Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, in a gesture of reaching across the aisle, let us be clear that prior to this bill's arrival at the Rules Committee, it was Mr. Pittenger and myself who worked in a collaborative and in a bipartisan way, hard for nearly the last 2 years, to get it to this point where we might have an opportunity to vote upon it.
I cannot exaggerate to you how saddened I am, how much I regret, and
how surreal I find it that I stand here now and ask my colleagues to please vote ``no'' against my bill, oppose the bill that I have worked so hard on for nearly 2 years.
Its content, prior to its arrival in Rules, had been laid out commonsensically: codify the Credit Union Advisory Council; codify the Small Community Bank Advisory Council; and create a nonbank advisory board for the appraisers, the title insurers, the real estate agents, escrow company, all people that the Bureau regulates and with whom they should have an iterative conversation going with respect to the proposed regulations.
It wasn't easy getting here even before Rules. There was a lot of back and forth, a lot of compromising along the way. We had to allay fears from the consumer groups that this was a Trojan horse. We accepted amendments; we broadened the bill; we did a lot of things together, but with a collaborative spirit and the support of the ranking member, we did pass the bill out of committee 53-5, and then a torch was put to it. A torch was put to it.
As has been described, the bill now includes a so-called pay-for amendment to lower the cap of available funds to CFPB by $45 million by the year 2020 and $100 million by the year 2025. It is bad policy; it is bad precedent, and it is completely unnecessary.
The amendment was inserted under color of being a pay-for. Well, I have got a couple problems with that. The first is obvious. CBO projection is $9 million. We are talking about a cap that cost $45 million and $100 million. It is a multiple of it--or $75 million to $100 million by last count.
The second, of course, is the fact about how the rule is applied, which has been heralded here, and, in fact, genuflected as an important rule to provide for pay-fors when there are expenditures caused by proposed legislation.
The motivation is, frankly, inscrutable to me. I honestly don't know how you do it with a straight face. Literally, a matter of hours ago, voting for $300 billion, with a ``b,'' with no PAYGO or pay-for and to stand up here and say, Well, we absolutely have to have a pay-for for $9 million over 10 years, but $300 billion was okay, I say sincerely: I don't know how you do that with a straight face.
Frankly, there is so much about this that I find surreal. Much in the debate was about questioned architectural practices by the agency. The truth of the matter is GSA took over construction, what, 2-plus years ago? If that is the issue, write an amendment to the GSA budget; don't punish CFPB.
It has been argued that this funding is unique; therefore, it has to be curtailed, unrelated to the underlying purpose of the bill. Maybe that is true. Check the history. It was a Republican who wanted it funded by the Fed--Mr. Shelby, I believe. That may be unique in that way.
It has been suggested CFPB is nonbudgeted--again, unrelated to the underlying purpose of the bill. Well, guess what, so is every other bank, regulator, agency in the Federal Government: the FDIC, the OCC, the Fed itself, FHFA, and NCUA. They are all nonbudgeted; but, no, let's pick this one out of the pack and punish it.
There is so much about this that is surreal to me. I believe that there is a bit of a trial under way here today, and we are laying a marker down on April 21 on whether or not we are actually going to be able to function in a bipartisan way. We did. It took hard work, 18-plus months with Mr. Pittenger, 53-5 in committee; and now, as I say, we are putting a torch to it.
We are going to decide. This is a test. Are we going to use the CFPB as a piggybank to pay for all other manner of agendas? Are we going to ask them to swallow this poison pill in the goal of getting a bipartisan bill passed?
It is a test of whether or not we are going to do that. It is an experiment to see how radically--and it is radical--we can change bills and still keep ``yes'' votes in the name of consistency, although there is certainly no consistency between the pay-fors provided in this proposed legislation and that for legislation that passed last week.
By the way, in addition to the estate tax and the sales and use tax totalling over $300 billion, we did two CFPB bills last week, too. Nobody offered pay-fors on those, so it isn't consistent.
This is surreal, standing here, asking you to oppose the bill that I have worked so hard on with Mr. Pittenger. It is surreal. I am reminded of my favorite passage in ``Through the Looking Glass.''
If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrariwise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?
This is surreal; but I say my strongest assertion that what is the most sad about this--and I have said this in Rules, and I am going to say it now--you know, you know you are killing this bill.
You are killing it and evidently don't care, 18 months of hard work out the window to do something good and worthwhile, but you know you are killing the bill. You know you are killing it because you are not passing here veto-proof; and the administration has, as the ranking member suggested, already issued the Statement of Administration Policy.
I will go one further. This bill will never see the light of day in the United States Senate. You are killing the bill that we worked on for 2 years to help nonbank businesses have a better structured institutionalized relationship, which is as it should be, and you are doing it by inconsistently applying a House rule for which you grant waivers left and right when you were of a mind.
This is good legislation. My friend from North Carolina has worked hard. Frankly--and I will say it--he deserves better than this. This bill deserves better than this. The businesses that are regulated by CFPB deserve better than this, than to kill this bill, which is what you are assuredly doing.
Vote ``no'' on my bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source