Search

• Abilene Reporter-News: Letter in support of wind industry

  November 2, 2012

  Congressman Randy Neugebauer, Lubbock
  
  Last Saturday's paper featured a letter on the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy. I'd like to address the issue and my position on it.
  
  I'm a strong supporter of the wind industry and have voted for PTC extensions in the past. The current debate centers on whether to extend it past its expiration Jan. 1, 2013. After that, new wind installations would no longer be eligible for the credit, but existing projects would continue to receive the subsidy for ten years.
  
  While the PTC has helped establish a strong wind industry, it hasn't come cheaply. It cost $4.4 billion from 2010 to 2012. That's no small chunk of change. With record deficits, we must carefully examine our spending priorities.
  
  The PTC has helped the wind industry establish itself, particularly in Texas. However, wind energy must become self-sufficient. I've spoken to industry leaders who agree it can be cost competitive, without subsidies, in a few years. That's why I support a gradual phase-out of the PTC for new installations. Since operating wind farms will still claim the credit for ten years, the industry would have the time to adjust to changing policy. A gradual phase-out offers much-needed certainty, and ensures taxpayers aren't permanently covering the costs of an industry that can stand on its own feet.
  
  I'm proud to represent the most productive wind energy region in the country. As always, my office is available for comments and questions. I hope to hear from you soon.

• Abilene Reporter-News: Neugebauer questions consumer bureau's transparency about its spending

  Neugebauer questions consumer bureau's transparency about its spending
  By John Mangalonzo
  Posted September 20, 2012 at 10 p.m.

  
  U.S. Rep. Randy Neugebauer is raising concerns about what he calls the lack of transparency of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

  Neugebauer, a staunch critic of the agency, questioned the bureau's director, Richard Corday, during a congressional hearing Thursday morning of the Committee on Financial Services regarding the bureau's semiannual report.

  Neugebauer's office sent a statement and a video of the hearing to the Reporter-News. The Lubbock Republican, whose district includes Abilene, is chairman of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Financial Services.

  Neugebauer asserted in his address to the committee that the bureau can spend more than $550 million each year from its budget "and no one has authority to prevent those transfers," not even the President's Office of Management and Budget.

  "The justifications for those transfers are slim at best," Neugebauer told the committee. "Transfer requests can be vague, one-page letters with no details on how the money being requested will be spent."

  Neugebauer said he has never seen financial operating and performance plans from the bureau. The agency, he said, did not always respond to requests for such documents "and when it did, the responses were unsatisfactory at best."

  Corday, during past appearances in front of the committee stressed the agency's commitment to transparency, but Neugebauer said "the bureau's activities haven't borne out that commitment."

  The agency has $40 million allocated to land and structures for fiscal year 2013 and Neugebauer said the subcommittee's request for a detailed report on the bureau's building plans was denied.

  Neugebauer also scrutinized the bureau's salaries, saying about 60 percent of the bureau's 958 employees make more than $100,000 per year, including Corday's secretary who is getting paid $165,139 per year.

  "So I find it ironic that an agency designed to protect consumers has so little accountability to taxpayers," Neugebauer said. "The bureau can spend hundreds of millions of dollars with little to no oversight, and every single dollar (they) receive from the Fed is one less dollar that could be used to reduce our debt."

  Corday cited they only existed as an agency a year ago and they have responded to the subcommittee's requests "with more information."

  "Our budgeting document is growing larger and more fulsome each time in the process," Corday told Neugebauer. "But we're happy and committed to working with you, to make sure you're satisfied."

  He said unlike older agencies where documentation has fully developed, the financial protection bureau still is in the process of keeping up with congressional demands.

  "We are careful with this process," Corday told the committee. "We take this very seriously; I take them personally."

  Michelle Person, spokeswoman for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said the agency has responded to all of Neugebauer's information requests, which included more than a half-dozen between January 2011 and July 2012. Budget information also is posted on the agency's website.

  With regards to the salaries, Person said legislation requires them to design pay and benefit programs that are comparable to the Federal Reserve Board.

  "We are following congressional intent and attracting experienced and talented staff while assuring comparability with our peer regulatory agencies — and in compliance with the statutes," Person said in an email. "CFPB's pay design and pay setting methodology places our employees in line with the Federal Reserve Board's average salary for employees with similar skills and experience."

  For instance, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has 63 percent of its staff earning $100,000 or more and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has 58 percent of its staff making $100,000 or more.

  The consumer bureau is the nation's first federal agency focused solely on protecting consumers in the financial marketplace.

• Politico: GOP Infighting as Farm Bill Suffers - September 11, 2012

  On September 11th, I restated to my colleagues the importance of passing a long-term farm bill. Our country's farmers and ranchers need the certainty of a long-term farm bill so they can plan for upcoming plantings and harvests.  Farmers may be forced to deal with unpredictable weather, but Congress can at least give them predictable policy.

  "Neugebauer said his fellow conservatives demanding still greater cuts from food stamps were missing the point that the nutrition program will continue without change under the continuing resolution to be voted on Thursday, while the existing farm program will begin to unravel if nothing is done before Sept. 30.

  "'If you don’t do anything, the food stamps continue regardless of what you do on the farm bill,' Neugebauer said in an interview. 'But if you let the farm bill expire on Sept. 30, the farm policy part of it expires, and you don’t get any reforms which were actually passed in a very bipartisan way out of the House Ag Committee.'"

  ---

  Politico
  GOP infighting as farm bill suffers
  By David Rogers
  September 11, 2012

  With farmers rallying at the Capitol Wednesday and the Senate showing no appetite for disaster aid substitutes, divisions are surfacing more among House Republicans over their leadership’s decision to block action on a five-year farm bill.

  Fresh from the summer recess, farm state lawmakers set off what was described as a spirited discussion at Monday’s meeting the GOP whip team, and the echoes continued at a Tuesday session of the full Republican conference.

  Freshman Rep. Rick Berg (R-N.D.), who has been hurt politically at home by the farm bill impasse, helped to trigger the whips’ discussion. But grayer heads—and traditional team players— backed him up including Reps. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Randy Neugebauer (R-Tex.), as well as House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.)

  “Members had been home. People know the clock’s ticking,” Cole said of the exchanges. “I believe we have a product ready to move,” he told POLITICO. “We have an opportunity to do something that is not partisan. I think we ought to do it.”

  “Of the 100 agriculture districts in the House, 73 are in our hands. A majority of our conference would vote for it,” Cole said. “Politically it’s the smart thing to do and institutionally it’s the right thing. It may not be perfect but we ought to have the courage to put it on the floor and let Congress work its will.”

  Neugebauer said his fellow conservatives demanding still greater cuts from food stamps were missing the point that the nutrition program will continue without change under the continuing resolution to be voted on Thursday, while the existing farm program will begin to unravel if nothing is done before Sept. 30.

  “If you don’t do anything, the food stamps continue regardless of what you do on the farm bill,” Neugebauer said in an interview. “But if you let the farm bill expire on Sept. 30, the farm policy part of it expires, and you don’t get any reforms which were actually passed in a very bipartisan way out of the House Ag Committee.”

  Berg, who met Tuesday as well with Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-N.D.), told POLITICO he remains frustrated but hopeful “there is a different momentum in the House from 24 hours ago.” And Cantor? “I certainly think he’s more attuned to it today,” Berg said.

  Berg said his frustration was that House Republicans had been committed to an open, often messy debate on other topics but then pulled up short on the farm bill.

  “To just say we’re going to stall and not do anything…This is not the way the process has to work here,” Berg said. “Farmers at home do their job. This is the House’s job.”

  Lucas is keeping a low profile, and following on private talks with the House leadership at the Republican convention in Tampa, the chairman appears resigned to no action on his bill until after the election. Lucas spoke up in the whip’s discussion Monday but has shown no willingness to do more to challenge Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who seems intent on running out the clock until after the election and then pushing for a one year extension of the current farm program.

  “Every contingency is we’ll run the world on the other side of the election,” Cole said, describing the mindset for some inside his conference. “You can wait later and also lose the elections and do worse.”

  The situation has most infuriated Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow. And in a conference call with reporters Tuesday, the Michigan Democrat all but ruled out any action on an interim disaster aid package until the House shows some movement on the larger bill.

  This could pose a real hardship for livestock producers caught in the devastating drought this summer. But Stabenow dismissed the short-term disaster aid bill passed by the House before the August recess as “wholly inadequate” and said she has seen “no desire by the House leadership to do anything” to broaden the coverage.

  “This is just absolutely unacceptable,” Stabenow said of Boehner’s position on the farm bill. “In my time here—and this is my fourth farm bill—I have never seen a situation where a bipartisan bill came out of committee and was not taken up on the floor.”

  “It’s very clear that farm country is overwhelmingly saying: just get the job done. The House should take the precious few days they have in session and act.”

  “Just as every farmer and rancher has to get in the morning and do the job in front of them and not delay it, this is our job.”

  © 2012 POLITICO LLC

• IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Neugebauer Supports Disaster Assistance for Farmers and Ranchers

  WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Randy Neugebauer (TX-19) spoke on the House floor in support of H.R. 6233: Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance.  The video is available online here. 

  “Like the chairman and ranking member, I wish we were here debating the five-year farm bill which was passed out of the House Ag Committee, which would have brought certainty and reform and saved American taxpayers over $35 billion.  But the truth is we have a drought across this country,” Neugebauer said.  “Over 75% the areas that produce agriculture in this country are reporting abnormally dry or worse conditions.  And that doesn’t just impact farmers and ranchers, Mr. Speaker; that impacts Americans that consume food products all across this country.”

  ###

• Bank Scandal Turns Spotlight to Regulators

  New York Times
  Bank Scandal Turns Spotlight to Regulators
  By BEN PROTESS and MARK SCOTT
  July 9, 2012

  As big banks face the fallout from a global investigation into interest rate manipulation, American and British lawmakers are scrutinizing regulators who failed to take action that might have prevented years of illegal activity.

  Politicians in both London and Washington are questioning whether regulators allowed banks to report false rates in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis and afterward. On Monday, Congress stepped into the fray, requesting information about the role of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, according to people close to the matter.

  The focus on regulators and other financial institutions has intensified in the last two weeks after the British bank Barclays agreed to pay $450 million to resolve an enforcement case. British and American authorities accused the bank of improperly influencing key interest rates to deflect concerns about its health and bolster profits.

  The Barclays settlement is the first action stemming from a broad investigation into how banks set key benchmarks, including the London interbank offered rate, or Libor. The pricing of $350 trillion of financial products, including credit cards, mortgages and student loans, is pegged to Libor and other such rates.

  Authorities around the world are now considering action against more than 10 big banks, including UBS, JPMorgan and Citigroup. The banks also face a raft of civil litigation from municipalities, investors and other financial firms that claim they lost money from the misreporting of rates. These lawsuits could end up costing the banking industry tens of billions of dollars, according to analysts.

  On Monday, the oversight panel of the House Financial Services Committee sent a letter to the New York Fed seeking transcripts from at least a dozen phone calls in 2007 and 2008 between central bank officials and executives at Barclays.

  "Some news reports indicate that although Barclays raised concerns multiple times with American and British authorities about discrepancies over how Libor was set, the bank was not told to stop the practice," Representative Randy Neugebauer, a Texas Republican and the head of the House oversight panel, said in the letter, which was reviewed by The New York Times.

  The political firestorm also escalated in London on Monday, where a British parliamentary committee grilled a top Bank of England official over his knowledge of wrongdoing at Barclays. British politicians chided Paul Tucker, deputy governor at the Bank of England, the country's central bank, for not taking a more active role in Libor.

  In November 2007, Mr. Tucker led a meeting in which some officials raised concerns that banks were underreporting Libor submissions to temper concerns about their health, a process known as lowballing. It was in the earliest stages of the market turmoil that would culminate in the 2008 financial crisis, and banks were loath to report high rates that pointed to weak financial footing.

  "This doesn't look good, Mr. Tucker," Andrew Tyrie, the head of the parliamentary committee, said on Monday, referring to minutes of the meeting. "We have what appear to any reasonable person as the lowballing of rates."

  The Barclays settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Justice Department and Financial Services Authority of Britain has been a black mark for the bank. The scandal has already prompted the resignation of the bank's chairman, Marcus Agius; its chief executive, Robert Diamond; and a top deputy, Jerry del Missier.

  As it tries to control the damage, Barclays is framing a defense around the notion that regulators approved the actions. Last week, the bank released information about dozens of conversations with the Bank of England, the New York Fed and other government agencies.

  In one call with the Financial Services Authority, a Barclays manager acknowledged that the bank was understating its Libor submissions. "So, to the extent that, um, the Libors have been understated, are we guilty of being part of the pack? You could say we are," the Barclays manager said, according to regulatory documents.

  The bank also discussed its Libor rates twice with the Bank of England in fall 2008, according to documents Barclays released last week. Additional evidence has emerged that the British central bank first held discussions about Libor with Mr. del Missier a year earlier, in late 2007, said a person briefed on the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

  Authorities are also focused on Barclays' conversations with the New York Fed, including discussions between senior bank employees and officials from the Fed's trading desk, according to another person briefed on the matter, who also requested anonymity.

  In the letter to the New York Fed, Mr. Neugebauer requested transcripts of the calls by Friday.

  "The role of the government is to ensure that our capital markets are run with the highest standards of honesty, integrity and transparency," Mr. Neugebauer said on Monday. "The interest rate manipulation scandal clearly demonstrates that these principles were violated by Barclays and, from what we understand, other banks as well. My request to the New York Fed is a preliminary step to understanding what role, if any, the regulators played in this scandal."

  In a statement, a New York Fed spokeswoman said that during the financial crisis "we received occasional anecdotal reports from Barclays of problems with Libor." Ultimately, the New York Fed made "further inquiry of Barclays as to how Libor submissions were being conducted" and offered "suggestions for reform of Libor" to British authorities.

  Under sharp questioning by British political leaders on Monday, Mr. Tucker, considered a front-runner to succeed Mervyn A. King as the next head of the Bank of England, defended the central bank and his professional future. Committee members focused their questioning on a conversation that Mr. Tucker had with Mr. Diamond in October 2008.

  According to an e-mail trail, Mr. Tucker contacted Mr. Diamond, saying he was "struck" that Barclays was paying a high interest rate on its loans.

  Mr. Tucker testified that his conversations with Mr. Diamond were meant to convey that the financial markets were questioning whether the British bank had access to capital.

  Barclays last week also released documents saying that at least some bank executives believed Mr. Tucker had instructed them to lower the Libor submissions. That belief, some regulators say, stemmed from a "miscommunication," rather than instructions from Mr. Tucker. The bank also never explicitly told regulators that it was reporting false interest rates that amounted to manipulation, according to regulatory documents.

  Mr. Tucker on Monday flatly denied that he authorized, or even knew about, any improper actions. "We were not aware of it, other than what is starting to come out in these investigations," he said.

  Underscoring the point, he noted that the Bank of England used the rate to set its Special Liquidity Scheme, in which the government lent local banks more than $310 billion from 2008 to 2011.

  Still, British politicians criticized Mr. Tucker for not taking a more active role in policing the banks. When asked whether he was confident that the Libor manipulation had stopped, Mr. Tucker wavered.

  "I can't be confident about anything after learning about this cesspit," he replied.

• June 25, 2012

  Amarillo Globe News
  Editorial: Senate-passed farm bill aids West Texans
  By John Kanelis

  One congressional house down, one to go. Then our nation’s farmers and ranchers will have a farm bill to help see them through another growing season.

  The U.S. Senate has approved a 2012-13 farm bill that, according to U.S. Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Lubbock, “moves us a step closer to ensuring our farmers have a predictable, efficient safety net in place before they make next season’s planting decisions.”

  Neugebauer, who sits on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, said he expects changes in the bill when the House of Representatives takes it up next month. But the lawmaker, whose district includes Deaf Smith County, said he plans to “work on behalf of my constituents to develop a fiscally responsible policy that protects the lifeblood of American agriculture.”

  The lifeblood of American agriculture ... that’s what the congressman declared.

  Indeed, farmers are getting short shrift in the ongoing battle over ways to erase the enormous federal budget deficit. The annual congressional farm bill often is seen as an easy target.

  Neugebauer and his House colleague, fellow Republican Mac Thornberry of Clarendon, should stand strong against their urban colleagues’ efforts to stop helping protect farmers and ranchers against Mother Nature’s forces, which no one can control.

  The Senate bill does reduce $23 billion from the farm bill budget during the next decade. The cuts come mostly from the elimination of direct payments to farmers. But the new bill does retain crop insurance guarantees. Will those cuts balance the budget? No. But neither should they do grievous harm to a farm policy that for generations has helped protect farmers against those uncontrollable forces that prevent them from harvesting crops.

  Does the punishing drought of 2011 bring back not-so-fond memories?

  The Republican-led House’s efforts to control government spending is to be commended. But an entire constituency out here in West Texas — and in other heavily agricultural regions — must battle foes that go far beyond the government’s ability to manipulate.

  They depend on the government to help them through the tough times.

  The feds must not let them down.

• June 20, 2012

  Mortgage Orb
  Rep. Neugebauer Questions Competence Of Financial Regulators
  http://www.mortgageorb.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.11830
   

  The chairman of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee used yesterday's congressional hearing on JPMorgan Chase's recent trading losses to slam the federal financial regulators for failing to do their jobs correctly.

  Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, pointed out that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve had more than 100 regulators within JPMorgan Chase's offices, yet the bank's $2 billion in trading losses was uncovered by the media. Neugebauer stated that this incident bore more than a passing resemblance to the circumstances leading up to the 2008 economic crash.

  "For me, this is an eerily familiar story," he said. "Five years ago, we had 12,000 regulators who missed the subprime mortgage crisis, the Madoff fraud, and the Stanford scheme. So what did we do? We nearly doubled the number of regulators under Dodd-Frank."

  Neugebauer added that increasing the quantity of regulators is not synonymous with improving the quality of their work.

  "In Texas, we have an expression for a hound that’s not much use out in the field," he continued. "We say, 'That dog won't hunt.' You can’t bring down game by buying more dogs from the same litter and expecting them to somehow develop that instinct. Right now, I don't think the problem is that we don't have enough regulators. The problem is that the regulators aren't doing their jobs - they don't hunt."

  Neugebauer also observed that a surplus of congressional attention was being aimed at JPMorgan Chase's woes instead of federal losses, including $170 billion in red ink from the government-sponsored enterprises.

  "Before we criticize a private company for mismanaging money, let’s get our own house in order," he said. "Let's stop wasting taxpayer money on failed regulations and more government bureaucracy."

• Home
• About Randy
• Our District
• Constituent Services
• Issues
• Newsroom
• Contact Randy

© 2012 All rights reserved.