Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3193, Consumer Financial Freedom and Washington Accountability Act; Providing for Proceedings During the Period from February 13, 2014, through February 24, 2014; and for Other Purposes
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3193. This package of bills was brought under a restrictive process that prevented efforts by Members on both sides of the aisle to improve the legislation.
H.R. 3193 would gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Now, a lot has been said by the gentleman from Texas that I believe has mischaracterized what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau actually does. It in no way restricts our freedoms, Madam Speaker. In fact, banks aren't the only entities that have freedom. American consumers have freedom, too. American consumers want to be protected from predatory practices, Madam Speaker.
How many of us have signed a credit card agreement with a font size that is too small to even read? We want to make sure that people aren't giving away their home and their livelihood when they enter into a credit card agreement, a simple loan, or other financial transactions. The American people want that certainty.
When we are talking about making sure that markets operate well, that competition exists in the consumer financial marketplace, that people have different financial options that empower themselves, there needs to be a referee on the field. This bill effectively blindfolds and handcuffs that referee, takes her off the field, and let's the banks have their day with the American people.
That is why I oppose this bill. This bill will not advance a constructive economic agenda. This bill will not address our broken immigration system. It won't secure our borders that hundreds of people enter our country illegally every day, and it won't reunite shattered families.
Earlier today, I spoke of how, under President Obama's administration, over 2 million people have now been deported from this country. This bill will not end that. Instead of moving forward, it blindfolds the referee and ensures that predatory financial institutions can take advantage of the American people without a watchdog.
This bill has serious flaws. It would add additional bureaucracy to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by replacing its Director with a commission. The gentleman from Texas said somehow this bill meant that there wasn't Big Government. This bill establishes more Big Government, more commissions, rather than having--guess how most private companies are run, Madam Speaker? There is usually a CEO in charge. They don't have some directorate or commission. I mean, that sounds more like the Soviet Union than the United States of America what the Republicans are proposing in this bill.
This bill would also prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from offering salaries and benefits to employees that are competitive with other financial regulators. Guess what, Madam Speaker? The financial industry pays well. The big banks pay well. That is wonderful. That is the beauty of the capitalist system. If they are creating value working for a big bank and they are earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in our market economy, that is wonderful. Well, guess what? If you want somebody who understands that business to be able to work on behalf of the American people as a watchdog, you need to pay a competitive salary to make sure that they are able to then use their expertise that they have developed in the private sector to protect their fellow Americans from predatory or scrupulous activities.
This bill would impede the ability to attract and retain qualified and experienced people that have to handle very complex regulatory issues. It would also eliminate the Consumer Financial Protect Bureau's independence and parity with other regulators by subjecting it to the appropriations process.
Sadly, last night during the rules debate, one of my colleagues on the Rules Committee equated the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with the gestapo. That is insulting to our civil servants who work for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, consumers that it serves, and it is extremely offensive to the true victims of Nazi Germany. It is inappropriate to even compare the intentions of the U.S. Government, whether it is led by Democrats or Republicans, to those of Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has played a crucial role in helping millions of Americans become more informed and empower them to make financial choices that benefit them and their families. For instance, at a time that we know that higher education and college are more important than ever, the cost of higher education continues to skyrocket. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has developed a Web site that helps students understand their borrowing options before they take on substantial debt and make sure they are aware of the lowest interest rates that they can use to finance their education. Their user-friendly tools allow families to compare financial aid and college costs, choose a loan with a low interest rate, and select repayment terms that are most favorable to them. As the largest student loan lender, the Federal Government should help make sure that students have the information they need to help take control of their financial destinies.
I was honored to work with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on my Know Before You Owe Act, which would provide students and families with information about their eligibility for Federal loans before they take out more costly, higher interest rate, private loans. While I hope that Congress would pass this bill, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also hopes to advance this important cause even without legislation. This bill on the floor today would hamper their ability to prevent students from paying more than they need to for their college education.
Now, Democrats are open to improving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau through bipartisan proposals. Unfortunately, the House majority has shunned bipartisanship in favor of these bills. We can do better, Madam Speaker. The American people want to make sure there is a referee and that there is a watchdog. We want to make sure that our banking industry and financial services industry can continue to grow and flourish in this country. One of the most important factors in the success of that industry is the confidence that the American people have in the financial services industry to be fair and honest.
The establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau helps ensure that the American people are confident in the financial products that are being marketed by banks across the country and will lead to continued job growth in the financial services industry, which America is a leader in, both here and abroad.
Let's talk for a moment about what we are not discussing under this rule, Madam Speaker. We are not taking one step, 1 inch, towards fixing our broken immigration system--a huge drag on our economic growth. Many residents of our country that are living here illegally in the shadows of the underground economy simply want to work. They want to pay taxes. They want to raise their American kids here. They want to raise a family. They want to participate in the same American Dream that welcomed my great-grandparents when they came to this country.
The House Republicans' principles on immigration reform were an important step forward. I applaud them. They were promising. There was nothing in those principles that was mutually inconsistent with a Democratic desire to secure our borders, create a law enforcement environment where we know who is here, and make sure that we can have a compassionate approach to uniting families.
Nearly a year ago, the New Democrat Coalition Immigration Task Force released detailed principles, as well, on comprehensive immigration reform. I am proud to say that, last October, Democrats and Republicans joined together to introduce a bipartisan bill, H.R. 15, on comprehensive immigration reform. The bill creates jobs, reduces our deficit, secures our borders, and reflects our values as Americans. Yet, to date, the only immigration vote in this Congress that the House has had was a vote to defund the deferred action, or DACA, program, which allows DREAMers to finally get to work and pay taxes to make our country stronger, and instead subjected DREAMers to deportation at taxpayer expense.
We can and we must do better, Madam Speaker, and this rule and this bill simply don't do it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Before I further yield, I want to clarify: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is already prohibited from collecting personally identifiable information in the course of its market-monitoring responsibilities to make sure that American consumers are not taken advantage of.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Duffy is correct that immigration reform is not in the bill or the rule. It should be, but it is not. We have another motion for something that should be in the bill, but is not.
Mr. Speaker, last week we provided the House two opportunities to consider flood insurance reform, a bipartisan measure that now has almost 200 cosponsors, but unfortunately, it was denied. Not only does this bill not have immigration reform, it also does not have flood insurance reform.
Today, we are offering Members another chance to put aside party politics and do something that is important for the American people. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the bill that would delay flood insurance premium hikes and provide relief to thousands of American families.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it has been clear--and we actually have some bipartisan agreement here--about what this bill lacks. This bill does not do anything about hundreds of people sneaking across our southern border every day. It does nothing to reunite American families. It does nothing to end over 2 million deportations that have occurred during the Obama administration. It also does nothing to address the imminent hikes in flood insurance that many Americans face, including Americans in my home State of Colorado, if Congress fails to act.
So what does this bill do that has preempted Congress instead of dealing with illegal immigration? instead of dealing with flood insurance?
It creates additional Federal Government bureaucracy. It takes one person's job and turns it into a commission of five people who will endlessly debate things rather than decide things.
What if one is sick and what if there are four at work and it is deadlocked 2-2, and then the other one comes in and one is missing because the appointment is held up? Do we really need to have more government regulators in charge of this Federal agency, Mr. Speaker?
That is exactly what this bill does. One person can do the job.
How many companies in this country are run by a panel of five co-CEOs? I don't know of a single one. Why would we want to run a Federal agency like that?
The gamesmanship that we are doing in this House, while there are important issues like illegal immigration and flood insurance, is at a serious cost to the American people. The Senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill last June. The House hasn't dedicated a single minute of legislative floor time to an immigration reform bill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can deal with one of these pressing issues that my colleagues from Florida and other States have made a compelling case for here on the floor of the House today in order to address flood insurance. I also urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source