Randy Neugebauer

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2643) to direct the Attorney General to provide State officials with access to criminal history information with respect to certain financial service providers required to undergo State criminal background checks, and for other purposes.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2643, offered by my good friend and fellow Texan, Mr. Williams, is commonsense bipartisan legislation that will address the unintended consequences of the SAFE Act. This bill passed the Committee on Financial Services by a vote of 57- 0. Before I get into the details of this bill, I would like to thank the Texas Banking Commissioner, Charles Cooper, for his help and guidance as the committee considered this legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2643 helps ensure a safe consumer financial marketplace by facilitating the licensing of certain financial services providers. Congress authorized the creation of the National Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, the NMLS, to provide a mechanism for licensing nationwide of financial services providers. The mission of NMLS is to improve interstate coordination information sharing among regulators, increasing efficiencies for industry and enhanced consumer protection. Currently, the greater utility NMLS is frustrated by the FBI's current statutory incapacity to enhance the platform by allowing additional financial service providers, other than mortgage loan originators, to be licensed under this system. When processing licenses, authorized State regulating agencies should have access to the most up-to-date criminal background information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For certain classes of financial providers, that is not occurring. The FBI should not be hindered from bringing the same efficiency to the criminal background checks of financial services personnel that the NMLS brought to the mortgage loan originators. By enabling the State license agencies to obtain these background checks, this bill will make the licensing process more efficient and potentially help qualified businesses get up and running more quickly. By enhancing the authority to process criminal history records for licensing of financial service providers beyond mortgage loan originators, this bill ensures that State financial regulators have the necessary tools to exercise effective oversight. Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that this bill only affects financial services businesses which are already required to conduct background checks and which cannot currently use the NMLS system by Federal law. H.R. 2643 has the potential to reduce the time it takes to complete background checks from anywhere between 2 days and 2 weeks to 24 hours under the expanded NMLS. At the end of 2014, there were 20,386 professionals registered in the system. Nationwide there was a need to conduct over 105,000 background checks outside of the system. It is estimated that this bill will reduce the number of background checks conducted outside the NMLS system by 80 percent and reduce the administrative and regulatory burden of State banking examiners to conduct them. In closing, I want to make two points. First, no authority to conduct background checks is created by this legislation. Second, no new licensing requirements are created by this legislation. I want to again thank the gentleman from Texas for his hard work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 27, 2015. Hon. Jeb Hensarling, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hensarling: I am writing concerning H.R. 2643, the ``State Licensing Efficiency Act of 2015'' which was referred to your Committee as well as the Committee on the Judiciary. As a result of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 2643 that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I agree to discharge our Committee from further consideration of this bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by forgoing consideration of H.R. 2643 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar legislation moves forward. Our Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation, and asks that you support any such request. I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding, and would request that you include a copy of this letter and your response in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Bob Goodlatte, Chairman.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. Six airmen assigned to the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing perished on Friday, October 2, 2015, when their C-130J aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff at Jalalabad Airfield in Afghanistan. Five civilians also died in that crash. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of those who lost loved ones in this tragedy. Today we honor the sacrifice of these airmen who served at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas, and Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford, Massachusetts. They are: Captain Jordan Pierson, 28, of Abilene, Texas. I had the honor of nominating Jordan to the Air Force Academy; Captain Jonathan Golden of Camarillo, California; Staff Sergeant Ryan Hammond of Moundsville, West Virginia; Senior Airman Quinn Johnson-Harris of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Senior Airman Nathan Sartain of Pensacola, Florida; Airman 1st Class Kcey Ruiz of McDonough, Georgia. I ask all my colleagues to stand and join me in a moment of silence.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the distinguished chairman for his work on this important piece of legislation as well as my good friend from Arkansas (Mr. Hill). Mr. Speaker, for a good portion of my life before Congress I was in the housing business and had the opportunity to help a lot of American families buy their first home and sometimes their second home. I had the opportunity to buy my first home. I was thinking earlier today that, when you look at the history of the closings over the years since I have been in the housing business, the first house I bought was in 1973. I came away with six pieces of paper: a copy of the note that I signed that said I would promise to pay monthly payments of x; the deed of trust, which gave the bank security for the loan that I was taking out; a copy of the closing statement, which was on one page. And over the years, I watched that grow and grow and grow until today--and I wish I had had an opportunity to do that--that, in many cases, the families walked out of closings with hundreds of pages of closing documents because we have gotten more and more new regulations and nuances into the buying a home process. But let me talk about what I hear a lot of my colleagues on the other side say that this bill does. Let me tell you what it doesn't do. It doesn't do one thing that inhibits the protections that are in TILA and RESPA for home buyers in this country. It does nothing. What it also does not do is it does not give anybody safe harbor if they are not acting in good faith. Basically, what this bill says is: Look, we have got a new process. And I think it was a good idea. I have supported it. In fact, I worked on working together to see if we could come up with one disclosure statement because two are sometimes confusing to the home buyer. So one made a lot of sense. What didn't make sense was to take 1,888 pages to describe what we ought to do on one form, a combined form. But what this does do is it says: We have got a very sophisticated process now because we have added all of these documents to closings and all of these disclosures. What it says is: Now, effective Saturday, we are going to implement a new system, and that new system is complicated. It has a lot of moving parts. And buying a home can have a lot of different parts because each borrower, each buyer of a home, has different circumstances and different verifications that are needed and different transactional pieces of that. And trying to bring those all together in a new environment with new software is very difficult. So what we said is: Look, if you are trying to act in good faith and you are trying to implement this and you are working on all the glitches in your processes and in your computer system possibly and you are doing that and if, for some reason, you missed one of the guidelines in this combined statement, we are not going to give you a penalty. I think that makes sense. The American people are tired of an oppressive government. They are tired of the government being the enemy. What we need for the CFPB to be doing in this circumstance is working with the financial industry to make sure that this process is smooth. If there are nuances or glitches in the system, hey, it makes the system better when we share those. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3192 and encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for a series of votes on June 2, 2015, July 10, 2015 and September 10, 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call Vote Number 268 on June 2nd, Agreeing to Rule for THUD and CJS Appropriations, I would have voted aye. Roll Call Vote Number 269 on June 2nd, Approving the Journal, I would have voted aye. Roll Call Vote Number 431 on July 10th, Agreeing to Brat Amendment to H.R. 6, 21st Century Cures Act, I would have voted aye. Roll Call Vote Number 432 on July 10th, Agreeing to Lee Amendment to H.R. 6, 21st Century Cures Act, I would have voted nay. Roll Call Vote Number 491 on September 10th, Providing for consideration of H. Res. 411, I would have voted aye.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

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

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense piece of legislation. You talk about bipartisan; when it passes out of your committee with no opposition, that is bipartisan support. I think that says a lot about how important community banks are to America and how important this Congress thinks community banks are. The fact is these organizations that are well managed and have good ratings will only have to get an examination every 18 months. So I encourage support for this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representative Tipton for his hard work in advocating for community bank regulatory relief. This is a commonsense regulatory relief measure that has earned significant bipartisan support. It was reported out of the Financial Services Committee by a vote of 58-0. This legislation is designed to allow additional well-managed financial institutions to qualify for an 18-month exam cycle. The longer exam cycle permits community banks to focus their time and resources on the surrounding community rather than on the exam process. This bill also allows bank examiners to spend their resources working with banks that need additional attention instead of with banks that are already considered well managed. To qualify, an institution must have total assets of less than $1 billion, and at its most recent examination, it must have earned an ``outstanding'' or ``good'' rating under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System, or CAMELS. So only smaller, well-financed, well-rated financial institutions who pose very little risk would qualify for extended exam cycles. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1553) to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to specify which smaller institutions may qualify for an 18-month examination cycle.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin). He has worked tirelessly on this piece of legislation. I appreciate his efforts.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2091. My friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), has worked hard to build significant bipartisan support for this commonsense legislation. It passed out of the Committee on Financial Services with a vote of 56- 2. Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that most child support payments are collected from noncustodial parents through income withholding. In order to verify income, assets, and debt for purposes of establishing or enforcing child support obligations, State and local child support agencies and courts often request consumer reports from the consumer reporting agencies. State and local child support agencies argue that the 10-day notice provision provides obligors with an opportunity to hide savings and other assets, run up credit card debt, and take other financial or employment actions to avoid or reduce child support payments. This bill authorizes a consumer reporting agency to furnish a consumer report in response to a request by the head of a State or local child support enforcement agency if the requestor certifies that the report is needed for enforcing a child support order, award, agreement, or judgment. The bill also repeals the requirement of 10 days' prior notice to a consumer whose report is requested. Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2091) to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to clarify the ability to request consumer reports in certain cases to establish and enforce child support payments and awards.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for a vote on September 10, 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted: On Roll Call No. 491, I would have voted AYE.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today for my bill, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act, or NWIRP. As I said, I want to thank Chairman Smith. I also want to thank Senator John Thune of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, who helped shepherd this bill through the Senate. The United States averages almost 1,300 recorded tornados every year, causing over 70 deaths and 1,500 injuries. These storms cost about $400 million in damage each year, but particularly in a bad year, like 2011, wind damage from tornadoes and thunderstorms cost more than $28 billion. This is a natural and a national disaster. When a family loses their home in a windstorm, they don't just have to rebuild their house; they have to rebuild their lives as well, and we can help these families, and we can help save their lives and, in many cases, help save their property through the important research that is going on at many universities around the country, including my alma mater, Texas Tech University. With those families in mind, I introduced NWIRP. NWIRP promotes research that helps saves lives, reduce injuries, and lessens damage from windstorms. As was mentioned by my colleague from New York, we have found that $1 in investments in the resilience against windstorms can result in $4 in savings in a disaster response. Not only are we investing dollars to make America safer, but we are also saving the taxpayers in the long run. Upon passage, this bill will move to the President's desk to be signed into law, and I think it is important that we get this bill passed as quickly as we can because, again, windstorms can cause a lot of damage and can cause the loss of life. The more we understand about the dynamics of these windstorms and understanding how they interface with different types of building materials, the safer and better structures that we are able to build and ultimately, in many cases, save lives. A lot of important research has been going on. One of the things I like about this particular piece of legislation is that it brings some accountability in making sure that we are investing the dollars in the places where we are getting the most bang for the buck for the American taxpayers. Not only are we looking out for the taxpayers in this bill, but we are also looking out for the people, the men and women, that are affected by these windstorms. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for a series of votes on June 2, 2015. Had I been present, I would have voted: On Roll Call # 268, I would have voted AYE. On Roll Call # 269, I would have voted AYE.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 1195, to amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to establish advisory boards, and for other purposes.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, today the House considers H.R. 1195, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act. This bill is essential to provide small businesses a voice in the regulatory process and to help ensure community banks and credit unions continue to have a voice at the CFPB going forward. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, yet our regulatory system silences these hard-working Americans. Regulations meant for large corporations trickle down and have disproportionate impacts on Main Street businesses. We must remember that these businesses are, by and large, owned and operated by our neighbors and friends. They represent a life's work and a vision of the American Dream. The CFPB was created to protect consumers in the financial marketplace, and it would seem impossible to responsibly undertake this endeavor of protecting the American consumer without consulting institutions that are most closely associated with the American consumer: small businesses and community financial institutions. H.R. 1195 is a straightforward and bipartisan piece of legislation. It would amend the Dodd-Frank Act to create a small business advisory board to advise the CFPB. This bill would also codify two other advisory committees created by Director Cordray: the Credit Union Advisory Council and the Community Bank Advisory Council. Under H.R. 1195, each board or council would advise the CFPB regarding concerns of its established membership. The Director of the CFPB would be required to appoint at least 15, but not more than 20, members to each board or council. This bill is publicly supported by the following organizations: the Credit Union National Association, the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, the Texas Land Title Association, the American Land Title Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Independent Community Bankers of America. Mr. Chairman, this is a truly a commonsense and bipartisan bill. Last Congress, an identical piece of legislation passed the House by voice vote. This Congress, H.R. 1195 passed out of the committee by a vote of 53-5. The ranking member, who is with us today, has voted for this bill two times, yet we find ourselves here today debating the merits of providing a voice for small businesses and community financial institutions. This week, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was questioned about the health of American businesses. She said she was ``surprised'' to learn that small businesses were struggling. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1195 is just one small and commonsense step to providing a voice for our small businesses and community financial institutions in the regulatory process. It helps ensure that politicians and Washington bureaucrats aren't surprised to learn of the plight and struggles of these Main Street pillars. It gives these hard- working Americans a voice and a seat at the table. Now, Democrats are going to say that our disagreement is with how the bill is paid for. Well, let me address that for a minute. House rules require that any increase in mandatory spending be offset with a reduction in mandatory spending elsewhere. The CBO says H.R. 1195 will cost $9 million, in total, over the next 10 years. Republicans simply reduced the maximum amount that the CFPB can draw from the Fed over the same 10-year period to offset this cost. To put this into perspective, the CFPB, by statute, can draw approximately $6.7 billion over the next 10 years. This offset that we are debating today amounts to 0.1 percent of this amount. If Democrats really want to claim that a 0.1 percent reduction in the $6.7 billion that CFPB can spend over the next decade really threatens the Bureau's mission, perhaps it is time to examine the Bureau's current spending practices. I am quite confident that we can debate spending problems at the CFPB for the rest of the afternoon, should we need to. Just to reiterate, H.R. 1195 will not cut spending on consumer protection. Let me repeat that. Just to reiterate, H.R. 1195 will not cut spending on consumer protection. It will provide a voice for small businesses. Let's help our small businesses succeed. Let's help Main Street prosper, and let's vote today to move H.R. 1195 forward. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the ranking member that the Republicans, during the Rules Committee hearing, asked if they had a pay-for that they would like to offer in substitute for that, and they chose not to. So I think what we are hearing is that the minority is choosing to say that small businesses in this country aren't worth $9 million. And what $9 million is is, in 3 minutes, that will be the increase in our national debt in this country. So Republicans do take our deficit seriously, and we take the rules of this House seriously because the rules of the House require that when you have an increase in mandatory spending, you have to have an offset for that. What Republicans were trying to do is follow the rules of the House. It is now my pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), one of the primary sponsors of this legislation.