economic growth on Main Street. We know that passing this bill will immediately--immediately--benefit more than 400 community banks all across America. Not big banks, Mr. Speaker, not Wall Street banks, but community banks. Those are the banks, historically, that focus their attention on the needs of our local families, our small businesses, and our farmers. As a matter of fact, passage of this bill is a longstanding goal of the Independent Community Bankers of America. At the end of the day, we shouldn't pass this bill simply because it is good for community banks. We should pass this bill because it is good for their customers--the people who benefit from the loans and services that our community banks provide, the people who will work at the jobs, the people who will help create this stronger economic growth. Wouldn't it be nice to hear for a change that community banks are once again hiring new loan officers to serve their communities as opposed to more regulatory compliance officers to serve their Washington masters? That is how you help capitalize more small businesses and help families pay their bills, plan for the future, and achieve the dream of financial independence. I, again, applaud the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love) for her leadership for fighting tenaciously for working families in her district and all across America. I urge all Members to support and adopt H.R. 3791. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at best, this amendment is duplicative. Under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act, the Federal Reserve already requires all companies seeking to acquire a bank to submit an application describing how that acquisition would ``meet the convenience and needs'' of the target bank's community. Listing ``any significant changes in services or products'' and discussing ``the programs, products, and activities that would meet the existing or anticipated needs of its community under the applicable criteria of the Community Reinvestment Act, including the needs of low- and moderate-income geographies or individuals.'' But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, as our community banks continue to close, as they continue to suffer under the weight of the load, they don't need duplicative law. And my fear is that it is not actually duplicative. This is one more report, one additional report they are going to have to file in addition to the hundreds of other reports and paperwork that they have to fill out, one more cost that, at best, is duplicative. But the amendment is vague. What does it mean to have a plan deemed credible? What is credible? So here we are as a United States Congress, under the gentlewoman's amendment, yielding more of our article I authority to the Federal Reserve. The amendment lacks procedural safeguard. It doesn't provide for a public comment on the submitted plan. It doesn't allow the company to appeal an arbitrary determination. It does not permit a company posting a plan on its Web site to necessarily redact trade secrets or personally identifiable information. Mr. Speaker, we just need to reject this amendment. It absolutely undercuts what the gentlewoman from Utah is doing. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order because the instruction contains matter in the jurisdiction of a committee to which the bill was not referred, thus violating clause 7 of rule XVI which requires an amendment to be germane to the measure being amended. Committee jurisdiction is a central test of germaneness, and I must insist on my point of order.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. HENSARLING. I object.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. It has been a fascinating debate on a very, very simple bill. H.R. 3340 from the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer) does one very simple thing. It says two Federal agencies--the Office of Financial Research and the Financial Stability Oversight Council--have to go through the budgeted appropriations process. It says nothing more. It says nothing less. Right now these agencies write their own budget. They can write a budget for $100 million. They can write a budget for $500 million. They can write a budget for $10 billion. Legally, they can write a budget for trillions of dollars. They can take money away from we, the people, and there is absolutely nothing Congress can do. Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress who has come here has raised their hand and, in their oath of office, they solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I wonder how many Members reflect upon that solemn oath. Because Article I, section 9, clause 7, of the Constitution says: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . .'' Yet, theoretically, what has happened here is this power of the purse, a critical power of Article I of the Constitution, has been outsourced to Article II. It is fascinating, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure there is a more solemn responsibility of the Federal Government than to provide for the common defense. Yet, we don't allow the Pentagon to write their own budget. It has to go through the elected representatives of we, the people. The Justice Department: We don't allow them to write their own budget. It has to go through the elected representatives of we, the people. Even the Office of the President: The President is not allowed to write his own budget. It has to go through the appropriations process of the elected representatives of we, the people. So we have two incredibly important and powerful Federal agencies that get to write their own budget. They get to take money away from hardworking Americans to essentially do what they please. This is not Article I of the Constitution. Madison, in Federalist 47--I may not have the quote down perfectly-- essentially said that the common notion of legislative, executive, and judicial power in one hand is the absolute definition of tyranny. So we have in a Federal agency the FSOC, part of this shadow regulatory system that the American people have come to loathe, that has the ability to designate financial firms too big to fail and then allow them to be bailed out with taxpayer funds, to be functionally micromanaged by Federal agencies, essentially, a Federal takeover of the banking system so there can be a political allocation of credit, which is what led to the economic crisis in the first place: politicizing credit, mandating, forcing, suggesting, cajoling financial institutions to loan money to people to buy homes they couldn't afford to keep. Think Fannie. Think Freddie. So we believe on this side of the aisle, regardless of which party is in power in Congress, regardless of which party is in power in the White House, that Federal agencies ought to be funded through Article I of the Constitution and be accountable to we, the people. It is that simple. So the ranking member says: Well, we can't hold them to the volatility and uncertainty of this congressional appropriations process. Funny, the Pentagon is. Funny, the President is. Funny, the FBI is. You know, if you don't like democracy, maybe it is the worst form of government, save every other form of government, but it is our form of government. And our Constitution is the bedrock of our freedom and our prosperity, and these out-of-control agencies ought to be accountable and they ought to be transparent to we, the people. I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), H.R. 3340, and bring accountability and transparency and fidelity to the Constitution back to this institution. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side, please?