Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1315, Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. I claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for up to 10 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The question before the House is, shall the House now consider H. Res. 358? That is really the question here.
While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. The waiver is simply made up in nature.
In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has issued cost estimates for each of the three bills included in the Rules Committee Print of H.R. 1315. The following statements were issued by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:
"H.R. 1315 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of State, local or tribal governments.''
"H.R. 1121 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of State, local or tribal governments.''
"H.R. 1667 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of State, local or tribal governments.''
Madam Speaker, these are the three sections--the bills--which are contained within the rule. As we have stated, as a result of what has been defined, there are no mandates. There is nothing in this bill which would cause the point of order to stand.
However, my friends on the other side of the aisle have also raised concerns about the amount of debate time provided for in this rule. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee takes great pride in its degree of openness; and under the leadership of Chairman David Dreier and of our Speaker, John Boehner, we have tried to accommodate this request. This rule continues that record of accomplishment by making in order 11 out of the 14 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. Of the three amendments not made in order, one was withdrawn by the sponsor; one was not germane to the bill, and one was duplicative of another amendment submitted.
I would also like to note for the record that the bill being considered today and every bill included in the Rules Committee Print went through regular order. The Financial Services Committee held hearings, a subcommittee markup, and a full committee markup of the bill.
Madam Speaker, I see that my friends are trying to make a point of order that simply does not exist. In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote "yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 358 provides for a structured rule, designated by the Rules Committee, for consideration of H.R. 1315. This rule allows for 11 of 14 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order.
Madam Speaker, this rule provides for debate and amendment opportunities for members of the minority and the majority to change the legislative text of the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This legislation, the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act, was introduced by my dear friend from Wisconsin, the Congressman Sean Duffy, on April 1, 2011. The bill went through regular order, with hearings, subcommittee markup, and a full committee markup.
I applaud my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama, Spencer Bachus, for providing such an open process and an opportunity for all members of the Financial Services Committee to participate in reforming and changing this bill.
Additionally, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman David Dreier, has once again provided Members of this body with a Rules Committee vote to ensure that we have transparency and an accountable structure under the rule which we're discussing today allowing Members from both sides of the aisle this opportunity to offer amendments and to join in the debate of the underlying legislation.
Today marks the first anniversary that President Obama signed into law the 1,300-page unprecedented Federal overhaul of the financial services industry, the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform Act.
I have the opportunity to discuss this bill today, and also I did last Congress. And we spoke at that time about its overarching reforms that were being made in that legislation. Additionally, I will discuss why and how it is bad for our current economy and what with the Republican underlying bill will do to protect consumers, ensure credit, and allow for economic growth.
Last year, I stood before this body to state that our friends on the other side of the aisle, that they were once again allowing the government to overstep its boundaries well into the private marketplace. One of the most far-reaching provisions of the Dodd-Frank bill that was signed into law last year is the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, best known as CFPB. The CFPB is a classic example of the government unnecessarily crippling its authority into the free enterprise system. This massive new Bureau will be led by a credit czar, who will have unprecedented and unchecked authority to restrict product choices for consumers and impose fees on consumer products and financial transactions. Just about any business or financial institution who offers any form of credit falls underneath the jurisdiction of the CFPB.
The new bureaucracy would raise costs for consumers. I will say this again--will raise costs for consumers. It will reduce the number and types of products available to them. It will increase the micromanagement of financial services firms and will greatly increase the confusion caused by differing and conflicting consumer laws across the United States.
The underlying bill we are voting on today is designed to promote greater accountability and transparency at the CFPB, and to ensure that the CFPB fulfills its consumer protection mandate without undermining the safety and soundness of the financial system. This bill achieves this mission by making the leadership structure of the CFPB a collegial body, streamlining the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or what is known as FSOC, their review and oversight of CFPB rules and regulations, and delaying the transfer of functions from other Federal regulatory bodies to the CFPB until the date on which the Chair of the Commission of the CFPB is confirmed by the Senate.
This comes, and it is of a great deal of importance since it was just this week that President Obama nominated Richard Cordray as the Director of the CFPB, which officially begins its oversight of banks with more than $10 billion in assets today.
So no Director, no mission statement, no accountability, no hearing in the Senate to confirm the person who would have this extensive authority and responsibility.
The Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act makes three important changes to the current CFPB:
First, it would change the vote required to set aside a CFPB regulation from two-thirds of the FSOC membership to a simple majority vote, excluding the Chair of the CFPB. A letter from the American Bankers Association, from May 3, 2011, states, and I quote, "The very purpose of the FSOC was to avoid problems that could lead to risks that threaten the economy. To ignore the majority viewpoint of the regulators with this responsibility is completely counter to its mission statement and that of the council.'' This first provision ensures that the council carries out the intended mission and goal;
Second, the bill would clarify that the FSOC must set aside any CFPB provision that is inconsistent with the safe and sound operation of U.S. financial institutions;
Lastly, the bill amends Dodd-Frank which provided for the CFPB to be headed by a Director to be replaced with a bipartisan commission with the responsibility of exercising the Bureau's authorities. This was in the original House version of the bill and was changed by the Senate during conference.
In a letter sent by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, dated May 23, 2011, the U.S. Chamber expressed support, saying, "The Chamber strongly supports this reform because it would conform the bureau to other independent agencies, ensure impartial decisionmaking, minimize the risk of regulatory capture, and ensure continued stability over the long term.''
Reforms to the CFPB as it stands are necessary to avoid business closures,
limitations to start-up companies, slower economic growth, and ensure that we do not hinder the free enterprise system. These are all in the best interest of consumers and our country.
The underlying legislation ensures that the original intent of this legislation is carried out in a fair and unbiased manner to ensure the future safety and soundness of our Nation's financial institutions.
I encourage a "yes'' vote on the rule and a "yes'' vote on the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I'm going to have to stand up for what we're here for today, and that is, Madam Speaker, that after this bill was passed, it took almost one year for the President to appoint the person who would run the CFPB. The person who runs the CFPB is required to have Senate confirmation. During Senate confirmation--and it's a process that takes place for senior administrators who run our government--during that period of time this person who is nominated by the President would be expected to come in on behalf of the agency as a result of understanding their mission statement and the things that they do and would be expected to come to the United States Senate and to express their ideas. This is a brand new agency. How it would be run, what their mandate would be, how they would manage the assets and resources not only of the agency but how they viewed that mission statement vis-a-vis the industry.
The President took a year to nominate this person. That person has not even begun their hearings. I think, and this is what Republicans think, and this is what our bill says today. I know the gentleman, Mr. Frank, said, Oh, no, Republicans have something far greater and bigger. It's that they don't want this agency. Well, perhaps we don't want the CFPB. Perhaps we don't. But that's not what we're here today saying. We're here saying that until that head of that agency has a chance--a brand new agency--has a chance--after all, it's taken a year to come and speak forthrightly to elected officials that are called Members of the Senate to answer questions about how they would run this agency, what the philosophies should be, what the intent of the agency is, how the interaction between other agencies really should be done, what they think of the law, and what they see their job as being. Those are important issues. And so Republicans are saying we should not move forward on that until such time as we are able to go through that process. So that's really what Republicans are here for.
I know there are a lot of people listening and watching and think there's something sinister about Republicans. This is common sense. Republicans are here talking about an agency that will have broad and almost unlimited access to the marketplace. To overregulate, if you look at the possibilities. And we're trying to say before we kick this thing off, let's make sure we have an idea of what the leader would say. Otherwise, we should go to a group of people who will run this, not just one.
So that's what we're here to do today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's perspective of looking into my brain and knowing what I think or talking about how 44 senators override what I'm saying. I would tend to offer the argument that as we near now the August recess, they had every understanding that the President, without this person going through hearings, having to come to Congress, to the Senate, to talk about and go through these hearings, that the President would just offer a recess appointment. In other words, bypassing exactly what we're talking about should happen, and that is where this brand-new nominated person, after a year, waiting until just a few weeks before the August recess.
Madam Speaker, what we're saying is we're not going to allow, in the Senate, the 44 Senators saying they're not going to allow a recess appointment where this person is appointed, nominated, and just gets it done because the Senate is gone. We're not going to allow him to skip out of coming and having to be thoughtful and talking about what he's going to do as the head of this CFPB.
So to say that 44 Senators really are trying to do the wrong thing or that I'm here trying to suggest something different is not true. We believe that this new agency must have the person who's going to head it to come to Congress, be forthright and open to hearing questions and responding back. I think that's open, honest, transparent, and legitimate. And if the President waited a year, he should expect that we would probably have an opinion that we would not want a recess appointment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, Congress has an opportunity today to ensure that we protect consumers and American business. Additionally, we have an opportunity to ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions in the United States. That's what we are also here to do.
Reforms to the CFPB are necessary and, I believe, timely. Congress must
and has a responsibility to do everything that we can to encourage economic growth, jump-start the free enterprise system and put Americans back to work. Growing our economy and slowing Federal spending will be the best way that we can work together to get our economy back on track, to get out of rising debt and also out of the financial malaise that's underway. This legislation provides for some of these necessary steps.
I applaud my colleagues. I thank my colleagues also on the Republican side who were here to not only defend what we're doing but to talk about the need for such action. This bill that we are facing here today has the support of the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the chairman of the Rules Committee, and I applaud them for providing such an open and transparent process. I also encourage a "yes'' vote on the rule.
Source