Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), my friend and colleague.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a great leader on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of Americans say inflation is the most important issue facing the country, that is according to ABC News/Ipsos poll. We can't get 80 percent of the American people to agree on anything in our political discussion, but they agree that this economy and this inflation are problematic. We have been given our marching orders. Congress must act to address skyrocketing prices and provide relief to struggling families. That is what the American people are telling us we should be focused on. Instead, here we are debating a messaging bill that stands no chance of becoming law. I have already run through a long list of bad things in this bill. I did that in my opening, so I would rather spend the rest of my time discussing what western North Carolinians are most worried about, what my constituents are most worried about. In the core part of my district known as the Catawba Valley, the cost of housing alone has increased more than 15 percent since last year. Where I live in the Lake Norman region, local food banks are struggling to keep up with the surging cost of food and increased demand stemming from those costs. One food bank operator said: ``We are out of staples.'' That is a frightening thing. They also added: We are tired of high grocery bills. We are tired of gas prices going up. One of my constituents from Winston-Salem said that on a local Fox affiliate. North Carolinians are fed up. The American people are fed up. They don't like what they see economically, and they deserve real answers and real solutions to address that core problem--the core issue of inflation. So let me be clear. There is no mystery of why we have runaway inflation. It is Democrats' reckless spending that is the driver of this. They have managed the fiscal house for a year and a half, and they have managed to drive our economy into the ditch. So we have got to get it out of the ditch. We have got to get it back on the road. We have to be in the right direction with a growing economy, not a shrinking economy, and with wages increasing more than the cost of the goods that people need to live. So instead of addressing this crisis of their own making, Democrats would rather distract Americans with a bill that does nothing to bring down costs. This is yet another attempt to distract the American people from that basic challenge and that basic fact of high inflation. But to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: you aren't fooling anyone. The American people are on to who caused inflation, who started inflation, and who is driving up the cost of energy bills, both at home and in their car. They understand why, and there are real consequences for not addressing the needs of the American people. Thankfully, I have faith in the American people to get this right. I hope our elected officials will follow suit. We, on the Republican side of the aisle, are hearing this loud and clear, and that is why we are trying to return to fiscal stability and fiscal sanity and return to sound money. That is our focus. Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't address the core problems the American people are telling us we should address, and that is why we should reject this bill that does nothing to answer the call the American people have made. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment en bloc. We know that Democrats' reckless spending and bad economic policies are hurting the American people. Let's look at the inflation numbers. You have fuel oil, gasoline, used cars, groceries, and public transit all dramatically up. Inflation is the big issue. Inflation is at a 40-year high of 8.6 percent--a 40-year high. Food is up 10 percent, gas 50 percent, shelter 5.5 percent from just last year. This is a result of Democrat policies. The American people will pay $5,200 more this year than last year for the same goods and services. This is a direct result of bad economic policies. Instead of working with Republicans to address these crises, Democrats are jamming through a partisan messaging bill that stands no chance of becoming law. This is bad policy. It is bad politics, bad process, the whole thing. The en bloc is more of the same. Now, I will say that there are a few of the amendments that Republicans could support. I will give you an example. Ms. Garcia offered an amendment that focused on onerous HUD regulations or unfair funding formulas. Committee Republicans and House Republicans agree that HUD should not get in the way of local public housing authorities' ability to provide assistance to the homeless. A recent Government Accountability Office study examines--well, there is a request in the bill that we have a study to examine and report on the impediments that HUD is putting in place so that we can actually better serve the very people that we intend for the Housing and Urban Development Department to serve and for public housing authorities to serve. But rather than work with committee Republicans on this issue, Democrats poisoned the well with partisan amendments to score political wins with their progressive base. For example, in this en bloc, Democrats want to further politicize the Federal Reserve by adding a third mandate to address socioeconomic issues. This will divert the Fed's attention from its dual mandate of maximum sustainable employment and price stability. It will also threaten the stability of the monetary policy authorities we have given the Fed and add uncertainty and risk to the Fed's responsibilities. The Federal Reserve is independent for a reason. It ensures that it is accountable to the American people and long-term economic growth, not to political whims or serving one party here in Washington. Even President Biden acknowledged the importance of the Fed's independence in his so-called plan for fighting inflation. Additionally, this en bloc continues Democrats' government-knows-best approach. For example, it directs HUD and Treasury to create another interagency task force to focus on the state of housing in this country. Housing doesn't need another task force. It needs results. To be clear, HUD's mission is to ``create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.'' After 50 years, and nearly $2 trillion in spending, this amendment says that HUD is not getting the job done. An additional interagency task force isn't going to fix that. Congress needs to reform how HUD operates so that it can assist the families and individuals it is tasked with serving. In conclusion, this en bloc is more of the same. It will politicize the Fed, expand the CFPB's authority, and make credit harder to access and more expensive, ultimately harming the very consumers Democrats are claiming to help. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this en bloc, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let's focus on the main thing. The main thing to the American people right now is what they see when they fill up their tank at the pumps and buy gas. It is what they see when they go to the grocery store. It is what they see in their daily lives. What they are seeing in their daily lives is inflation at a 40-year high. Here are fantastic examples that are horrible, horrible things to see, but they are important that we see because this is what the American people are facing. Inflation is at a 40-year high. Food prices are up 10 percent, gas 50 percent, and shelter 5.5 percent from just last year. The American people will pay $5,200 more this year than they did last year for the same goods and services. This is a direct result of Democrats' fiscal plans. It is a direct result of the Democrats' economic strategy, and we are suffering the consequences from it. This bill, and the amendments that pass on the floor today, will do nothing to help struggling American families. Nothing. Instead, they will politicize the Fed, expand the CFPB's authority, and make credit more expensive and harder to get. This is bad news. It is bad policy. It is a bad process. We should reject it. We should make sure this bill does not become law. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Republican en bloc, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendments in this en bloc are where we should have started this debate. These amendments would improve the bill and provide real solutions for the American people who are suffering under the weight of misguided Democrat economic policies. In whole, this amendment package would make the bill bipartisan and give us a real chance to pass the Senate and become law. These amendments would preserve the sections of the bill that Republicans supported during committee consideration, such as promoting new and diverse depository institutions, improving corporate governance through diversity, ensuring diversity in community banking, expanding opportunity for minority depository institutions, and improving the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. These are the bipartisan pieces of the bill. These five bills are the result of bipartisan discussions and compromise. They show that Congress is capable of working together and putting the American people first rather than really a far-left agenda that the rest of the bill is pushing. These bills collectively would help to identify and implement solutions to support small banks and credit unions in the communities they serve. Furthermore, this amendment en bloc would strike section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act which requires the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--which is an unaccountable agency, by the way--to issue a rule to force banks and credit unions to collect and report demographic data on small business loan applications. We have seen what the CFPB can do under Director Chopra's scorched- earth policies. This proposed rule will make small business lending more costly and difficult for financial institutions of all shapes and sizes. It will also choke off the very access to credit those small businesses need right now. So instead of limiting small business credit options and saddling them with unnecessary regulations, as the underlying bill does, we should focus on fostering growth and help small businesses succeed. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I would just reiterate the amendments in this en bloc are how we should have started this debate and how we should have started this bill. These amendments would improve the bill and provide real solutions for American people who are suffering under the weight of misguided Democrat policies. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Gonzalez's attempt to help community banks. I would say that this amendment really doesn't do anything substantive to the bill. It doesn't help community banks compete and survive in the current regulatory environment. In fact, if we were really serious about helping community banks, we would be looking at the Dodd-Frank Act and the additional regulatory burdens in place on these financial institutions, but we are not. This bill doesn't do that. We would be looking at the regulatory burdens that Dodd-Frank keeps on institutions that keeps them from lending to their consumers, the compliance cost burdens that make accessing credit more difficult, especially for hard-to-reach communities. Last year, Democrats got rid of the true lender doctrine, which focused on providing legal certainty to banks and fintech partnerships. The true lender doctrine would have actually helped provide clarity and lower the cost and access to credit. It is these partnerships between fintechs and community banks that harness and scale technology and provide consumers with the financial products that they want and need, particularly in underserved communities. If we are really serious about reaching underserved communities--and I think we should be--we should restore the true lender doctrine and rightsize overly burdensome regulations on community banks. Those are the important points I would like to make in light of this amendment. I welcome a discussion about those issues. I think we have a lot of mutual concerns about the challenges the American people are facing, but I think it is important that we get to the big issues that are central in this economy, given the economic circumstances we are currently in as a result of Democrat policies, and we should be working to fix those big issues. While I am not opposed to the amendment--I think it is fine; I am not going to oppose it--I think it is important that we highlight the big and essential things we should be about. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just reiterate that this amendment really doesn't do anything substantive. If we are serious about helping community banks, rightsizing burdensome regulations would be the way to go, and reinstating the true lender doctrine would be a strong first step. There are bigger things that we should be doing to help these institutions. While I am not opposed to the amendment, I think we should be doing the big, substantive items that are important for us to have a competitive economic situation for working Americans. We should be about these bigger items and focus on them. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem and provides a pathway for frivolous lawsuits in Federal court. Cash continues to be an important form of payment in many communities across America. However, businesses that have a substantial number of customers who wish to transact in cash already accept cash. The amendment's requirements will impact small business owners in particular, who will be required to accept cash payment whether or not it makes economic or business sense. Additionally, this amendment would give preferential treatment to ancillary service providers that may be facing a downturn in demand for services due to an increasing electronic payment usage desire among consumers. Let's look at the bill. Let me try to explain it. The bill would prohibit retail businesses from refusing cash payments below $2,000. It would prohibit the retail business from charging a higher price to any customer who pays by cash than is customarily going to be charged for using other forms of payment. It provides a private right of action-- that means that they can sue--in Federal court for consumers who are aggrieved. The amendment provides exceptions to these prohibitions, including if the business provides a mechanism to convert cash to prepaid cards. This is really the desire to force basically ATMs into retail establishments. That is the construct of the bill. So imagine you are a small business, and now under Federal law, you are required to take a $2,000 cash payment. That seems onerous. Imagine you are a small businessperson who is now going to be faced potentially with lawsuits in Federal court for a failure to provide an ATM machine in your establishment. This seems quite onerous. We can get into the question of the soundness of a fully digitized world. There is a serious debate to be had here, and there is an economic inclusion debate that is necessary for us to have. In a world of digital payments, not everyone is digital, so we have to make sure that we get to those key issues. But this bill is rather convoluted, and it provides a number of requirements for businesses that are not in keeping with trying to get at the question of cash acceptance. I think we should have some serious discussions about cash acceptance, especially for our communities across America that are not online and don't have credit cards or prepaid cards in their pocket. I think there are things we can still work on in this space. Unfortunately, this bill is too convoluted with too many mechanisms that would provide too many opportunities for new lawsuits, so I oppose it. I think it is important that we oppose this amendment, as I did in committee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman's time fully expired?

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. I agree with Mr. Payne on his choice of attire. I think the fact that two of us, who are very well dressed--appropriately dressed, I would say--are having a debate and are on different sides of this issue is very unbecoming of the bowtie community. We stand together more closely than this. Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague--the fact that he has an undertaking in this arena to talk about the question of cash acceptance, I think, is important. There are a number of questions that I have raised about this bill that I think are important. The private right of action in Federal court is problematic for us on this side of the aisle. The requirement to have a machine on site--on page 2 of the bill, it says the retail facility, or whatever the facility is, that is accepting payment, they have to provide customers with the means on the premises to convert cash into a card that is either a general-use prepaid card, a gift card, or an access device for electronic funds transfer. So it is a very specific requirement to have on premises. Imagine the same scenario of this nice lady that lives in his district, Mr. Payne's district, who goes downstairs to purchase whatever, whether it is from a grocery store or whatever. Now, imagine they had an ATM that was two doors down. Under the construct of this bill, that wouldn't be sufficient. There are important things to get at here. I oppose the amendment, but I welcome the debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Patrick McHenry

Speeches

Manage analytics