ride on account of bad behavior in the derivatives market. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognize plsmed lucas: i note to my colleagues, i have one remaining speaker and i turn to him to close when the time is appropriate. mr. stew spach -- stupak: i yield the balance of my time to the co-author of this amendment, mr. van hollen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. . mr. van hollen: when used properly within the appropriate framework, derivatives can be valuable tools and provide important consumer benefits. that being said, we have learned all too painfully over the last year that derivatives used improperly and outside of an

appropriate regulatory framework can become what warren buffet described, quote, financial weapons of mass destruction. and when that speculation is permitted to spin out of control in unregulated dark markets, it can create systemic risk threatening the entire economy, we saw that with a.i.g. and others. this amendment we are offering today will provide important additional oversight to that market by giving regulators the explicit authority to ban abusive swaps, prevent abuse of the end users' exception and make sure that they cannot be held liable to their counterparties. i urge adoption of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield my remaining time to close to my colleague and friend, chairman of the agriculture committee, mr. peterson of minnesota.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. peterson: i rise in opposition to this amendment and i do some reluctantly because i know the sponsors are sincere in attempts to address potential problems that could arise in the underlying bill. we have looked at these issues in great depth in the committee. and it's not that we haven't considered them. and in the first issue, banning of financial products, our concern there is that we believe that if we ban these products they will move overseas and outside of our ability to regulate them and if they are dangerous products and if they are something that shouldn't be done, i don't know if it makes any sense that we are going to transfer that over to a foreign country. our committee went to europe. we recognize that most of the companies that do business in the united states also do

business in europe. and that's how we came down on that issue. another provision strikes the term balance sheet risk. we had considerable discussion about this. we think we have got the right terminology to get at the issue that some of the end users had. they felt that without that term that they might limit some of their transactions and for those of us in agriculture, these things are very important to us because we are actually hedging physical risk. and that's why i introduced an amendment directing the regulators to define the terms in explicit terms so that we would be clear about this. but as i said during that debate, the agriculture committee will definitely haul them up and straight them out. finally, the amendment limits the applicability of legal certainty of swaps. and this amendment asks the

question why illegal swaps should be enforceable. other wise, you will encourage illegal behavior. if a swap dealer or end user finds itself in a money-losing swap, they would negate the swap and escape financial liability. the standard of illegality is not very high. you wouldn't have to commit fraud to invalue date a swap. do we want businesses making the calculation between the cost association with paying a fine to regulators or failing to dot the i's or cross the t's versus honoring the obligation. if the end user is harmed, the cftc has the tools. ending legal certainty causes more problems than it solves in our opinion. i know the sponsor of this amendment has good intentions,

but the amendment goose too far to address problems that it seeks to correct and i would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye.. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. frank: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 111-370. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. matsui: i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 111-370 offered by ms. matsui of california. the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the gentlewoman from california, ms. matsui and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from california. ms. matsui: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today to offer an amendment along with representative castor and betty sutton that calls on the mortgage industry to put more responsible homeowners into more affordable terms. after more than two years since the beginning of the foreclosure crisis much needs to be done. leading economists expect another uptick in foreclosures where five million could face foreclosure over the next two years. my home district of sacramento has been devastated by this

crisis. i have been to foreclosure workshops over and over again. i have seen the hardships and looks of desperation. the making home affordable housing will help them modify their loans. it is expected to help nearly four million homeowners. but unfortunately to date, the mortgage industry has yet to demonstrate its commitment to help homeowners. in fact, since the inception of the program nearly one year ago, the mortgage industry has placed only 31,000 homeowners into a permanent, affordable loan modification. no one here is looking for a bailout but families need honest assistance. the amendment that we are offering today require mortgage industry participants and making home affordable program to report basic information on a monthly basis. under the amendment, mortgage industry participants would have to report the number of loan modification requests

rereceived, the number being processed, the number that had been approved and the number that had been denied. it would also make that information available to the public to the treasury department's website. madam chair, it is clear that greater transparency is needed to ensure that all parties are working toward a common goal of helping homeowners. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to make a procedural request. madam chair, pursuant to section 4 of house resolution 964, i ask that amendment number 11 be considered out of order. the chair: so noted. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia rise? mrs. capito: madam chair, i rise

time to claim time in opposition although i'm not opposed to the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capito: the amendment deals with making home affordable program which has been in effect most of the 2009. i think it's important to note that the department of the treasury is collecting some of this data, but i would like to take this opportunity to express my concern as the gentlelady expressed hers with the loan modification in general. the house financial services committee held a hearing in which there was bipartisan frustration with these programs. it was testified that they would help. to date the loan modifications have only helped a fraction. i have serious concerns that the administration that is overpromised on these and raised borrowerso expectations and the loan modifications are not being

completed. lack of documentation was one of the main contributors. jp morgan chase recently disclosed in november that 25% of their modifications failed to make the first payment and nearly 50% of the borrowers failed to make the first three, all three of the first three payments. furthermore, the federal reserve bank of boston cites the 30% to 40% of borrowers who received modifications end up within default of six months. clearly, we need more trpts in this program. we need to find a way to make this program work and make the goals of the program to help those who are having difficulty, who are suffering unemployment or real estate collapse in their areas or unable to meet their obligations, we hear from constituents all of us do who are struggling. but this program has obviously has great lapses and challenges.

with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. matsui: i yield one minute to ms. castor. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. castor: i rise in support of the matsui amendment. all across america, families are doing everything right. they are paying mortgages and want to stay in their homes, but the banks have been slow to respond to requests for modification. i have held a number of foreclosure prevention work shops and what i hear from families is that these banks, lenders and servicers will not answer the phone to complete a modification and once they get the modifications, they aren't completing them as they should. while president obama has been making modifications, we do not have the information necessary to tell where it is working and

who it is working for and which banks and servicers are not helping. this gets tough on lenders and services and says they have to demonstrate they are following through with their responsibilities to modify mortgages for qualified families and keep the lenders honest and that that information will be made public. no more excuses for these lenders and servicers that have not been holding up their end of the bargain for america's families. the chair: the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized. mrs. capito: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. ms. matsui: i yield one minute to the the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. sutton. ms. sutton: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today along with my colleagues in support of the matsui amendment. before wall street collapsed, before anyone ever heard of

credit default swaps and before a.i.g. became a four-letter word, homeowners across this country and especially in ohio were already hurting. responsible americans were sold mortgages with terrible terms and gotcha fees or some lost their jobs and were unable to make payments and some homeowners are still suffering. last month, one in every 417 homes in this country received a foreclosure filing. the making home affordable program has helped some homeowners but not enough and it's time we saw some numbers. this amendment requires treasury to post on their website important data on mortgage servicer and lender participation in the program. so we can hold mortgage servicers and lenders accountable and ask them why you are not helping homeowners out of this mess that you created. this is an important step in helping americans stay in their

homes. i urge a yes vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: i yield to the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i could not agree more with the speaker that i heard or with the intention of the gentlelady who offered the amendment that we certainly need greater transparency in these taxpayer-funded housing programs. i would also like to see that we include hope for homeowners where $300 billion has been authorized, but the last data that is available dating back to july only 1,000 applications and 50 closed, yet $300 billion authorized. another program, $75 billion of taxpayer money for 650,000

apparently temporary loan modifications in a program that was supposed to help four million homeowners. another program, supposedly to help four to five million, only 116,000 loans. now let's look at what those who actually own the loans done. 4.7 million workouts that have happened in the competitive marketplace without any interference by government with no taxpayer money expended. this is the kind of transparency that we need. all of these taxpayer-funded foreclosure mitigation programs of this administration and of this congress have been absolute abject failures. the only loan modification program, foreclosures mitigation program is going to work is a

job. and we know what the record of this congress is. the highest unemployment rate, double-digit unemployment rate. and until you get rid of the looming storm clouds of obama mics, you won't get the jobs. if you don't get the jobs, people won't keep their homes. i hope to shine a little more transparency in this and i yield back. . ms. matsui: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: both sides have one minute remaining. ms. matsui: i yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the financial services committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: i support the amendment but do i have to comment on this job issue. once again it is clear that january 21, 2009, saw a mass disease outbreak, prolonged, profound republican amnesia. the gentleman from texas said thunderstorm administration we've lost jobs.

yes. the obama recovery from the bush recession has been slower than we had hoped but it has begun. the bush recession began in 2007. according to the official national bureau of economic research. large job losses happened under the bush administration and as a continuation of the bush policies. we have finally begun to slow down the job loss. the notion that because the economic recovery plan was passed and job losses continued is of course economicity literacy of the highest sort because the problem is that you do not immediately turn things around. every economic analyst, most economic analysts agree that the economic recovery program has slowed down the rate of job loss and we have begun to turn it around, but when the gentleman from texas and other republicans blame obama for the bush mistakes, it's not going to be allowed to -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair.

i'd like to say facts are facts. we are unfortunately suffering the -- some of the highest unemployment in a generation. these are real people losing real jobs and we want to help them in their housing issues and i support the gentlewoman's amendment. i'd like to say that in our hearing we learned that the servicers and the banks were having some lapses but we found also that the borrowers are having some lapses as well in terms of providing full documentation, in terms responding to the lenders and the servicers. so i would encourage the gentlewoman as we move through this process to maybe expand the transparency of the information so that we can see the full program, not just -- not just from the servicers side, the bank side, but also from the borrowers' side, too, and where their lapses may be as well and with that i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have. it the amendment is agreed to -- the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 111-370. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. kanjorski: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report 111-370 offered by mr. kanjorski of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 964 the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kanjorski, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kanjorski: madam chairman, i yield one minute to the son of one of the original authors of the sarbanes-oxley bill. representative sarbanes. the chair: the gentleman from

maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. sarbanes: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i strongly support the an jorsky-frank-sarbanes-cohen amendment to the bill. this would restore critical investor protections for those who invest in publicly traded companies. and what are those? number one, that the management establish internal controls with respect to the financial operations of the company and number two, that they get an outside audit to validate the soundness of those controls. now those who oppose this say that the smaller publicly traded companies can't handle the burden of compliance. but the costs have come way down, particularly because the s.e.c. has been careful to work with these small companies to make sure that that burden is not too heavy. the fact of the matter is that if you're an investor it doesn't matter to you whether you're investing in a smaller company or a larger company. what you want to know is that

that company is not cooking the books. if we don't pass this amendment then almost half of the publicly traded companies in this country would be exempt from these basic transparency requirements. that's why i urge support of it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the chair and i yield myself two minutes and i would like to begin by commending my good friend and colleague from new jersey, from south jersey, congressman john adler, for his hard work on this very important issue. and as all our colleagues know in new jersey and around the country, our nation's in a tough economic time right now and these tough times are compounded, if you're a small business. and the last thing that we need to do is to put more burdens on them by imposing costly regulations. i think we all agree that our nation's small businesses aren't enough to cause our financial

situation but they're enough to get us out of it. the language in the bill that would exempt small businesses with a market capitalization of $75 million or less from section 404-b was added during committee consideration by myself and mr. adler and was adopted by a broad bipartisan vote with the backing of the white house as well. and unlike some would like to have you believe, this exemption does not exempt institutions from all auditing requirements and as the independent committee of bankers association notes in a letter on this matter they say regulatory burden will be in addition to their other annual auditing fees, the regular safety and soundness and compliance examinations conducted by the banking agencies and complying with numerous other federal, state banking laws and regulations. it will also be in addition to complying with fiction 404-a which requires management to rend ar opinion concerning internal controls. basically all that means is there is a plethora of other regulations providing for transparaphernalia sophomore these companies.

will et -- transparency of these companies. let me give you an example of a company in my district, small company, 35 employees, capitalize $3.6 million. hardly a company that's going to cause pan knick this country if they fail. the c.e.o., the c.f.o. and other management, they're all located on the same hallway in the same building, there's constant communication between all the board of directors and they are a perfect example of a small business of which the government should not force new and now highly expensive regulatory requirements in order to have them check off some boxes on some forms. think about it. the hundreds of thousands of dollars that it will cost them to comply with section 404-b will be much better spent on developing new and more efficient generators which is what the company does to support our troops overseas, to be used on the battlefield or be used to hire new employees which is what we talked about a number of times before on this floor, to make sure that we can provide more jobs as we see the jobless rate expire and i reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. kanjorski: madam chairman, i now ask one minute for the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the people i've worked with on this amendment, mr. kanjorski, mr. frank, mr. sarbanes. the fact is the sarbanes-oxley section 404 is one of the more important pieces we have in our portfolio to protect american consumers against corporate fraud and corporate corruption and when it wased it was passed by an overwhelming majority almost unanimous in this house. over the years it hasn't been implemented completely but now it needs to be implemented. for smaller companies, $75 million or less, as large as the -- as well as the large companies, and as mr. sarbanes said, the loss to investors from small companies is just as important and potent to them as the loss from large companies. we have so many investors that will be at risk if they're not proper accounting procedures and safeguards for the american

public. as the former chairman of the s.e.c. said, overturning the most pro-investor legislation in the past 25 years is deeply disturbing. those who vote against investor protections in sarbanes-oxley will bear the investors' mark of pain. take it if you choose it. i submit you shouldn't support the amendment. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: madam chair, i now yield a minute and a half to my friend and colleague from south jersey, congressman adler. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. adler: i thank the gentleman from new jersey. much of the legislation we're discussing the last couple of days and tomorrow when we vote is about the failure of this congress to regulate sufficiently. i mean, in one instance we have facts, we have data, we have clear evidence of our overregulation, sarbanes-oxley has done some very good things and unfortunately section 404-b has chased companies out of the united states of america. we know companies are doing i.p.o.'s not in new york but in

london. they've said so. when other companies have been unable to aggregate capital to go from small to big to create jobs, the sort of jobs the president talked about at the brookings institution a couple of days ago, small companies sometimes become great companies and employ thousands and thousands of people. so most of this bill we're talking about today, tomorrow, will do some very good things to add enough regulation. there's one instance we have to do what mr. garrett and i tried to do, what the bipartisan group in the committee did, which is restore the right balance so small companies aren't crushed from their aspiration of going public, selling stock to the public, of growing, of creating the next microsoft, i.b.m., general electric, the next great country's companies. we're missing a chance here if we pass this amendment. the committee did the right thing on a bipartisan basis to grow our economy. let's not turn our backs on the many americans who want to have good, decent jobs in this country now. thank you. i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. kanjorski: madam chairman, i yield one minute to the chairman of the full committee, mr. frank. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: madam chair, the s.e.c. has recognized the potential problems for people under $75 million. they're not now subjected to this. the question is not whether they should be immediately put under this but whether they should be given a permanent exemption without giving us a chance to have the s.e.c. continue its development of a more appropriate -- of more appropriate roles. the notion that no such requirement should be applied is an absolutism here that seems to me an error. yes, the s.e.c. should treat companies at $75 million and below differently than people $1 billion above and etc. but they're in the process of doing this. this is an exemption that is unnecessary at this time.

if and when the s.e.c. decides that it's ready to cover them and members here think that they haven't done an adequate job of providing for it, a motion like this might be in order and i understand the desire of people to help smaller businesses. but at this point it is a license for people who might want to be abusive by guaranteeing them that they'll never be audited despite any effort to make an inappropriate audit. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: i thank the chair and now yield a minute and a half to my friend and colleague from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding -- the chair: does the gentleman from texas yield? the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: we should be closing. are there other speakers on the other side?

in which case i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. kanjorski: as i understand we're down to our last speaker on the other side? is that correct? mr. garrett: that's correct. we're going to close, right. mr. kanjorski: i'll take the remaining time on our side. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. kanjorski: madam chairman, this was a very close vote in the committee and highly contested issue and i understand that there are hard and good feelings on both sides. i think the proponents of the amendment that carried in the committee which now this amendment is trying to reverse here on the floor, we're trying to say that government is hurting in some way the small companies, about 5,000 of them, if we continue to impose 404-b. that's not correct. first and foremost, 404-b to the companies that are less than $75 million in capitalization, are

not presently compelled to follow any of the existing sarbanes-oxley proposals. as a matter of fact in the underlying bill it won't be until 2011 that there will be an imposition of that and only after a study that has already been ordered is made. which is chairman of the full committee recognized in his presentation, is that we'll have plenty of time, that if that study comes back and says we should make adjustments to 404-b, we'll be able to do that. the problem of what our friends like mr. levin and many other leading economists in the country and positions -- people of high position and economics -- in economics, they know that for 20 years there's been a fight in this country to try and protect investors from unscrupulous activity. we saw seven years ago enron and that's the genesis of where this rule came from. to now sumaryly reverse this

rule because the not very nice to have companies spend money to protect their shareholders is very appealing. but we're not talking about -- when our adversaries talk about small business -- it's not hurting small business. these are companies that are registered public companies on the stock exchange and have up to $75 million in capitalization. that's a pretty large company in most places. it certainly doesn't classify itself under government speak to be a small business. what we -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . mr. garrett: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. hensarling: i'm struck by the fact that this united states

congress doesn't seem to get it. the number one job of this congress ought to be jobs. again, i know some on the other side of the aisle take umbrage at the fact and the fact is we have the highest unemployment in a generation, 3.6 million have lost their jobs since president obama became president. now, the zwashede chairman of the financial services committee have amnesia because the problem really started in 2007, which conveniently could insides with the year that the democrats took control of congress. so apparently, amnesia doesn't know partisan bounds, madam chair. so what we have here in front of us is an amendment to put even greater burdens on small business, the job engine of

america. how many more regulations and how much more costs do you have to put on small businesses as they're struggling to meet their payrolls, as they're struggling to try and keep their businesses afloat. how many more jobs have to be lost, madam chair? i hope no more and we should reject this amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the letters of support. the chair: that request will be covered by general leave. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

mr. garrett: madam chair, we would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in house report 111-370. mr. frank: is it not in order for the gentleman from california to offer his amendment now?

the chair: it is now in order no consider amendment number 14 printed in house report 111-370 -- >> parliamentary inquiry. amendment number 13 was in order. is the majority party skipping number 13? the chair: the proponent of number 13 did not appear. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: that is also in the manager's amendment. it's in the manager's amendment so it will not be offered. mr. price: i thank the chair. the speaker pro tempore: it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in house report 111-370. for what purpose does gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, number 168. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 111-370 offered by mr. mccarthy of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 964, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mccarthy: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: this would strike 6012 which changes the liability standard for credit rating agencies that are nationally recognized, statistical rating organizations. when they are included their ratings on the new security offering. first, i'm not here to defend credit rating agencies. i'm supportive of other reforms that the committee passed including removing references. i think the government and the private sector should use credit ratings for what theyr predicttive opinions about

uncertain futures. to conduct through the technical issues, let me make three points. structure dictates behavior. increased liability may lead to agencies being hesitant to even allow their ratings on security offerings thereby providing potential investors with less information. this reminds me of the health care debate and our discussion of defensive medicine. costs go up when doctors must practice defensive medicine to protect themselves in the same way if a rating agency must practice defensive rating for fear of being sued and this will increase costs and restrict credit. opening this to civil liabilities will not guarantee more perfect credit ratings. they are currently feedback on whether to expand rule 436 g. i'm a critic of the s.e.c. and i don't always agree with their

actions, however, i do think making this change which will affect security offerings should be done with seemingly small changes on information investors receive. the s.e.c. has asked for comments on a variety of issues including rescinding rule 436 g will disrupt access to capital and make it difficult for smaller companies to obtain a credit rating or have negative consequences for smaller nrsro's. we should be careful about seemingly small changes that have huge consequences. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: i claim the time in opposition. i yield two minutes to the the

gentlewoman from, ms. kilroy. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. >> they have played a huge role in our collapse and they bragged that they could rate anything, even a cow and they play a critical role in millions of millions of transactions as others rely on the ratings to moody's, standard and poors as they make their investment decisions. the h.r. 4173 would provide for greater scrutiny and more responsibility from the credit rating agencies, protecting these investors. but the amendments as the gentleman from california would weaken credit agency reforms and continue an exemption uvend rule 436 g that the agency should not retain. at the core of the securities

act of 1933 is the idea that a company should provide investors basic information about the securities it is issuing and requires issuers to disclose significant information about themselves and the terms of the securities. those two statements can be held accountable under section 11 of the act. that provision covers many in the financial world such as accountants, lawyers, investment bankers, directors, officers and executives. rating agencies that are not fall under and there is about 100 of those and formerly they were held liable under previous rulings of the s.e.c. amazingly enough though today, moody's standard and poors and others are exempt from section 11 liability by s.e.c. rules. it is a very uneven playing

field. h.r. 4173 in its current form should correct that. the highest standard of accountability is essential recommendation of the july, 2009 report. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. she is recognized for 30 seconds. >> an independent task force chaired by former s.e.c. chair and co-chair as they stated, this change would make rating agencies more diligent about the ratings process and ultimately accountable for sloppy performance. unfortunately, this amendment would remove this much needed accountability for credit rating agencies and i strongly urge its defeat. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired.

the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mccarthy: may i inquire as to the time remaining? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mccarthy: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i will take one minute. and i thank the gentleman. what the gentleman from california is trying to help investors and help the market by providing this amendment. the s.e.c. is examining this issue and we should allow the s.e.c. to continue with that evaluation and come back and address the issue because what we're dealing with here is that there is an exemption and eliminating that exemption will be punishing investors and create an environment that will lead to less accurate ratings, something that none of us should be supporting.

right now, there is an exemption if they have their ratings included in the registration statements filed under the act. this removes that. what would be the end consequence of that? well, you would increase dramatically the time and costs involved with raising capital and thus make it more difficult for issuers to do so. some may refuse to consent entirely and what would that do? we would have even less information available to investors as they try to evaluate securities in the registration statement. at the end of the day without this amendment, this underlying bill will see to it there will be higher costs of credit and less jobs. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kanjorski. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. kanjorski: i think i heard

the gentleman said we should leave this up to the securities and ex changes commission. that is a unique statement. i don't think i heard that argument all night. suddenly the securities and exchange commission can be relied upon to act promptly. look, what we are trying to do with this amendment is to get uniformity. we should not have one standard of lawsuit and another standard not allowed. everyone recognizes, including the securities and exchange commission that this needs reform. they have a penalty. but we can fix this problem and the great lady from ohio took it upon herself to do so at the committee and i urge my colleagues to support her thoughtful amendment or the opposition to this amendment by supporting the underlying bill and making uniformity a call of the day. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized

mr. mccarthy: at this time, i yield to mr. hensarling. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. in some respects one of the few areas of agreement on both sides of the aisle that the rating agencies played a critical role in the economic turmoil that has been hoisted upon our economy. we may differ on the remedy, though. what is needed here is more competition, not more lawsuits. and what happens is when you lower the bar for lawsuits, you raise the bar, barriers to entry and make it more difficult. we know that for all intenths and purposes that the government created a rating agency oligopoly and prevented the market from enjoying competition and had this a.a.a.-rated paper

and we know what happened. and what we have seen now is that the democrats have tried to spin their way into more jobs than our nation's first $1 trillion deficit. they have tried to borrow their way into more jobs. we are now borrowing 43 cents on the dollar, sending the i.o.u.'s to our children and grandchildren. the bill that is brought to the floor today creates a permanent bailout authority for wall street. they have tried to bail out their way to more jobs. and now this particular amendment says maybe we can sue our way into more jobs. that is not the way it is done, madam chair. we need more competition, not more lawsuits. i urge the adoption of the amendment of the the gentleman from california. i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. frank: madam chair, i can

understand -- i know the gentleman from texas likes to blame everything bad that happened starting on january 21, there was no bush recession, there was no deterioration of the war in afghanistan, there was no tarp under bush, etc. but he's particularly good at doing that because here's what he's doing. he's trying to defend an amendment that will give legal immine municipality to the rating agencies. i cannot think -- immunity to the rating agencies. i can't think of a more counterintuitive and counterproductive thing to do. the gentleman from california says we don't want them practicing defensive ratings. yeah, we do. because they have been practicing very offensive ratings. the rating agencies have already agreed has been a major problem. what do the republicans want to do? protect the poor dears from people suing them by a standard of gross negligence so an investor who relies on their judgment has no -- judgment has no remedy whatsoever. yes, we want the rating agency to be a lot more careful. we want the rating agencies to

fear that if they overestimate -- look, here's the problem. we have a business model where the rating agencies are paid by the people they rate. i wish we could encourage people on the biside to do that. we've certainly encouraged them in any way we can. but as long as you have rating agencies paid by the people they rate and the only people who would sue them now are the people who they rate so they can only be sued if people think they were too low. there's nobody who had the right to sue them if you thought they were too high and of course we've done that in this bill. here's what it comes down to. if you want to protect the rating agencies from being legally liable for their gross negligent errors that hurt investors, vote for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time having expired the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from new jersey is

recognized. mr. garrett: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: with great enthusiasm i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is say do notted. accordingly the committee rises -- is adopted. accordingly the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 4173 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 4173 and has come to no resolution thereon. mr. frank: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: mr. speaker, pursuant to an agreement between both sides, i ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of h.r. 4173, pursuant to house resolution 964, amendments number 1 and 36 be considered as modified by the forms at the desk. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the

modifications. the clerk: modification to amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-370 offered by mr. frank of massachusetts. on page 152 of the amendment numbered 1, strike 74 and the following text through page 153 line a. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the question? no objection -- to the request. no objection is there objection to the original request? hearing none your amendments are modified. pursuant to house resolution 964 and rule 18 the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of

the union for the further consideration of h.r. 4173. will the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, kindly resume the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 4173 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for financial regulatory reform to protect consumers and investors, to enhance federal understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives market and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole earlier today -- a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 14 printed in house report 111-370 by the gentleman from california, mr.

mccarthy, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 111-370 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. frank of massachusetts, amendment number 2 by mr. sessions of texas, amendment number 5 by mr. lynch of massachusetts, amendment number 6 by mr. murphy of new york, amendment number 7 by mr. frank of massachusetts, amendment number 8 by mr. stupak of michigan, amendment number 9 by mr. stupak of michigan. the chair will reduce to five minutes the times for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 as modified printed in house report 111-370 offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ace prevailed by voice vote -- ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-370 offered by mr. frank of massachusetts as modified. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240, the nays are 182. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-370 offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions on which further proceedings -- sessions, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-370 offered by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 172, the nays are 257. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-370 offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 precipitationed in house report

111-370 offered by mr. lynch of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 228, the nays are 202 the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number six printed in house report 111-370, offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. murphy. on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevaileden by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number six printed in house report 111 preponderance 370, offered by

mr. murphy of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for a recorded vote. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 304, the nays are 124, the amendment is adopt the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on amendment number seven, offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number seven printed in house report number 170, offered by mr. frank of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support for the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 150, the nays are 280. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in house report 111-370 offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. stupak, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 111-370 offered by mr. stupak of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 98, the nays are 330. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in house report 111-370 offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. stupak, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 111-370 offered by mr. stupak of

michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 150, the nays are 279. the amendment is not adopted. the committee will be in order. members are asked to take their conversation outside the chamber. the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: mr. chairman, pursuant to the authority granted to me under the rule, i

offer amendments en banc. -- enbloc. the chair: the clerk will report the amendments. the clerk: amendments numbered 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24rks27, 28, 34rk and 25, printed in house report 111-370. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts and a member opposed will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: mr. chairman, these are 10 amendments that range in merit from wonderful to at least acceptable. i will be reserving the balance of my time. i will yield time or they can get their own time to any one of the authors who wishes to explain his or her amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. >> mr. speaker, i claim time in

opposition. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. there shall be order in the house. members shall take the conversation away from the chamber. there shall be order in the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition even though i'm not opposed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: i yield myself such time as i may consume to speak on the five amendments i offered in rules committee made in order under the rule. burgess amendment number five, to strike the word orderliness in the descriptor of title 1's definition of the duties of the council. there's no definition of what orderliness means in financial parlance. without that word defined --

without that word, the section has power and this would remove a word that seems nebulous, without a common understanding. second amendment number seven, in the language of the underlying bill, the section creating the systemic resolution fund indexes the amount to inflation, where any mitt gaer to mitigater to -- this would index those amounts. amendment number -- burgess number 11. the metrics of what determine significantly undercapitalized will be determined by rule or regulation. in the language of the underlying bill, title 1

portends to elaborate on what significantly undercapitalized mean but it neither gives a fixed dollar amount, a ratio or a formula. without a specific formula, this is left too much to individual interpation, just like on page 494 of the bill where substantial net provisions requires a specific definition by rule making, significantly undercapitalized, should be defined in rule or regulation and i would further point out that the next section, the very next section of the bill, terms -- gives the term significantly -- critically undercapitalized and under critically undercapitalized there's a ratio at another part of the bill. significantly undercapitalized is never adequately defined and i am concerned about the effect of unintended consequences if we do not provide that definition.

burgess number 14, the limit of two years on the time the federal reserve has to do their audit. in the financial services markup, there was an amendment accepted that is described in section 1, -- title 1, section 1000a. thinkmy amendment seeks to place an outer time limit on the amount of time that can pass or otherwise be defined as expeditiously as possible. an audit by the i.r.s. usually does not take very long. the i.r.s. has three years to audit that individual if there's no other tax fraud. in those cases it would take six years. but the i.r.s. is given so much time to do an audit because there's 134 million returns to examine.

the government agency is different because the government is supposed to have greater transparency, checking the federal reserve balance sheet of over $70 billion of assets that should not, should not take more than two years simply for two reasons -- we know who to audit and what to audit. while i note the historic nature of even getting the audit of the federal reserve is in place we cannot let the audit go on intermably, especially in tismse financial crisis. i applaud representative paul for his laser like, dedicated focus on this issue, but this would add an outer limit of two years on the amount of time the federal reserve has to obtain that audit. finally burgess number eight, strike the phrase having gauge -- have engaged in information sharing from the s.e.c. revolving door study. in the language of the

underlying bill, the definition of what or what is not information is not sufficiently evident so that if an employee of the s.e.c. shares information as basic as the date of a meeting on the calendar, they would be considered part of the s.e.c. revolving door this amendment proposes to get to the heart of the issue, which is to find those who have circumvented federal rules and regulations without bringing in those who have basic and nonessential information. i liken this to the innocent spouse provision in the i.r.s. statute, if someone just simply shares a page from an outlook calendar that does not make them, or should not make them part of the revolving door which is -- which we a i temperature to contain and restrain with the underlying language of the bill. with that, mr. chairman, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, the author of one of the

amendments. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> my amendment gets rid of an anachronistic law from 1933. it's illegal for banks to pay interest to business check accounts. this adversely affects small businesses. now as we're fixing issues we have with the regular raher to system, it's time to get rid of that. my amendment would make it legal for banks to pay interest to business checking accounts. wouldn't require it but would make it legal. this will move us forward and help our small businesses get this economy going again. thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. mr. frank: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. is recognized.

mr. burgess: i will yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: mr. chairman, i would take this opportunity to announce if there are any members here who think we're going to do any further business, we're not. we will resume tomorrow morning, i will inform the members as a result of what we've been able to do with some of the manager's amendments and this en bloc and i appreciate their cooperation of the gentleman from texas and we have, i believe, 11 amendments left to be offered tomorrow. two of them will take a longer time. one of the cfpa, consumer financial protection agency, one on the republican substitute, there'll be a recommit. we should be finishing this bill sometime early tomorrow afternoon. we'll come back in tomorrow and resume the debate and i wanted members to know that. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendments en bloc are agreed. to >> mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question son the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 4173, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the

whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee had under consideration h.r. 4173 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, madam. pursuant to section 1238b3 of the floyd b. fence national authorization act, amended by division p of the consolidated appropriations resolution, 2003, 22 u.s.c. 6901, i am pleased to reappoint mr. peter t. arbrooks of virginia and mr. blain of ohio to the

commission, effective january 1, 2010. both have expressed interest in serving in this capacity and i'm pleased to fill their request. signed sincerely, john boehner, republican leader. the chair: the chair lays before the house, the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. baldwin of wisconsin for today, mr. mica of florida for today until 6:00 p.m., and ms. slaughter of new york for today after 7:00 p.m. and the balance of the week. the clerk: without objection. requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative

business and any special orders theertoffer entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. poe, december 17, for five minutes, mr. jones, december 17 for five minutes, mr. burton, december 14, 15, 16, and 17, five minutes each. and mr. paul, december 15, 16, and 17 for five minutes each. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from the northern marianas islands rise? mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent that following today's business and any special oorders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. mcgovern of massachusetts, mr. defazio of oregon, mr.

langevin of rhode island, mr. murphy of connecticut, ms. dahlkemper from pennsylvania, ms. woolsey of california, mr. is a plan from the northern marianne nass islands, ms. kaptur from -- northern marianas islands, ms. kaptur, and mr. stupak of michigan. the chair: without objection. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. . ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, i rise today to reinforce the call to action by the american people. as we watch the recovery grow and wall street strive, the american people need an answer to unemployment. i will be introducing legislation to provide one year

training for those individuals out of work and be allowed to keep their unemployment and keep a stipend. i believe as a member of the new jobs caucus that is led by members from chicago and from ohio and members from around the nation, that we need to expand our domestic energy resources by exploring natural gas. i also believe it is important to address those individuals who have been chronicically unemployed. in addition, i support the durbin-hoyer relief to auto dealers but make sure that the arbitration is not so expensive that they can't participate. 40,000 jobs in the state of texas alone, it is important to create the opportunity for americans to work. they have me as a partner along with members of hundreds of this caucus, the democratic caucus

who know that real jobs equal a great america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is up. mr. mcgovern from massachusetts. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009 and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mcgovern of massachusetts. poe of texas. defazio of oregon. jones, north carolina. langevin, rhode island. burton, indiana. murphy, connecticut. for what purpose does -- >> i request yalk to claim the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman's recognized for five minutes. mr. kucinich: yesterday, i began circulating to members of

congress a letter that would enable members to be able to sign on to legislation that will be introduced when we return in january that would be aimed at a vote in this house on whether or not we keep our troops in afghanistan and continue operations in pakistan. this action is being done pursuant to the war powers act. the war powers act was passed in 1973 and the intention of it was to claim congress's constitutional authority under article 1 section 8 to be able to take this nation into war and commit our troops into war or to continue to stay at war. congress cannot remain on the side lines in this matter. we have the lives of our troops at stake.

we have trillions of dollars at stake. congress must engage in this debate over whether or not to stay at war in afghanistan and to continue operations in pakistan. it's comforting to let the president do everything, but we can't do that. because whether we agree with the president or not, we have a responsibility, a constitutional responsibility to make a decision on these wars. now some will say the authorization for use of military force dispenses with that. no, it didn't. a reading that authorization makes it very clear that it does not supersede the war powers act. and so when i put this resolution to the congress in

january, it will be an automatic mandatory referral to the international relations committee and will have 15 days to report it back to the house where we can expect a debate. when the bill is introduced, it will be introduced with broad, bipartisan support, because this is not a democrat or republican issue. we have learned recently that u.s. contractors are paying the taliban to ensure safe shipment of u.s. goods to u.s. soldiers, who then use those supplies to strengthen their war with the taliban. we have learned that blackwater is involved in black ops in pakistan working as independent contractors for the purposes of

assassination. we cannot let these things happen without congress being directly involved in taking direct responsibility. all across this country, people are worried about their jobs, their homes, their health care, their investments, their retirement security. why is it that war becomes the centerpiece of our national experience? some can say, will it makes us safer. well, does it? over a million people perished lost their lives. the policy will deadened and for those who say war is inevitable, i say dead wrong. peace is if you tell the truth and ready to confront the difficulties of diplomacy.

we have a right to defend ourselves and i stand upon that right. and i voted for this country to defend itself in those days of september of 2001. but we must not mistake defense for offense and other nations because all we do is create more enemies. occupations fuel insurgencies. if you want peace, you work for peace, if you want war, you work for war. we can't claim war is peace. it's not. it is the path for more war. the constitution when it was written, our founders were very clear. they didn't want an imperial government. they wanted to make sure the dog of war was chained and they put that decision in the hands of the congress. this is about our constitution. our constitution, which i always carry a copy of.

this constitution requires us to take a stand and have a vote and in january, we will have a vote whether to remain in afghanistan and continue operations in pakistan. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. ros-lehtinen of florida. ms. dahlkemper of pennsylvania. what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? >> permission to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: maybe some day, real banking reform will be considered by this congress. real reform means breaking up the big banks. real reform means empowering community banks and local capital communication. real reform means separating speculation and investments. real reform means restoring prudent lending.

real reform means restructuring troubled housing mortgages. real reform means rewarding institutions that play by the rules and don't overleverage. prosecuting white-collar criminals and keeping them out of finance permanently. directly connecting executive pay and bonuses to the performance of the company and recuping the $145 billion in unwarranted bonuses for the american taxpayer. real reform means regulating all derivatives clearly and openly and interconnectedness between large institutions. real reform means independent, supervisory and regulatory agencies that do their jobs. independent supervisory and regulatory agencies. the bill that will be considered tomorrow as it was today merely bunts at refereing capitalism to

the ground. this will lead to more abuse, more risky behavior and more reward for the most hazardous and imprudent characters. wall street needs our help in rescuing them from their own bad behavior, not because wall street deserves it or is worthy. they need to be disciplined because our national interest is more important than wall street. let's dissect america's economic predictment and what congress has done to fix it. in the fall of 2008, congress passed the wall street bailout and told america that tarp would work to steady the housing market. it not only didn't steady the housing market but its purpose was changed by the secretary who gave the money to the biggest banks in this country. in congress, we just looked the other way. the housing foreclosure crisis

has worsened. another six to 12 million are projected to lose their homes. and the biggest perpetrators of this disaster, bank of america, citigroup, wells fargo and goldman sachs have gone from controlling 30% of all deposits in this country to 40% now. the big five are eating us up and taking bigger bonuses, too. it estimated they will reward themselves with $145 billion in bonuses this year. credit remains frozen across this country seizing up economic recovery and this bill calls itself the wall street reform bill. this bill will not meet the serious challenges crippling our financial system and will not give a good signal to the future. congress said the tarp bailout would save us from depression, but tarp passed and the american people went into depression,

only the big banks were saved. the bills passed by congress to date protect wall street and their shareholders, main street pays the price. is this bill a reform bill, no? it will not break up the big banks or create a strong independent financial institution regulatory agency and will not separate speculation from investment activity. it will not require loan workouts to stem foreclosures. it will recan you please bonuses to pay for this economic mess and put america back to work sm the bill asks for nonbinding votes of share holders. it will not rein in nonbanking firms, but provide them with a golden sandbox and not rein in the power of the federal reserve or over the counter derivatives or the requisite agents to put behind bars the white collar criminals whose fraudulent

behavior caused this mess or bring to justice the wrong doers of fannie mae and freddie mac. there are bills to do that but not included in this bill and puts the treasury department, so much a part of the problem, in charge of the financial services oversight council. it fails to strengthen independent financial regulatory and supervisory agencies. the political appointees on this oversight council are clapping in the wings. this bill gives more power to the federal reserve. and you know, you would think that after all the damage that's been done in the republic, this congress would have the guts for real reform. this bill isn't it. and i urge my colleagues to vote no on final passage. i yield back the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the speaker pro tempore: mr.

paul from texas, ms. woolsey from california. mr. smith from new jersey. mr. sablan from the marianas. mr. pitts from pennsylvania. ms. kaptur is already gone. mr. stupak from michigan. and ms. foxx from north carolina. for what purpose does does the the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman that has not been used.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m.

>> timothy geithner testifies about the troubled assets reprogram before a congressional oversight panel. the first, a hearing on afghanistan and pakistan. this is the fourth in a series of hearings on capitol hill this week. it is testimony from the general stanley mcchrystal. howard berman chairs this hearing. >> the committee will come to order.

before beginning my opening statement, i like to make two brief announcement on procedure. given the time constraints and the witnesses and to maximize the time members have for questioning, only the ranking member and i will make opening statements. after that, we will turn to the witnesses for their testimony. without objection, all members make plays written statement in the wreckage. i will recognize members for questioning at the point where we left off last week. those who did not have an opportunity to question our witnesses will get the first chance to ask questions today. the staff has sent out specific information about the order in which members will be recognized. now we will go to the hearing. last week, and the committee heard from secretary clinton, secretary gates, and admiral mukllen.

they did an excellent job in making the case for the new strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. we welcome the top american officials on the ground today in afghanistan. on the ground in afghanistan. ambassador carl w.ikanberry and general stanley a. mcchrystal, the commander of all united states and international forces in afghanistan. the president and his team have made it very clear that our efforts to degrade the taliban and defeat al qaeda cannot stop at the durand line. indeed, nearly all of the jihadi groups operating in pakistan and afghanistan, al qaeda, the pakistani taliban, the afghan taliban, the akani network, l.e.t. and others have joined together in an extended terrorist network that shares the same goals, including destabilizing afghanistan and destroying the pakistani state.

fortunately, there appears to be a growing recognition in pakistan that it is impossible to differentiate between different terrorist groups. and that the same people killing american, international and afghan troops are now arming suicide bombers in the streets and markets of pakistan and killing pakistani civilians. we sympathize with the plight of the pakistani people who have suffered great losses from the growing number of terrorist attacks in that country. as reflected in the legislation recently passed by congress, we are committed to doing what we can to improve their economic and physical security. as all of our witnesses emphasized in last week's hearing, the president's military strategy in afghanistan can only succeed if it is accompanied by a robust civilian surge. designed to improve governance, strengthen the rule of law and promote economic development in

both afghanistan and pakistan. this fact often gets lost in the debate about troop levels and the timeframe for withdrawal. and we must make sure that these civilian critical civilian programs aren't shortchanged. to that end, ambassador iconberry, will you have enough cape aable civilians on the ground to help strengthen governance. will these civilians have sufficient knowledge in these areas to be effective? will they have sufficient experience operating in dangerous environments. like afghanistan? and are 974 civilians as the administration proposed having on the ground by early next year, all we need? if not, when will you be able to tell us exactly how many are required? what will your new military campaign plan include that the august plan did not? with regard to the military strategy, i am curious. one of the keys to our success

in iraq was the sunni awakening in which thousands of sunni tribesmen, many of whom had participated in or aided the insurgency, essentially switched to our side. is there any prospect of a similar shift in afghanistan? can we succeed in afghanistan without such an awakening? finally, general mcchrystal, will 30,000 troops, even with an additional 7,000 apparently pledged by other nations, be sufficient to break the taliban's momentum? can we meet the president's objective of degrading the taliban by focusing primarily on the south, when the taliban is already operating in the north? what types of soldiers, trainers, civil affairs, infantry, will comprise this 30,000 increase? now i'm pleased to return to the ranking member, miss ross-lehtonen for any remarks she would like to make and then we'll proceed to the testimony of our distinguished witnesseses. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, general mcchrystal and

ambassador eikenberry, for months we have been requesting your presence so we're extremely pleased that the administration has now authorized you to provide testimony. welcome, sirs. last week we received a broad presentation, when the chairman asked secretary clinton, if she knew the resources that will be needed for the civilian surge. she was unable to provide specifics, adding that the administration, and i quote will be submitting budget requests in the numbers that need to be had. 0 so we await a more detailed assessments on what you need to prevail against our enemy. before we look forward, we must present an accurate portrayal of the last eight years in afghanistan, the progress that has been achieved, and the challenges that lay ahead. claims of failure from some are an affront to our brave men and women, such as my daughter in

law, lindsay, who served as a marine officer in afghanistan in 2007. it minimizes their accomplishments. and let me briefly contrast afghanistan in 2001, to afghanistan now. the taliban is not in power. does not control afghanistan. while our enemies are rebuilding, afghanistan has not been used to launch attacks against a u.s. homeland. there are serious problems with corruption. but there is a duly-elected government in power. one that is an ally of the united states. and afghan women and girls have unprecedented access to the health and education servicings and are integrated into afghan society. as ambassador eikenberry noted this week, afghanistan has come a long way since the dark days of the taliban. and i have witnessed this progress during my travels there. turning to the strategy announced by the president, i have five quick main issues for our distinguished panel.

first, i'm concerned about the delays in the decision-making. the impact on our ability to succeed in disrupting, defeating, dismantling al qaeda and the taliban. general mcchrystal, you wrote on august 30th that the next 12 months from that date were critical. yet, one-quarter of that time has already gone. and by the time the surge is expected to reach its full capacity, three-quarters of that time would have elapsed. operations such as the marine offensive operations, operations are being undertaken. is this illustrative of the counterinsurgency strategy that will be carried out as part of the surge? and how does this compare to the counterterrorism strategy? secondly, general mcchrystal, has the president provided you enough troops and other resources to successfully complete our mission? there have been reports that the mission's goals have changed from your original proposal, focusing on the elimination of

the taliban, to instead insuring that insurgents could no longer threaten the afghan government's survival. also, are our rules of engagement pro bust enough to repel and permanently eliminate the taliban as a threat? and as the chairman asked, ambassador eickenberry do you have have the necessary tools to carry out the civilian component of the strategy? and thirdly i have concerns about the july 2011 trigger for withdrawal that's been highlighted in the president's speech. talk about transition and exit ramps with an 18-month target to begin withdrawing. tell graphs to our enemies that all they need to do is persevere and through a few difficult fighting seasons. because the u.s. will retreat. so i'm also some also argue that withdrawal timelines make our troops wonder about the determination of washington to succeed and could undermine our efforts to secure greater cooperation from our allies.

"the new york times" recently reported that the president's timetable for withdrawal of american forces in afghanistan rattled nerves in that country and in pakistan as well. prompting diplomats to scramble to assure that, reassure the two countries that we would not in fact cut and run. a fourth concern involves the problems of command and control. coordination with our allies and burden-sharing. our allies are being asked to provide more troops to help push the taliban out of center and north. some, such as the dutch, canadians, british and french, shoulder a greater burden. do you foresee difficulties in securing a greater commitment from our allies to contribute to the war effort? do the forces that the nato security general identified have the combat capabilities that you require? and what actions has the administration taken to convince countries to give you more flexibility in placing troops where they are most needed,

rather than leaving them in safe zones? and fifth and finally, our afghanistan strategy does not exist in a vacuum. at last week's hearing i referred to statements by the chief prosecutor for the international criminal court, that he already has jurisdiction in afghanistan. that he's already conducting a preliminary examination into whether nato troops, including our american soldiers, may have to be prosecuted by the icc. also, as you know, three navy s.e.a.l.s, part of a team that captured the ringleader of those responsible for the 2007 brutal murder of four of our american contractors in flallujah. the prosecution of c.i.a. operatives, the transfer of gitmo detainees for trials in

the u.s., the negative impact of our activities in afghanistan could be dramatic and could undermine critical intelligence-gathering that could save, save the lives of americans serving there. despite these concerns, our nation's safety is at stake. and we must insure that the brave americans serving in afghanistan, as well as our critical allies are provided the support that they need to win this war decisively. i thank you both gentlemen for appearing before us. thank you so much for the time, mr. chairman. >> ambassador carl icahnberry retired from the united states army with the rank of lieutenant general in april of 2009 and shortly thereafter was sworn in as the u.s. ambassador to afghanistan. prior to this assignment, general eikenberry served as the deputy chairman of the north

atlantic treaty organization, military committee in brussel, belgium. he has served twice before in afghanistan, first as u.s. security coordinator and chief of the office of military cooperation in kabul. and then as commander of the combined forces command in he served as director of the two staff in 2009 and as commander of joint special operations command from 2000 to to 2008. the operation of lead in the death of the leader of al qaeda in iraq. we are honored to have you here. wide view not begin? -- why don't you begin? >> thank you for the opportunity to present my views on that can stand today pitta i would ask of my full statement be submitted

for the record. last week, president obama presented the administration strategy for afghanist an and pakistan. i am honored to be part of that process. it offers the best path to stabilize afghanistan and establish that al qaeda cannot get in difficult to plan attacks against us. i can say that i fully support this approach. i consider myself privileged to serve as the united states ambassador and to represent an amazing team of diplomats, development specialists, and civilian efforts to form the most capable and dedicated the netted states embassy anywhere in the world today. -- in the united states embassy

anywhere in the world today. i want to sit on the outset that general mcchrystal and myself are united in a joint effort where civilian and military personnel work together every day, side by side, with our afghan partners and with their allies. day, side by side, with our afghan partners and with our allies. and we could not accomplish our objectives without this kind of cooperation. as you know, mr. chairman, the united states is at a critical jupgt tur in ojuncture in our involvement in afghanistan. on december 1, the president ordered an additional 30,000 troops to deploy to afghanistan, with the goal of breaking the insurgency's momentum, hastening and improving the training of afghan security forces and establishing security in key parts of the country. on the civilian side, we aim to increase employment and provide essential services in areas of greatest insecurity.

and to improve critical ministries and the economy at the national level. these steps, taken together, i believe, will help to remove insurgents from the battlefield and to build support for the afghan government. as the president said, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. after a difficult election, the afghan government does show signs of recognizing the need to deliver better governance and security. we await urgent, concrete steps in a numb of areas. i would like to briefly discuss the three main pillars of our efforts in afghanistan, which are security, governance and development. general mcchrystal will address our plans to improving security and building the afghan national security forces. since assuming my post, i've made a special point of getting outside of kabul to see conditions firsthand. and i fully concur with general

mcchrystal's assessment that the security situation in afghanistan remains serious. sending additional united states and other nato isaf forces to afghanistan is critical to regaining the initiative. and i'm confident that as these troops arrive, the situation will stabilize and turn in our favor. additional troops will also permit us to expand our work with the afghan army, and the afghan police. so that they can take a larger role in providing for security for their own people. as president obama said, the transition to afghan responsibility will begin in the summer of 2011, when we expect afghan security forces to begin assuming lead responsibility for defending their country. moving on from security. the second pillar of our comprehensive strategy focuses on governance. at the national, and at the subnational levels, our

overarching goal is to encourage improved governance, so that afghans can see the benefit of supporting a legitimate government and the insurgency loses support. as general mcchrystal points out, one of the major impediments, our strategy faces, is the afghan government's lack of credibility with its own people. people. to strengthen its legitimacy our approach at the national level is to improving key ministries by increasing the number of civilian technical advisers and providing more developmental assistance directly through these ministries' budgets. by focusing on ministries that deliver essential services and security, we can accelerate the building of an afghan government that is sufficiently visible, effective and accountable. at the provincial and the district levels, we are working jointmy with our mill military teams through our provincial reconstruction teams our district working groups and

district support teams which help build afghan capacity particularly in the areas of greatest insecurity in southern afghanistan and eastern afghanistan. underpinning all of these efforts is the need to combat corruption and to promote the rule of law. with our assistance, the afghan government is steadily building law enforcement institutions to fight corruption, organized crime and drug trafficking. in his inaugural address president karzai stated his intention to make merit-based apoiptments in his new cabinet and to implement an anti-corruption strategy and we're encouraged by his statements. the cultivation of poppy and trafficking in opium also continued to have a debilitating effect on afghan society. our strategy is multi-pronged and involves demand reduction, efforts by law enforcement agencies and the military to detain traffickers and interdict drug shipments and support for illicit agricultural

development. the narcotics problem, of course, will never have a solution, though, without economic development and this leads to the third pillar of our effort which is development. in recent months, we've adjusted our approach to focusing on building key elements of the afghan private sector economy, increasing our emphasis on agriculture, enhancing government revenue collection, and improving the coordination assistance within the united states government and the international community. these steps were taken to produce improvements in the lives of ordinary afghans and to contribute directly to more effective government and lessened support for the insurgency. rebuilding the farm sector, in particular, is essential for the afghan government to reduce the pool of unemployed men who form the recuting base for extremist groups. we estimate that some 80% of the afghan population derives their income either directly or

indirectly from agriculture. mr. chairman, i want to emphasize that we're concentrating on what is essential and what is attainable. the president's strategy is based on a pragmatic assessment of the security interests of the united states and our belief that a sustainable, representative government and a sustainable economy are essential to success. we need a viable afghan government so our forces can draw down and investment of u.s. taxpayer dollars can be reduced. in closing, i need to mention two important risks that we do face in carrying out this strategy. the first is that, in spite of everything that we do, afghanistan may struggle to take over the essential task of governance and security on a timely basis. the second is our partnership with pakistan. the efforts were under -- we're under taking in afghanistan is likely to fall short of our strategic goals unless there's

more progress at eliminating the sanctuaries used by the afghan taliban and their associates in pakistan. if the main elements of the president's plan are executed and if our afghan partnerss and our allies do their part, i'm confident that we can achieve our strategic objectives. i say this with conviction, because for the first time in my three tours in afghanistan, all of the elements of our national power are being employed with full support of the president and increasingly of our allies. achieving our goals for afghanistan will not be easy. but i'm optimistic that we can succeed with the support of the united states congress. our mission has been under-resourced for years but now one of our government's highest priorities with substantial development funds and hundreds more civilian personnel. we will soon have increased our civilian presence in kabul three-fold and in the field six-fold, just over this past year and we will, of course,

though, need more. u.s. foreign assistance is, also, a comparatively small but essential fraction of the total amount that's being spent in afghanistan and has been spent over the last eight years. additional resources will be necessary and we look forward to sharing more details on our anticipated needs with congress in the coming days and weeks. mr. chairman, afghanistan is a daunting challenge. success is not guaranteed, but it is possible. with the additional troops and other resources provided by the president and with the help of congress, we will work tirelessly to ensure that al qaeda never again regains -- gains ref few in afghanistan and threatens our country. thank you, sir. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. general mcchrystal? >> mr. chairman, ranking member -- distinguished members of this committee thank you for the chance to appear before you today. i welcome this opportunity to

testify on our way ahead in afghanistan and i'm pleased to do so with ambassador karl eikenberry, an old friend. let me begin by saluting the bravery of the men and women of the international security assistance force in afghanistan an cored by over 68,000 courageous americans our close partners in the nato alines and a 43-nation coalition. we honor the sacrifices of the fallen, the veterans, and their families. we also recognize the toll paid every day by our counterparts in the afghan security forces and by afghan civilians, who ultimately suffer the most from this insurgency. it is for them and for all of us that we seek a stable afghanistan, a defunct al qaeda and a secure future in that vital region of the world. i first deployed to afghanistan in 2002 and have commanded forces there every year since. despite that experience, there's much in afghanistan that i have yet to fully understand. for all of us, afghanistan is a

challenge that is best approached with a balance of determination and humility. while u.s. forces have been at war in afghanistan for eight years, the afghans have been at it for more than 30. they are frustrated with international efforts that have failed to meet their expectations, confronting us with a crisis of confidence among afghans who view the international effort as insufficient and their government as corrupt or, at the very least, inconsequential. we also face a complex and resilient insurgency. the -- taliban, or afghan taliban, is the prominent threat to the government of afghanistan. and they aspire to, once again, become the government of afghanistan. the hakani and -- insurgent groups have more limited geographic reach and objectives but are no leslie that. all three groups are supported, to some degree by external elements in iran and pakistan,

have ties with al qaeda, and co-exist within narcotics and criminal networks both fueling and feeding off instability and insecurity in the region. the mission in afghanistan is undeniably difficult and success will require steadfast commitment and enoccur significant costs. i participated fully in the president's assessment and decision-making process and was afforded multiple opportunities to provide my recommendations and best military advice, which i did. combined with insights and policy considerations from across our government, i believe the decisions that came from that process reflect a realistic and effective approach. to pursue our core goal of defeating al qaeda and preventing their return to afghanistan, we must disrupt and degrade the taliban's capacity, deny their access to the afghan population, and strengthen the afghan security forces. this means we must reverse the taliban's current momentum and

create the time and space to develop afghan security and governance capacity. the president's decision rapidly resources our strategy, recognizing that the next 18 months will likely be decisive and ultimately enable success. i fully support the president's decision. the president has also reiterated how this decision supports our national interests, rolling back the taliban is a prerequisite to the ultimate defeat of al qaeda. the mission is is not only important, it is, also, achievable. we can and will accomplish this mission. let me briefly explain why i believe so. my confidence derives first from the afghans' resolve since it is their actions that will ultimately matter most in ending this conflict. with their interests and by extension our own secured. second, we do not confront a popular insurgency. the taliban have no widespread constituency, have a history of failure in power, and lack an

appealing vision. third, where our strategy is applied we've begun to show we can help the afghans establish more effective security and more credible governance. . is a necessary bridge for future stability. we are empowered with a nuisance a power, and confidence. the president completed a review of our strategy to include questioning of recommendations that has produced a greater clarity of our objectives. with greater clarity on the way forward. additional forces will begin to deploy shortly. by this time lecture, new security gains will be eliminated by specific ca