Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the ranking member very much.

Mr. Chairman, I am from Washington State, and I am about to commit a sacrilege. We could have saved a lot of trees and a lot of time if we had had a one-sentence bill that simply said: ``End the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.''

We could have had an honest debate then about whether we should have any government agency with the mandate to protect consumers from deceptive financial marketing and abusive financial practices. We could have had a discussion about what the CFPB has accomplished thus far and whether it is accessible to Americans, whether its proposed streamlined forms are more effective at educating Americans, whether its rules are thoroughly researched and revised after comments from all sides. Instead, we are having a debate over reorganizing and defunding and subordinating and other matters of process and organization that are all, frankly, designed to kill CFPB by a thousand cuts.

I think the proposition here is fairly straightforward and remains a mystery to me. If one desires to do away with the CFPB, why not have the courage to introduce that bill straightforwardly?

Ordinarily, I don't assign motives or characterize intent on the part of people who advance legislation. The fact of the matter is many of those who are advocating for this bill's passage opposed the creation of the agency flat out. The fact of the matter is that a companion bill--granted, one not in this--even re-titled the agency and took the words ``consumer protection'' out. The fact of the matter is, if there were more credible arguments in support of this legislation, I think we would be a little more careful with the facts.

Here is a fact: there isn't a penny of taxpayer dollars that supports CFPB. It is fee-based. Here is a fact omitted: more than 60 percent of the costs associated with the alleged remodel budget, which is an estimate--a fact omitted--is associated with upgrading to code. Now, I know for another fact that the people who are making that argument do not want civil servants to occupy unsafe and unhealthy buildings.

But most importantly--this is the part that really gets me--we are going to spend a lot of time on this today and in committee, and we are going to pass it to the Senate, and we all know what its fate is going to be, right down into the ground. Well, that is fine. People have the right to make their point, but what is the opportunity cost of making that point in committee and on the floor? At least one of the opportunity costs is getting to work on actual regulatory relief.

We have several bipartisan bills for regulatory relief. Some form of the CLEAR Act, not all the Members on my side support it, but some do. We could actually get to work on regulatory relief if we would set aside our efforts for this messaging and exercise.

As for me, no matter what the form, I am going to vote ``no'' on any bill that kills the CFPB, any bill. I will vote ``no'' because of the work the CFPB does on behalf of my constituents.

I will vote to preserve the Office of Servicemember Affairs and the great work that Holly Petraeus is doing. They have a special mandate to protect the men and women in uniform. I have the privilege to represent Joint Base Lewis-McChord, tens of thousands of uniformed personnel. If you ever talk to anybody--I don't see how anybody who has a military base even near their district can support this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chair, I don't see how anybody who has a military base anywhere near their district can support this legislation.

I will vote to protect the experts who are laying the groundwork for the first national consumer protection rules on payday loans and other short-term, high-interest loans. I will vote to defend the Bureau's work protecting students from high-interest-rate loans and creating a uniform set of borrower rights and protections for all student loans, public or private. If we really want a stable, predictable business environment, we wouldn't be going down this path.

At the end of the day, again, the proposition is very straightforward. If you support consumer protection, you will vote ``no'' on this legislation. If you oppose consumer protection, you will vote ``yes.'' But I entreat you, I plead with you, to please vote ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source