Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act of 2014
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5461, a bill authored by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), my colleague on the Financial Services Committee, and cosponsored by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California and myself.
This bill contains four titles, three of which having already passed this House with overwhelming or unanimous support and one of which passed with only a dozen ``no'' votes.
Mr. Speaker, it is rare that the Senate sends us meaningful legislation; and, frankly, it is even rarer when they send us legislation that amends and fixes the Dodd-Frank Act. As we on the Financial Services Committee have seen in our hearings and our markups, our friends on the other side of the aisle and the other side of the Capitol usually defend Dodd-Frank to the hilt, bestowing on it deference normally reserved for the sacred texts handed down from the heavens.
Well, we should agree that Congress doesn't always get it right. When sweeping legislation is enacted--remember, Dodd-Frank is a 2,300-page bill--there are often areas that later need clarification, and that is exactly what we are talking about here today.
Whatever one's position is on Dodd-Frank, we should all be able to agree that the text is not sacred and does need some fixing. That is why I am pleased that the Senate has sent us a bill to clarify that regulators should not impose regulatory capital requirements designed for banking institutions on insurance companies. That was not what was intended.
The Senate bill, S. 2270, passed the other body unanimously. There is broad support in the House for a companion measure, but there is equally broad support for three other Dodd-Frank technical correction amendments that have previously passed this House: Mr. Barr's bill on the treatment of collateralized loan obligations under the Volcker rule, Mr. Grimm's bill to exempt end users from derivatives from Dodd-Frank's overreaching margin requirements, and my own bill on how points and fees are treated under Dodd-Frank's onerous qualified mortgage rule.
My legislation that is included in this package is a strong bipartisan provision that modifies and clarifies the way points and fees in a real estate transaction are calculated. This provision is narrowly focused to promote access to affordable mortgage credit without overturning the important consumer protections and sound underwriting requirements that Dodd-Frank's ability to repay provisions has in place.
Homeownership has been a pillar of American life for generations, and this particular provision will help more Americans realize this portion of the American Dream.
This bill is a commonsense measure that should and, I believe, does have broad bipartisan support. I was puzzled, however, by a Dear Colleague letter produced by Ranking Member Waters circulated earlier today. In the letter, she writes that Mr. Barr has coupled the insurance capital bill with other ``divisive legislation.''
Now, I would ask my friend the ranking member: What divisive legislation are you referring to? Is it the CLO bill which passed the House on voice vote? Is it the end user bill which passed the House on the ranking member's ``yes'' vote herself and only a dozen ``nay'' votes? Or is it my bill that also passed the House by voice vote? I don't see the divisiveness, and I don't see where the problem is.
The reality is Americans don't care about the parliamentary process so much as they want results.
We are pleased that the Senate has finally come to the table on Dodd-Frank reforms. This is legislation that represents a step forward in working with the other body to make sure that my constituents and your constituents can get mortgages to buy their first home, that farmers can assess the financing that they need to buy tractors and work their land, and that Americans can buy insurance policies without severe premium increases.
I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 5461, especially my Democrats friends who I believe support every component of the package.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I wish I had actually asked if the gentlewoman would yield because I am confused. I am confused on a bill that she has voted three times--I am positive--three different bills, how that is divisive, how it is not targeted with significant Democrat support.
I personally with one of these bills--my bill has been sitting in the Senate since June. It has been targeted, it has had Democrat support, and it has had Republican support. We simply cannot get the Senate to move, and I am not sure why my colleague would support a Senate bill without any House input, but not expect the Senate to look at our material and to look at our bills.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am curious why we are here. The House of Representatives is only going to pass Senate bills. I am curious why my colleagues would be willing to do that. I would love to hear from my colleagues, which overwhelmingly passed House bill does the Senate object to? We simply cannot get them to take our bills up.
I am glad to hear that my colleague, Mrs. McCarthy, is going to be supporting this bill package. I too am hopeful. But I do believe that this is not political theater, for the robust list of supporters, like credit unions, banks, insurers of all sizes, the entire real estate community and end-users strongly support the policies that are within this bill. And I do have that list available as well, which I will include for the Record.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will address my remarks to the Chair, but, again, this is not about parliamentary procedure. This is about results.
The only bill that we will see here that may bring confusion to this entire process is the one that my colleagues are advocating for, the Senate bill. It is the only bill that we haven't dealt with in committee. It is the only bill we haven't had a vote on in the Houses. The other three bills have passed, two of them unanimously by voice vote, and the other one had 12 people, out of a body of 435, vote against it. Sounds like it is overwhelming. If it is that confusing to my colleagues to figure out what bill and how they voted for it when they come to the floor to vote on this package, they maybe should reconsider their current line of work. This should not be that tough.
This is, again, something that we need to move forward on. The political theater that seems to be happening here is on the other side. I am not sure why, if it is about trying to play to a base for an election issue or what, but this is the one time I think in the history of my working career that the whole is worse than the sum of its parts. This doesn't make any sense.
So there has not been bipartisan work on the underlying bill, Dodd-Frank, which I might remind my colleagues passed with zero minority Republican votes when the bill was passed. This package of bills has passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. I applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they oppose the Senate.
And I guess I needed to clarify that my comments about people acting like this is holy writ from the heavens does tend to be concentrated with my colleagues over in the Senate who apparently don't want to touch this or others in the administration who oppose the nine-bill package on derivatives reform that passed overwhelmingly bipartisanly out of our committee as well.
That is the kind of holdup that we have that is frustrating Americans, that is frustrating me as a policymaker and my colleagues, that is frustrating, frankly, future generations as they look in on this process.
It is time, Mr. Speaker, to pass this package of bills that includes three bills that this House has already dealt with, that the Senate should have absolutely no opposition to or excuse why they will not take up.
With that, I again ask my colleagues to pass this particular bill, H.R. 5461, and look forward to its passage here soon.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source