we could make a u.c. put that as being a cause -- i guess we can't do that. that's a bridge tooer far. with that, i -- too far. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. . it is now in order to consider amendment number 19 printed in house report 111-370. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i rise as the designee of the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. the chair: does the gentleman offer the amendment? mr. marshall: i do offer the

amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in house report 111-370 offered by mr. marshall of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 964, the gentleman from georgia, mr. marshall, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. marshall: i thank the speaker. this is an amendment which is identical to a bill passed by the house earlier this year in march. the bill permits what's referred to as cramdown in chapter 13 with regard to private home mortgages. it is intended to address this foreclosure crisis without taxpayers having to put money into the deal. it essentially forces the parties to the deal to deal with their problems without having vacancies and foreclosures in our neighborhoods. in that sense, it helps our

lenders with real estate portfolios. it helps the individuals whose homes might be foreclosured upon and it actually helps the creditor who is forced into a chapter 13 process because in almost every instance their portfolio is improved by not having as many houses in foreclosure. and in almost every instance they get a better deal in a chapter 13 process than they would in a normal foreclosure process. we should have done this long ago. it would have helped the housing crisis and consequencely -- cons is he wently the economy of america. this is mr. conyers' bill. i compliment ms. lofgren from california who couldn't be here because of family matters, because she's been a real stalwart moving this forward. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise?

>> to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, madam chairman. at this moment i'm pleased to yield a minute to the gentleman from texas, the ranking member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, the deputy ranking member of the judiciary committee, for yielding me time. madam chair woman, those who confront mortgage foreclosures are understandably in a difficult situation. but this bankruptcy amendment will only lead to a worse situation for everyone. the number one cause of foreclosures today is job loss. the number two cause is homes that are mortgaged for more than they are worth. sending these homeowners with these problems into chapter 13 ups bankruptcy will not solve at all. they don't have the income required that is required to file chapter 13 bankruptcy. and those should honor the mortgages for which they freely contracted. allowing bankruptcy courts to

cram down mortgage principal will only lead to higher interest rates and tucker mortgage terms for all future homeowners. why should those that did nothing wrong have to pay that price? i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. marshall: i yield myself such time as i may consume, and just a couple of observations. if in fact you are jobless and don't have income, you are not eligible for chapter 13 and consequently you won't be able to cram down. it's those that do have jobs, who do have income who could survive if they had the opportunity to restructure their debt, who would be eligible, and it's only those folks as far as increasing the cost of credit is concerned, this bill provides it is retroactive. it doesn't apply to future credit. many, many experts have looked at this and concluded it will not increase the cost of future credit. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i

recognize myself for two minutes. first, to say that the gentleman from georgia may assert that this will benefit creditors, but i know a few creditors who extend home mortgage loans that favor this legislation. our country has fallen into a serious economic recession or a recession that's worsened by the foreclosure crisis. until we can address the rising number of foreclosures, it will be difficult for the economy to recover. unfortunately, this bankruptcy amendment, which i don't think belongs in this legislation to begin with, not only fails to solve the foreclosure crisis but also will make the crisis deeper, longer and wider. allowing bankruptcy courts to modify home mortgages will have adverse consequences for all while providing little real relief to distressed borrowers. bankruptcy cramdown will invariablely lead to higher interest rates and less generous borrowing terms for future borrowers. the gentleman may claim that it

won't effect future borrowers, but the fact of the matter is if this can be done now for this purpose, the advocates for this legislation would like to see this made in the future a permanent provision in our bankruptcy laws and it will have the effect of causing interest rates to go up and credit to be less available. unemployment has been the driving factor behind most foreclosures, but because individuals without regular income may not file for bankruptcy under chapter 13, cramdown will do nothing for those most in need of relief. the unemployed. additionally, many borrowers walk away from their homes not because they can't afford their monthly payments but because their homes are mortgaged for more than they're worth. these borrowers should live with the responsibility for their decisions, not receive bailouts from bankruptcy courts. furthermore, we must not forget that cramdown will not only impact lenders but investors as well. these investors often include pension funds representing the retirement savings of millions. we should not pass the cost of

irresponsible borrowing and lending off on current and future retirees. i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 130ekds. mr. goodlatte: there is no reason to allow mortgage cramdown with the high cost considering it will produce only moderate results at best. if we pass this amendment, what message does it send to the 90% of homeowners who are making their payments on time? how can we ask them to foot the bill for their neighbor's mortgages. what do people think back they pay the principal -- we must solve the foreclosure crisis but we must avoid the cramdown that taxes the responsible and holds no one accountable. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. marshall: i yield myself

such time as i may consume. to homeowners we will say their home won't decline in value. no taxpayers' dollars goes into the deal at all. to those who cannot afford chapter 13, obviously other some remedy is called for than this. but for those who can afford a chapter 13, you're helping everybody by filing a chapter 13. and having spent years in this business, creditors will not be harmed, and the cost of credit will not go up. and that's particularly true because in this bill it only applies to existing mortgages. it doesn't apply to future mortgages. so it's widely conceded. the cost of credit will not go up. this is truly a win-win. i was originally opposed. i've been in this business for a long time. i had a change of heart. the change of heart focuses on the crisis that we're in right now. you can go to my website and on the front page of the website those who are interested will find a detailed explanation why this is absolutely the right thing to do. and with that it seems to me

i've responded to everything that the gentleman from virginia has said. so i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, i'll yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, a member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. lungren: thank you very much, madam chair. this is a prime example of good intentions resulting in bad policy. my area is one of the areas hit as badly as any with respect to foreclosures. we have not cleared the market yet. we are in deep, deep shape. and the last thing we need is to increase the level of uncertainty within the mortgage market, and that's what this does. it may be limited by its terms, but if we do it now we can do it again. some people may ask, why would we not allow cramdown for

residential housing? the supreme court justice stevens, looking at this with a case in previous years, said the favorable treatment of residential mortgages was intended to encourage the flow of capital into the home lending market. that is why this exists in the bankruptcy code today. precisely because it allows more people access to purchasing homes and premiums are not as high as they otherwise would be. precisely because you cannot allow cramdown in bankruptcy proceedings now. that's the sole substance of the reason why we have this. we're going to reverse this as a matter of public policy. it is going to create greater uncertainty. and thereby increase the premiums in the future for everybody else and deny access to the housing market for those we seek to help. i'd yield.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. marshall: i'll simply repeat, because this is applicable to existing mortgages it will have no effect on the cost of future mortgages. the beauty of it is we'll have fewer foreclosures, so the gentleman from california and those in california who are in neighborhoods that are really struggling with this housing crisis collapsing because of vacancies, all of those will be helped by this without putting a single dime of taxpayer dollars in the deal. it seems to me that's the complete justification for doing this. we should have done it long ago. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia has no time remaining. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. marshall: i yield myself -- how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has one minute and one half remaining. mr. marshall: i appreciate

that. you know, there's a thing called the tragedy of the commons, and it's a theoretical concept that applies in this particular case. it refers to the opening of common areas for grazing, and then those who have sheep come in and overfwraze that area. and the effect is not -- overgraze that area. and the effect is not that everybody got loftier, it's everybody got poorer. i am not interested in fooling around with me in bankruptcy court or anything like that. but combined creditors are advantaged by having fewer foreclosures on the market in a situation like this. having represented an awful lot of banks, having spent an awful lot of my life as a bankruptcy lawyer, law professor, commercial litigator, i'm absolutely convinced that i was wrong to initially reject this concept. that if we apply it now -- we should have done it a couple years ago -- but if we apply it now we'll catch an ongoing wave of foreclosures.

it will help the individuals who can rescue their homes. it will lessen the number of foreclosures consequently helping all other homeowners, no taxpayer dollars are involved. and creditors are assisted by this with no threat whatsoever to an increase in mortgage crisis. we passed this before. we should pass it again. it's appropriate to this particular pees of legislation because the work we're doing -- piece of legislation because the work we're doing now is prompted by the credit crisis that was prompted initially by housing issues. so housing should be addressed as part of fixing the overall financial situation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. marshall: i thank the speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i'd ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this amendment. the chair: without objection, so ordered. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is -- >> madam speaker, i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 26 printed in house report 111-370. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. garrett: amendment at the desk. amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. garrett: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26 printed in house report 111-370 offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 964, the gentleman

from new jersey, mr. garrett, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: and i thank the madam chair. i was just at the microphone a moment ago and speaking about the recognition that i think we have on both sides of the aisle that the c.r.a.'s, the credit rating agencies, were part in par sell to the financial situation that we find ourselves in right now. and during the time i raised two -- probably three significant points on this and what we need to do when it comes to reform. i mentioned the fact that we need to reduce investors' reliance upon rating agencies. i mentioned also that we need to encourage investors due diligence that sort of goes with it. and the third point i is it raise is we need to have increased competition between the credit rating agencies. unfortunately, if you look at the bill before us, title 5 of the bill, includes a number of

provisions that were basically exacerbate the current problems within the industry. and as i said on the floor yesterday, to actually make it harder, more difficult for investors to get the information that they need in order to make those decisions that they have to before they invest. . we passed the credit agency reform legislation about three years ago, the main foeous was to do what? i crease competition between the various rating agencies. there was only about three major ones but we were going to try to make small ones get into the market with more competition. maybe we could eliminate some of the problems. that was three years ago. the reason, then, i voted just a short time ago this year against the legislation that came out of committee that was going to try to reform the c.r.a.'s because because -- was because it did the exact opposite. it decreased the competition in the industry. i think we need more competition. the reason that the legislation that came out of committee i thought would decrease competition is because, well,

it would impose a whole bunch of new liability on the c.r.a.'s and it was basically discourage them to get into the industry at all. and that's maybe one of the reasons why in the committee's language there is provision in it that says, we are not going to let you out. once you are an nsro, we are not going throat you out of it because with all this additional liability, no one would want to be a c.r.a. anymore. the amendment that we have before us recognizes that problem. we want to have competition but you have all these additional rules, regulation, and liblingts on them they are all going -- liabilities on them they are all going to flee. we believe we can come to a middle ground and that is to say allow those c.r.a.'s of the smaller size, that is net revenues of $250 million or less in a year to be able to retain the ability to deregister. that's what the legislation does befores us. with that i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. kanjorski: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kanjorski: madam chairwoman, under current law credit rating agencies operate under a voluntary system of registration with the united states securities and exchange commission. we change that with a provision in the manager's amendment that would require all rating agencies with appropriate exemptions to register with the commission. the gentleman from new jersey's amendment inserts a voluntary withdrawal from registration with the commission for those rating agencies who earn less than $250 million. this amendment would have the effect of allowing the smallest of rating agencies now registered as nationally recognized statistical rating organizations to opt out of the system at some time in the future. the proposal would also maintain the close supervision of the largest rating agencies,

the ones most likely to issue the ratings used by investors. based on that, madam chairman, i have no opposition to this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. kanjorski: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: if the gentleman from pennsylvania -- if the gentleman from pennsylvania has no opposition and has no other speakers, if you yield back, i'll just close. mr. kanjorski: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i'll close by saying i thank the gentleman for his support of the legislation. no opposition to the amendment. and appreciate the very many months of working together on this issue and other issues as well. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair understands that amendments 29, 30, and 31 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 32 printed in house report 111-370. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? ms. schakowsky: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 32, printed in house report number 111-370, offered by ms. schakowsky of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 964, the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois. ms. schakowsky: thank you, madam chairman.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to thank representative titus for joining me in offering this important amendment to make sure that the new consumer financial protection agency has authority to regulate reverse mortgages. it is a proposal that is supported by the aarp. reverse mortgages are unique mortgage products that allow homeowners over age 62 to borrow against their homes to receive a cash or line of credit. the loan is paid back when the homeowner dies or sells the home. in the past three years more than 335,000 federal insured reverse mortgages have been issued to seniors. unfortunately, all is not well in the reverse mortgage market. an october report by the national consumer law center found many of the abusive practice that is were common in the subprime lending market before its collapse are also common in reverse mortgage transactions. those practices include high fees, incentives for brokers that are harmful to borrowers, and lenders steering consumers

to products more costly than are necessary. also, securitization as in the subprime market is becoming more common for reverse mortgages. unfortunately, the complexity of the loans and the age of the typical borrower have made the reverse mortgage market ripe for scam artists. we have to make sure that seniors who use reverse mortgages are protected against unlawful and unfair practices. the amendment i am offering seeks to correct an oversight in the cfpa provisions of the bill. the bill as written gives the cfpa authority over a number of consumer thoughts but a majority of reverse mortgages today are f.h.a. insured home equity conversion mortgages which are primarily regular lighted by h.u.d. under the national housing act statute. therefore as currently written, reverse mortgages may not clearly fall within the cfpa's authority. my amendment would clarify that the cfpa director has oversight and regulatory authority over lenders and brokers that issue

reverse mortgages and directs the agency to consult with h.u.d. as it develops regulations. my amendment would also require cfpa to begin a rule making within one year of the enactment in order to develop regulations that will make sure reverse mortgage transactions are not unfair, deceptive, or abusive. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey, for what purpose do you seek recognition? mr. garrett: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garrett: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the madam chair. here's an example of the old saying, here we go again. the cfp amplet, an entity -- cfpa, an entity that we have already discussed both today and yesterday is an idea of contracting consumer choice, putting limitations on the consumer's ability to buy products they need and want, and all at the same time

causing a cost to the overall system of credit and jobs in this country. the additional cost to the cfpa has already been examined by outside organizations and is seen to have a negative impact for this country to grow ourselves out of the economic morass that we find ourselves in today. experts have said, and we have yet to hear anyone from the other side of the aisle refute these studies, nor for that matter when we asked the other side of the aisle earlier, the gentleman from north carolina, i believe, do they have any studies to refute these or present the case that actually would go in the opposition direction, they said no, or had no answer, experts have shown that the cfpa alone would add a cost of credit to the system between 1.4 to 1.4, about 1 1/2 percentage points to the cost of credit in this country. what does that mean? even in the case of reverse mortgages i guess it would apply that you would say the cost of your credit if you have

a 6% loan would go up to around 7%, 7.5%. just the act of borrowing will be made harder because of the underlying bill. now we see here with this amendment that the cfpa was not omnipotent enough with their power to reach into basically every single corner of the economy of this country, now we are going to let them go even a little bit further. i say all that with the understack that reverse mortgages sometimes in the past -- understanding that reverse mortgages sometimes in the past within certain cases of causing problems for our seniors and that is certainly something that regulators need to and have the ability to take a look at. but this certainly is not the answer. this -- was crafted in such a way that would broaden the cfpa powers, hurt credit, and one other point on this as well, when you are hurting the credit markets of this country, you are also hurting the opportunity to grow this economy with regard to jobs. i think that same study as well gave us a number of around 4.3%

reduction in the increase of jobs. what does that mean to you and me? with unemployment around 10%, that means we could look at an additional million people in country who would not be able to get jobs. how does that help seniors? seniors have other people in their families working, how does it help any senior, help anyone this country if we are going to put more impediments and roadblocks in the way to this country growing again, getting credit down again, and getting unemployment back down from the 10% that we find ourselves in today? i stand opposed to this amendment and opposed to putting additional powers in the federal government and the cfpa and within the authorities they have already. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. ms. schakowsky: may i inquire how many minutes i have left? the chair: the gentlewoman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. schakowsky: i would like to yield a minute to the chairman of the committee, barney frank.

the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: madam chair, we keep hearing about these studies. they were commissioned by organizations ideologically opposed to this and surprise, surprise they have gotten back the answers they want. i haven't seen them. they are not worth anything. they are simply quantifications of ideology which are entitled to no weight. i understand that there are people who do not like consumer regulation. what we learn is that in its absence abuses can proliferate that become systemic problems. it's especially relevant when we are dealing with the elderly. we know there are people who are preying on older people. there are people eligible for this program in their 80's who have lives ever hard work that did not include sophisticated involvement with financial instruments. there have been problems of abuse. we in fact adopted i think

without opposition a piece of legislation that said, can you not be the one that sells somebody reverse mortgage and then becomes his or her investment advisor because of the abuses. protecting the elderly against abuse shouldn't be controversial. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: does the gentlelady have other -- i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. ms. schakowsky: thank you, madam chairman. i yield now to the gentlelady to finish the amount of remaining time. the chair: the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized for the remaining minute and a half. ms. titus: thank you, madam chairman. every day seniors are targeted by lending agencies through mailings, phone calls, and tv ads offering reverse mortgages with promises of free money to finance trips, new cars, and gifts in their golden years. while a reverse mortgage may be an appropriate product for some

seniors, it's a complex financial instrument which is being aggressively marketed to our most vulnerable in society. accordingly, many seniors today find themselves in financial hardship due to unfair and unclear agreements along with excessive fees that come as a result of reverse mortgages. they have learned the hard way that the reality of a reverse mortgage is not always as advertised and now they face severe financial consequences in what is supposed to be their golden years. the amendment that we are offering today provides needed safety guards for our nation's seniors by requiring that the new consumer financial protection agency oversee the reverse mortgage industry to ensure seniors are not exposed to unfair and deceptive practices. protecting our seniors from unfair and unclear financial products is long overdue. reverse mortgages need to be clearly and closely monitored and regulated in an effort to ensure seniors don't lose their home and equity that they have

built up through a lifetime of hard work. i'm confident that the amendment which has the endorsement of aarp will offer appropriate flexibility and protections for our seniors. i want to thank my colleague, representatives schakowsky and also the chairman of the committee for working with me on this important issue. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: does the gentlelady have any other speakers? the chair: the gentlewoman's -- the gentlewoman illinois doesn't have time remaining. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: i thank you. i yield myself 20 seconds and yield to the gentleman from texas my remaining time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 20 seconds. mr. garrett: to the chairman's comment with regard to our study which he said is simply a quantification of ideology, whenever he has an issue like that, i think that is an abandonment of originality because of any time we have a

study or what have you, he refers back to ideology. we would always ask the other side of the aisle, ideological or otherwise, we would be happy to see any study to support anything that's in this bill that will not harm our economy nor create hardships for the creation of jobs or create hardships for creating increases to credit. we would like idea lonlical or otherwise. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garrett: i yield the remainling time to close to the gentleman from texas, a man not of ideology alone but a man of facts and figures a. man on the right side of this issue, the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for a minute and a half. . mr. hensarling: simply because you are a senior you shouldn't have to give up your freedom. you shouldn't have to give up your economic liberty. there are so many reasons to oppose the underlying

legislation. it creates a permanent wall street bailout authority. at a time when the economic policies of this congress, of this administration have produced the highest unemployment rate in a generation, they propose legislation that will make credit more expensive, less available and crush jobs. but now we have an amendment that goes to increase the power of the unelected czar to ban, to ban and ration credit. you know, ultimately, american people in the land of the free ought to be able to be free to choose the financial products that they think that are best for them. the way to best protect american citizens is with competitive markets that are vigorously enforced for fraud

but not take away their essential freedom. quit protecting americans from themselves. quit assaulting the economic liberties of americans, especially seniors, in tough economic times who may need the money to survive. we should reject this amendment, reject the job loss, reject the bailout, reject the assault on liberty. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment -- mr. hensarling: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from illinois will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 33 printed in house report 111-370.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kilroy: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 33 printed in house report 111-370 -- ms. kilroy: i ask unanimous consent -- the chair: pursuant to house resolution 964, the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kilroy, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois. ms. kilroy: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. it's been a little over a year since the way the predatory lending, credit default swaps finally gave way. and the american taxpayer was forced to bail out wall street. and the same financial institutions that sent our nation's economy into the worse crisis since the great depression. the greed and recklessness of wall street has cost main street dearly. millions of jobs, hard-earned

life savings were lost. and today, american families are still recovering. we know we need to take action so that american taxpayers are not put in that position again. and over the past year, chairman frank has held countless hearings, markups and meetings to help bring to the floor today the most sweeping reform of our nation's financial regulatory system since the new deal. and he's done so in a transparent and equityible manner. h.r. 4173, the wall street reform and consumer protection act, will restore our nation's financial system and provide americans the confidence that there are rules in place that work for them and protect them, not protect the big banks and hedge funds and mortgage industry. there will be the oversight, the regulation that should keep this kind of crisis from happening again, that should see an end to the risky practices that led to the taxpayer bailout of wall street.

but it will also the end of too bill to fail problem by implementing a mechanism for the orderly and controlled liquidation of a failed financial institution. and it's very clear that this is going to be funded by the financial institutions themselves, not by another bailout, not by the taxpayers, no more tarp. but sometimes increased clarity and added emphasis is called for. by adding one word, only, to the language regarding the use of assessments, we promise and we reassure our taxpayers that they will not be bailing out wall street again. the disillusion fund -- dissolution fund will only be funded by those financial institutions from their assessments, not our hardworking taxpayers and our cities and towns and farms. madam chair, i urge passage of this amendment and yield back. the chair: does gentlewoman

yield or reserve? ms. kilroy: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: to claim time in opposition, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: i yield myself such time as i may consume. well, madam chair, i was very heartened to hear the gentlelady from ohio to say, quote, no more tarps. she'll have an opportunity to vote that way later this afternoon. i hope that many of her colleagues on that side of the aisle will follow her example and put their votes where their sentiment is because indeed the motion to recommit today will be to end the tarp program. so i look forward to having great support on that side of the aisle for that motion to recommit. the particular amendment before us, though, is one that continues to try to perpetuate the myth that somehow taxpayers will not be called upon for a bailout. why do you have a bailout fund? you have a bailout fund to bail somebody out.

and if for some reason you actually thought that taxpayers will not be on the hook, well, $150 billion imposed upon those who form capital, capital interimmediatearies are going to make capital more expensive, choke off more credit to small businesses and increase the double digit unemployment rate that the nation now has under this administration and this congress' economic policies. how many more jobs need to be lost? we need to open up credit, not close credit. second of all, the people who are telling us, don't worry, mr. taxpayer, mr. taxpayer, you are never going to be called upon to bail out these institutions yet again. we have solved that problem. madam chair, these are the very same people that told us that the taxpayers would never be called to bail out the

government sponsored enterprises, and yet $1 trillion of taxpayers exposure liability later they were wrong. they told us about that social security going bankrupt, medicare going bankrupt, national federal flood insurance program, never going to need national taxpayer problem, insolvent. and the list goes on and on and on. now, madam chair, i know they mean well. i know they believe it when they say it, but as history as my guide, it's not a credible statement for those on the other side of the aisle to make. so what are we left with? we are left with a perpetual wall street bailout bill. we are left with a bill that will crush job creation at a time when our nation needs to be creating jobs. we have a bill that assaults the fundamental economic liberties of every american citizen who now has to receive the permission of their government before they can future a credit card in their wallet or get a mortgage for their home. the best way to end tarp is to

end tarp. and every member of this body will have the opportunity to do it later this afternoon. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized. ms. kilroy: i yield two minutes to the chairman of our committee, barney frank. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. frank: the gentleman from texas's instinct be known overcomes that so he has to say negative things. among them, though, the most outlandish is his continuing effort to blame unemployment on president obama. president obama inherited from president bush a very serious recession. it turns out now the worst since the great depression. and it was begun by those who certified the nonpartisan entities that do that. in december of 2007 after many

years of republican rule, both in the house and senate and in the white house. unemployment is decreasing now, and you don't go from very bad to perfect. but this effort to evade responsibility for the republican policies that caused this recession is, as i said, one of the great examples of blame shifting. i have to say again, we suffered a great disease outbreak on january 23, 2001. mass amnesia hit the republican party. the massive deficit that brought about our financial collapse. the millions of jobs loss, administration with the worst job record recently is the bush administration. and the obama recovery is slower than i wish it would be, but it is currently on the upswing. secondly, the gentleman to win his partisan points will lash out at anything. social security, he announces, is going bankrupt. social security, credited with

all the money paid in, is sound for another 25 years or more. frightening all the people by the false claim that social security is going bankrupt is an example of partisanship on a riot. what we have is this reluctance to accept the fact that we have language that says nothing here can go to perpetuate the institutions. it's right. fannie mae and freddie mac, which the republican party -- i ask for another 30 seconds. ms. kilroy: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from massachusetts. the chair: the gentlelady has 30 seconds remaining. mr. frank: in the 12 years of congressional republican rule, they didn't do anything about fannie and freddie. we did pass a bill in 2007. it was too late. but we have language here that did not previously exist that bans the use of taxpayer funds, that bans the use of any funds to keep an institution going. so, yes, unlike the republicans who did nothing about fannie and freddie in their 12 years, never passed a piece of legislation, we passed a piece of legislation and it was too

late but we learned from it and there is binding language here that contradicts everything that the gentleman from texas says but he's not easily said. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. hensarling: madam chair, has all time expired on this? the chair: all time has expired on the other side. the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. hensarling: thank you, madam speaker. it's mass amnesia has affected that side of the aisle too. i currently he remind the gentleman from the financial services committee since he points out 2007 the year that the financial crisis started, it happens to coinside the year that the democrats took control of the united states congress as well. frank will the gentleman yield? mr. hensarling: i'd be happy to yield. mr. frank: as he advances the argument because the democrats took over in 2007 that that was why we had a recession? mr. hensarling: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. i'm simply pointing out, if the

gentleman is trying to make associations, or make an association to me as well, what i am asserting is that the economic policies either enacted or threatened by this congress or this administration is keeping a recovery from happening. this is an economy that through any historic standard whatsoever should have already recovered. but first we have the stimulus program which we were told would keep us at 8% unemployment. now we know we have double digit unemployment, 3.6 million jobs lost since the stimulus program was passed. we have the $600 billion energy tax passed in the house hanging over the economy. we have the over $1 trillion nationalization of our health care system hanging over the economy. and now this is the fourth leg of the stool. and that is a perpetual wall street bailout and further job loss through credit contraction

act of 2009, the fourth leg of the economic policy that are preventing jobs from being created. what do we have to show for the economic poll significance of this administration? -- policies of this administration? that is the first $1 trillion deficit in our nation's history. we have an economic plan that will triple the national debt. nothing would do more to create jobs than to defeat this bill, defeat -- let tarp expire -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time having expired -- the gentleman's time has expired. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kilroy. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. . the committee will rise informally to receive a message.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed without amendment h.r. 4218, an act cited as the no social security benefits for prisoners act of 2009. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee will be in order.

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 12 by mr. kanjorski of pennsylvania. amendment number 14 by mr. mccarthy of california. amendment number 16 by mr. peters of michigan. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote vote after the vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 12 printed in house report 111-370, offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. can juror skirks 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 12, printed in house report number 111-370, offered by mr. kanjorski of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has

been requested. those in support of the request for 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.]

is the chair: on this vote the yeas are 153, the nays are 271. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 14 plinted --

printed in house report 111-370, offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy, 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 14, printed in house report number 111-370, offered by mr. mccarthy of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for 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 representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 166. the nays are 259. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the requester for recorded vote on amendment number 16 printed in house report 111-370, offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, 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 16, printed in house report number

111-370, offered by mr. peters of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be 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 r% yeas are 227.

the nays -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 228. the nays are 198. the amendment is agreed to.

the chair: the committee will be in order. members are asked to take their conversations from the floor. the committee will be in order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 35 printed in house report 111-370. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? ms. minnick: i have an amendment the dets -- desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 35 printed in house report 111-370

offered by mr. minnick of idaho. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 964, the gentleman from idaho, mr. minnick, and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho. ms. minnick: madam chair, we all support the goal of a strong stronger, more uniform consumer protection regulation. but you don't acheeven that by adding two regulators and in many cases thousands of miles apart -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. members will please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman may resume. ms. minnick: you don't achieve better regulation by splitting the responsibility between two regulators, many cases thousands of miles apart, each with half of the responsibility. and you exounds that mistake by creating exemptions to the new regulation which create gaps and

inconsistency. every regulation has some impact on both the solvency of a financial institution and on its customers. to split the responsibility between two inherently feuding regulators will lead to conflicts, inaction, failure and frustration. my amendment is much superior. it creates a strong mandate for consumer protection in all of the existing regulators. every regulator must have a division in charge of consumer protection reporting to a person with co-equal responsibility for safety and soundness. the staff of this organization -- the regulations themselves will be set by all of the major regulators council, including regulators from the secretary of treasury to the federal reserve to state attorney generals.

the staff for this council will be in the treasury and it will have rulemaking authority but the existing regulators will have the responsibility fored a minute administration and enforcement. before i yield i'd like to thank the gentleman from illinois, congressman schock, and his legislative director mike romus, for their leadership in forging a bipartisan coalition that yields this commonsense solution to this increasingly important problem. i yield two minutes to mr. boren from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. boren: thank you. i thank the gentleman from idaho for yielding. i rise today in support of the

minnick-schock-boren-shuler amendment. everyone agrees that following a period in history where the dow jones industrial average lost almost 60% of its value, three of america's five mainly investment banks went broke and the u.s. saw the largest number of commercial bank failures in four generations, that we need to reform the way america's banking and financial regulatory system works is important. the question, though, is just how many new government agencies are necessary to accomplish this task. if we create a new federal agency to regulate consumer credit, will it improve the current regulatory framework or will it end up costing american jobs? i think we need to be cautious in our approach. so today i rise in an effort to streamline this piece of legislation. the amendment currently before this house will do a few simple things. first it will change the framework of the legislation by locating a newly created consumer financial protection council within the department of the treasury.

rather than creating an entirely new federal agency to oversee the financial system. second, it will amend the legislation to take the power of regulating trillions of dollars of financial transactions out of the hands of one politically appointed administrator and instead create a consumer financial protection council charged with promoting consumer protection for users of financial products and services. by consolidating the expansion of government created by this regulatory bill we can properly get the financial and banking system back on its feet without creating another new federal agency designed to solve america's problems. in the interest of good government, this legislation must be focused and directed at what caused the problem and not about settling old scores over business practices. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

ms. minnick: madam chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? ms. minnick: how much time do i have remaining? mr. frank: to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. frank: i yield to a member of the financial services committee who we will greatly miss when he retires, the gentleman from kansas, mr. moore. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. moore: thank you. i rise today to owe poles the amendment offered by my colleague. i know my colleague offers this alternative to the consumer financial protection agency in the spirit of wanting to do all we can to better protect consumers and i certainly share that view. but i don't support this proposed consumer financial protection council as the best way to accomplish that objective. this amendment effectively eliminates four days of thoughtful markup for cfpa and nearly 50 amendments offered by republicans and democrats to improve the bill. i'm concerned the amendment before us maybe

unconstitutional, empowering a three-member state panel to decide how states will take a position that affects their consumer protections. this amendment creates a bureaucratic nightmare. in committee we work to focus cfpa on the bad acts that are created the financial crisis, not the responsible community banks and credit unions that were lending responsibly and doing as they were asked. the exemptions for merchants and nonfinancial institutions make sense as well. cfpa is currently drafted will help level the playing field for all community banks and credit unions. the new consumer protection agency will still be focused on the big banks and nonbanks like mortgage brokers that gave us the subprime mortgage crisis that led to the broader financial crisis. it's time to put an end to those greedy enough to lie, cheat and steal for. like our parents and grandparents who gave us federal deposit insurance following the great depression, now is the time to give our children and grandchildren strong consumer protections and create the cfpa. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the minnick amendment and

votey yes on the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. jaft idaho is recognized -- the gentleman from idaho is recognized. ms. minnick: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. schock: thank you, madam chairman. first i wish to thank the thoughtful gentleman from idaho for his work on this important amendment. clearly the fact that we're debating this amendment towards the end of the piece of legislation speaks to the support for it and i truly hope that a majority of our colleagues join together in supporting this amendment. a couple of thoughts. last week the president hosted a jobs summit here. we go back home every weekend and the prevailing concern on the minds of our voters and our constituents is jobs. their concerned about double-digit unemployment, they're upset with the greed and

the lack of oversight that has been provided and so rightfully so this body has tried to rein in some of that lack of regulation, tried to put forward a thoughtful program and i know that the chairman of this committee is doing what he believes is best. but the fact of the matter is we need to look to those who are hurting. we need to look to those who are the job creators in this economy and ask how will this affect them in their effort to employ people? well the fact of the matter is this is going to hurt our economy, this is going to lead to fewer jobs. the goal of the cfpa is to lead to improvement in the marketplace for the american people. however, consolidating the power into one bureaucratic appointee, creating a $1 billion agency, adding to our national debt, increasing taxes, restricting lending, costing small businesses to shed millions of jobs hardly just fice itself. an agency -- justifies itself.

an agency which would make it more difficult for lenders to offer services and products to small businesses at a time when the economy is still struggling to recover. the university of chicago just this week released a study that they suggest that the c frvingtsprving -- cfpa as it stands will increase consumer interest rates by more than 1.6 percentage points and consumer borrowing will be reduced by at least 2.1% and net new job creation will fall 4%. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: madam chair, i now recognize a strong advocate of a responsible policy towards the business community, the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. bean, for two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. bean: madam chair, i rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the underlying bill. while opposed to the gentleman from idaho's amendment, i want to commend him on his

leadership, on comprehensive financial regulatory reform. we've worked closely on many issues in committee and i appreciate the expertise he brings to these complicated issues before us. reforming our financial system is vitally important to creating a functional, sustainable financial system that american families and businesses can count on. we must not fail to enact adequate safeguards so that the mistakes of the past do not reoccur. topping our to-do list should be the enactment of a strong consumer financial protections that will keep our constituents safe as they rehabilitate their trust in our ability to effectively monitor america's financial health. in order to accomplish this goal we need an independent agency whose sole purpose is to protect and empower consumers to make informed, financial decisions. the new cfpa, our consumer financial protection agency, would go a long way toward that end. restoring vital protections that were absent and dealer needed toward the build-up to our financial fallout. the committee has made significant improvements to this bill.

one of the initial concerns we heard was that companies who do not engage in consumer financial business would be regulated by the cfpa. merchants, retailers, doctors, realtors and others, some suggested, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, they're exempt from cfpa as was intended and as they should be. we address concerns we heard from banks and credit unions. small and mid-sized banks and credit unions under $10 billion in assets will not be subject to direct cfpa examination. instead there's a requirement now for coordination with the cfpa and the prudential regulator for those who are subject to direct cfpa examination. and after the manager's agreement reached this week, the ability of national banks and associations to operate under a uniform national standard of rules where appropriate is preserved. but functional regulators failed to prioritize consumer protection and protect our constituents. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired.

mr. frank: i yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds. ms. bean: thank you. the cfpa will create a framework reducing inefficiencies and bureaucracy across multiple agencies. they'll have the pex err -- expertise, resources and mission to update consumer financial protection laws and protect our constituents from abusive and unfair financial products and services. mr. minnick's amendment takes a different approach. what our consumers need is best in class protections for investors and americans deserve no less. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support this historic underlying legislation and the cfpa it creates. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. ms. minnick: i yield the gentleman from delaware, mr. castle, 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. castle: thank you very much, madam speaker. i rise in very strong support of this bipartisan amendment that creates the consumer financial protection council which of course i'm pleased to co-sponsor.

this amendment checks the right balance in strong consumer protections while ensuring the safety and soundness of our nation's financial system. i am convinced that the current language in the bill threatens to ex panled the reach of the public government, limit innovation, restrict choices of financial products and interfere with day to day activities of small bills. utilizing a council of existing regulaters are a cost effective and responsible approach to achieve the same goals as intended by the consumer financial protection agency. our amendment establishes a council of existing regulators which we know is treasury, fed, fdic, etc., instead of an entirely new agency and bureaucracy with all the costs and intended bureaucracy that would be involved with that. utilizing a council balances power instead of using a single politically apointed administrator. i would hope that everybody in the chamber would support this change by the gentleman from idaho. i think the underlying legislation has some problems. there's some cost issues, probably some job issues and

other things we have to worry about but i think this particular change, which is in this amendment, is key to progressing in a way that would protect consumers but make sure we are not distracting from the world of business in terms of commerce and banking in the united states of america and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. . mr. frank: one of the speakers, maybe the gentleman from oklahoma said we don't need a new agency. well, you probably didn't get too far into the bill. the line 7 through 10 of page one there is hereby established a consumer financial protection council as an independent establishment of the executive branch. so it creates a new agency. a monstrous one. a 12-headed council. which will have its own staff assigned under this amendment by treasury. and then within each of the 12

agencies a new position is created, a director of consumer affairs. so you have 12 new positions, staffed by the treasury with no limitations on how that's done, and this new council. it is also unwieldy. one of the responsibilities of the consumer agency will be to issue rules to prevent the kind of abusive mortgage that is had such a contributing role in our crisis. this bill says yes. there will be such rules. they'll be adopted by the 12-member council. they will vote on those. the chairman of the commodities futures trading commission will have a vote on setting mortgage rates. the chairman of the securities and exchange commission will help set mortgage rates. other agencies without any particular involvement there will help set mortgage rates. now, the 12 agencies that make up this bureaucratic version of

the christmas song will include the agency that has more responsibility for consumer regulation today than the other, the federal reserve system. those who have said we don't like what the federal reserve does should understand, the largest single loser of authority by far in the bill that the committee has brought forward is the federal reserve. the federal reserve has been the primary consumer regulator, under this bill it still will be. under this amendment. the federal reserve will retain all its powers because you have the council but you also have much of this conby -- done by the inpent regulator. if you think the federal reserve has done a good job as the consumer regulator, then vote for this bill. our bill also doesn't just deal with the federal powers, frankly we were respectful of the role of the community banks who you have not heard from in large opposition over this. in fact the independent bank,

until we get to bankruptcy, are going to be supportive of this bill. i understand they have a problem with that. but much of the problem we have today is in the nonbanks. the mortgages issued outside of banks. the payday lenders, check cashers, the people who do lending. we give specific authority to regulate. what this says is status quo is fine with regard to that. the f.t.c. arguably has some jurisdiction over it. it hasn't been exercised very well. so if you want to do something about payday lenders and check cashers and remittances, then you want to vote for the committee version and not for this 12-member amendment, maybe some of the new consumer directors in each of the 12 agencies will work this out. but you have to wait for this 12-member body to vote on these things. do i want to address one particular issue which is, what about safety and soundness? the notion that adequate consumer protection somehow

detracts from safety and soundness is at the heart of some of our disagreement. what they are in effect saying, we'll have to water down consumer proterks. if you get somebody who takes it seriously, it might impinge on safety and soundness t has been the absence that has caused the problems. it was the refusal of the federal reserve whose authority is preserved by the amendment by the gentleman from idaho, they were given the authority by the congress, and flatly refused to use it. because they would not do consumer frokes, safety and soundness suffered. it didn't thrive. there are other examples. a failure adequately to protect people in the credit card area contributes to problems. it does not diminish them. so the argument is very, very clear. it's true, by the way, the federal reserve began after we started talking about this bill, but the notion that you must continue -- this is what's in the bill, keep consumer protected subordinated to bank

regulation and you'll perpetuate the problem. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. minnick: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. minnick: i would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. campbell. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. campbell: thank you, madam chair. we need to change some things so we don't face financial collapse. we can change those things without creating an entirely new agency spending billions of new dollars, hiring thousands of new bureaucrats, and a new building, and creating a conflict between the safety and soundness of banks and consumer protection. the underlying bill creates all those problems. this amendment accomplishes consumer protection without all of that. support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized.

mr. frank: i have one remaining speaker. since i have the right to close i will reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. minnick: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 30 seconds. >> thank you, madam chair. the current regulatory structure is not lacking authority. the federal reserve and the other banking agencies had all of the powers needed to address problems in consumer protections. what was lacking was coordination, improved disclosure, and ability to fill the gaps in the system. this amendment solved those deficiencies without installing a new bureaucracy that would make rules with little or no input from the cops on the beat, the banking agencies, and that is why i am strongly supportive of mr. minnick's amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized.

mr. frank: i continue to reserve since i have only one final speaker. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. minnick: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for 30 seconds. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, i rise in strong support of this amendment. offered by my colleague from idaho, similar to one i offered in the financial services committee marksup. this amendment is a bipartisan commonsense alternative to pro -- provisions in the underlying bill. one of the lessons we learned in the process is bigger government does not work when it comes to protecting consumers and regulating financial institutions. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. minnick: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from washington, mr. reichert. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. reichert: i thank the gentleman. madam chair, the choice is

simple here. we can create a new massive government bureaucracy, empower yet another czar, to make our -- and oversee our entire financial system and cost taxpayers millions more in their hard earned money. or we can pass this amendment so experienced regulators can better enforce the laws and protect our consumers from abuse and using existing resources. the choice is clear. support this bipartisan commonsense amendment that modernizes our regulatory system and help americans thrive in the 21st century. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. minnick: madam chair, how much time? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. minnick: the c.b.o. has scored the total cost of my council and the components in the various agencies as less than $50 million. that compares to a massive new

federal bureaucracy they have scored at $4.6 billion. how many times, madam chair, are we going to create a massive new federal bureaucracy to deal with an important priority? first it was expansion of the e.p.a. and cap and trade to deal with climate trade. a public option. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i yield my remaining time to the majority leader. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hoyer: i'll take a minute. ladies and gentlemen of the house, i want to first of all thank mr. minnick. mr. minnick is an extraordinarily able member of this body and represents his district and our country well as a member of the congress of the united states. this amendment i think has

brought up an important discussion on the perspectives that we all have. i am one of those that believes that previous administrations had two very deep failures. one was fiscal irresponsibility . we did not pay for what we bought. even at times when we said the economy was in good shape. we continued to borrow at record rates. taking a $5.6 trillion surplus and turning it into a $10 trillion deficit. the other major failure, i think, of the previous administration was regulartory impact. it had the power, as chairman frank has just pointed out, and in 1994 bill to intervene, to try to put a check on two things. number one, on subprime lending. it did not. mr. greenspan testified just a

couple years ago that he thought that was a mistake. he thought people would not take risks beyond that which were appropriate. and therefore did not step in to regulate the subprime market. as a result, we confronted crisis. the second big mistake was bipartisan mistake, clinton administration and the republican congress. clinton administration obviously led by president clinton and phil graham in the senate. we don't need to look at the derivatives market. it will take care of itself. the head of the cfdc advised heavily and tried on her own authority because she had the authority to regulate. the derivatives market. the congress stepped in and i think i probably voted for the bill. extraordinary mistake on my part. and phil gramm led the effort

that said no, we don't need to impede this robust market that was apparently making all of us so much money. mr. frank advised us and frankly i'm not and exspert, most of the employees we are talking about will be transfer employees, not new employees. regulatory neglect i think the administration did this. they said essentially the free market left to its own devices will grow the economy and create jobs. we ought not to impede that growth and that expansion. as a result of taking the referee off the field, all the little guys got trampled on. that's not unusual. i guarantee you if you take the referee off the football field, the split end will leave the second before the ball is hiked. not because he's a bad person but because the split end is in a competitive field and wants to take an advantage. we don't have to cast bad

aspersions here, but people want to take advantage. and the philosophy of the administration, the bush administration, was don't get in the way. regulation's bad. it undermines business. undermines growth. your no cost jobs program says get out of the way. reduce regular regular -- regulation. we have a real difference on this issue. franklin roosevelt came in and said the reason we have a stock market crash is because there were no referees. and under his leadership we created a lot of referees. very frankly, for 60 or 70 years they kept this country pretty much on track. we got way off track. and very frankly, my friends, when you wring your hands about the cost of this referee, called the consumer financial protection agency, this referee

i don't accept the cost that you use, but let's say there is a significant cost, let's say it's a couple of billion dollars. you say $4 billion. let's say for the sake of argument, a couple billion. pales into incision in the $1.5 trillion that we have borrowed to get this country out of the deep, deep, deep hole caused by the failure to regulate properly. . and it wasn't the rich guys on wall street that paid that price, it was every one of our taxpayers that paid that price. so when you talk about cost, the cost of doing nothing, the cost of not having a referee on the field, skews the game so badly that the little guys, the guys who sent us here, the guys who asked to us protect them from

those of the rich, they have -- for those over which they have no power to protect. they said, protect us. and that's what this debate is about. the administration has said, look, the s.e.c. has its responsibility, the fdic has its responsibility, cftt has its responsibility, all have responsibility to make sure that our economy can grow, the trading markets can be open and honest and transparent and fair. and they look at the people who are in those markets. most of the people are not in those markets. there are people, the little people, the average guy who goes to work, works hard, tries to pay his mortgage, keep his family fed and clothed and his kids educated, he doesn't know what these guys are doing.

there was no oversight. the distinguished speaker, as we know, one of the central causes of our economic crisis, as i've said, was abusive consumer lending. signing americans up for loans that they had no way of pay bag back -- paying back. and nobody said, time-out, you're offsides, penalty. nobody said that. why? because if we did that, that would impede business, that -- that would undermine the growth of this free market economy. that's why we have antry trust laws so we don't have some big guys ultimately take it all. because they can underprice and shove out, we saw that with our friend ms. microsoft who did an extraordinary job -- our friends in microsoft who did an

extraordinary job in our economy. but you have to have competitors in this business. for years that practice went ignored by washington regulators in a financial sector that pace massive debts and subprime mortgages, the results were eventually and tragically for our people catastrophic. the same abusive practices are at work in payday lending in money transfers and many credit card policies as chairman frank has so ably pointed out in each case americans can wind up trapped in debt and while we do expect responsibility from anyone taking out a loan, we also must ensure that those loans are fair, transparent and written in plain language. i'm a georgetown lawyer. i think i'm reasonably bright. i've got to real estate settlements, we've got these forms an disclosures. i bet nobody here has gone to a settlement who's read all those papers.

period. i think there's way too much paper. i don't think even if they read it they'd understand it. but the fact that they read it and understand it and didn't like paragraph five and called up the lender, the lender would say, that's fine, you don't get the money. they're counting on us. this is the time when they're counting on us, there's a time when we can respond. that's exactly what the consumer financial protection agency would do. that's its purpose. protect us. i understand their concerns about it and i congratulate mr. minnick for raising this issue and i appreciate his perspective. i simply disi a -- disagree. it would take up the oversight responsibility that i think has been abandoned. it would safeguard consumers from ex employee employtation and protect our economy from -- exploitation and protect our economy from another clams. on the face of it, abandoning the cfpa and -- sounds like a superficial change and in my opinion it is a very clear subs

fought to change and not one that i would support. the council would be made up of 12 existing regulators, the institutions that they did not step up to the plate and say you're offsides, there's a penalty. other than concentrating on a wide range of oversight functions in a single -- single body as the cfpa would do the council would be an unruly and slow-moving bureaucracy. we talk about bureaucracy. we want somebody to focus and have a singular responsibility, making sure people don't get offsides so the little guys get hurt. it would not enhance, in my opinion, national consumer protection laws and it would undo this bill's expanded protections over the abusive practices that endanger the economic security of millions. those abusive practices did lasting damage to americans'

lives and we can't let them down by warring down this -- watering down this bill. i want to congratulate chairman frank. i want to congratulate the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. this i think is a critical decision that we will make. we're asking the referee to call time-out, to say, we want to make sure the game is fair. we want to make sure that the little guy doesn't get hurt. we with all due respect to my friend who i think does an extraordinary job, on this we disagree. and i ask the members of this house to reject the minnick amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from idaho. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

mr. frank: madam chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. frank: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from idaho will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 36 printed in house report 111-370 as modified by the order of the house of december 10, 2009. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. bachus: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 111-370 offered by mr. bachus of alabama as modified. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 964, the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, and a member opposed each control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama.

mr. bachus: madam chairman, i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. bachus: madam chair, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, just talked about we're not going to call time-out. but, ladies and gentlemen, the merge people are calling time-out -- the american people are calling time-out. they're ready to put this congress and this administration and the federal reserve into time-out. the time has expired on bailouts. that's the message we're hearing all over america. americans are saying, no more bailouts. and they're saying, no more bailout funds. and that's the primary difference between the democratic plan and the republican plan. once and for all we say, no more

bailouts. the american people quite frankly don't care about the mechanics. they don't care about the details. what they do care is that they be treated fairly and they not be obligated for risk that they didn't take. that's our plan. it's that simple. if bankruptcy is good enough for american citizens, if it's good enough for small businesses, if it's good enough for 999 of america's corporations, it ought to be good enough for the largest, quote, too big to fail institutions. and that's the last thing we put to death with our plan. there won't be any more too big to fail. you take risk or you loan or

allow people to take risk with your money, you lose, not the american people. no more bailouts. no more bailouts. vote for the republican substitute. the chair: does the gentleman reserve his time? mr. bachus: reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. for what purpose do you seek recognition? mr. frank: to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes. mr. frank: i first yield myself one minute to say that we agree no more bailouts. the republicans cannot accept the fact that we have a bill that bans them. it specifically does not allow what happened. last year bush administration officials decided to use section 1303 of the federal reserve to provide funds for the creditors of bear stearns and for a.i.g. itself, that was not being

legally possible under the bill we put forward. similarly we have funds that come not from the taxpayers but from an assessment on large financial institutions which can be used explicitly not for any failed institution but can be used when that is being put out of business in case it is necessary to prevent that fail you are -- failure from having negative destabilizing -- effects. the republicans don't want to do that. there's another difference. we have a number of provisions in here to make it less likely that that will happen. yes, if a big institution gets overly indepetted and fails, it ought to be allowed to fail and we'll have to deal with the consequences but it's also better not to say, let them fail, let's try to stop it. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. gutierrez: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to take that time to enter into a colloquy with the chairman.

chairman frank, while i continue to strongly support the amendment, i offered you during the financial committee services markup challenging the assessment base for the payment from domestic deposits of total as the he is -- assets less total equity, it may result in disproportion impact on certain types of specialized banks, including bankers' banks. a provision would address this issue and require the fdic to make appropriate adjustments to the assessment basement facilities and bankers' banks. the version of this version will give agencies the sufficient flexibility? i appreciate your willingness to accept this change and address legitimate issues raised by the specialized business' model. mr. frank: if the gentleman would yield, i'd say yes. this is another example of the superiority of this bill over the republican substitute because the gentleman from illinois took the lead in addressing the unfairness of having smaller banks have to contribute, we believe disproportionately, to the insurance fund because of the risky problems with big banks.

it's one reason why the independent greedy bankers -- independent bankers like our bill. i want to stress that in this bill as opposed to the republican substitute there is some redress. big banks will have to pay more and small banks less because of the riskyness of what they do. i thank the gentleman. mr. gutierrez: thank you. i was hoping to bring up with you an important subject that's vital to the health of our community banks, the changes in this administration any funds from the federal home loan banks that banks have on their books would doubly be assessed by the fdic. i understand the reasoning behind the premium on the funds but since these funds are not take noon account in the new assessment base, i believe these premiums to be duplicative. the -- i am hoping that you will work with me and the fdic to address my concerns about these premiums. mr. frank: yes. again, if the gentleman would yield, this illustrates one other area where the legislation we have is far better and more responsive to the needs of small banks than the republican bill. this improves on it and i agree with him.

mr. gutierrez: thank you so much, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bachus: thank you. madam chair, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: the democratic bill is silent on the root cause of the financial collapse. it was the government-sponsored enterprises fannie and freddie that were at the heart of the housing market and largely responsible for the proliferation of subprime andality a mortgages throughout the financial system. and over the years they loaded up on over $1 trillion worth of these junk loans. frankly fannie and freddie also infected capital markets that spread through every sector of our banking system. before the bursting of the housing bubble, g.s.e. securities cost more than 150% of core capital for insured banks. more than 0% of money market initially fund holdings were in the form of g.s.e. securities. that's why senator chuck hagel offers legislation for stronger

regulation which passed the senate banking committee on a party line vote but was blocked by the senate democrats from coming to the floor. my amendment was also defeated. the affordable housing goals were put in by the democratic-controlled congress, they mandated it in 1992. these affordable housing goals led the g.s.e.'s into the subprime andality--- alt-a markets. president clinton understands this epic blunder. he said, i think the responsibility that the democrats have may risk more in resisting any efforts by republicans in the congress or by me when i was president to put some standards and tighten up a little on fannie mae and freddie mac. let it be clear, this is the main reason why our economy is where it is today and this is why we must reform the g.s.e.'s. instead the democrats keep them in conservatorship, bail them out forever in their legislation. the republicans on the other hand end bailouts and the republicans also reform the

g.s.e.'s. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: from 1995 to 2006 when the republicans controlled this house and the senate, they did no legislation on fannie mae and frede fre. the -- and freddie mac. the republicans passed a bill -- in 2005 passed the bill when the republican senate and republican president opposed. in 2007 we did pass such a bill. in 2004 it was president bush unilaterally that pushed up substantially the affordable housing goals including significant for people under median income which i opposed at the time. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. meeks: i rise in strong opposition to the republican substitute. in fact, when you look at it,

it's nowhere near what h.r. 4173 does. lelt me tell what you h.r. 4173 does. it updates the regulatory structure, brings transparency to previously unreregulated derivatives markets and ensures that no one will be committed to survive simply because they're too big to fail. that's what 4173 does. the financial industry is the lifeblood of our economy. i believe it is essential to sustain this industry while making it accountable for its actions. and that's what h.r. 4173 accomplishes. we must restore a strong and accountable financial sector. therefore, i'm against the republican substitute and for h.r. 4173 because it will ensure that the financial industry will get back on solid footing and back to the

goodness of lending to american families and industries while guaranteeing that financial firms that bear the risk that they take without recourse to the taxpayer. i support h.r. 4173 because of the impact of financial crisis has had on middle america. our small businesses cannot accept credit. retirees are forced to go back to work because their pensions are depleted and they have upside down mortgages. and in my community, we have astronomical unemployment rates. finally, let me emphasize that these reforms that are in h.r. 4173 strengthens our capitalism and free enterprise. to those who criticize this legislation as anti-market, i'd counter that this legislation is good for consumers and good for businesses. because investors are staying out of the market right now, and companies across the nation are struggling to stay in business. by strengthening protections for consumers and investors --

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. meeks: we are restoring the cornerstone of the health and sustainable economy of the free world. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bachus: parliamentary inquiry. could you give the time remaining on each side? the chair: 11 minutes remain for mr. bachus. and 9 1/2 minutes remain for the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank. mr. bachus: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. royce: thank you, madam speaker. again, in 1992 it was the democrats that put in place the legislation that led fannie mae and freddie mac into the subprime and alternative loans. and i remember when my amendment was up on this house floor that tried to do what was requested by the federal reserve, to stop the systemic risk. there was opposition to it. now today to compound this

problem exempts fannie mae and freddie mac again from this reform. and every time there was legislation, there was actually -- that was actually backed by the federal reserve, the chairman opposed that legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i'll yield myself 30 seconds to point out that the gentleman conveniently forgets to say that the opposition came from his own republican leadership. yes, he offered an amendment in 2005. the only time the republicans let a bill come up and it was defeated overwhelmingly by the republicans and the democrats. i wanted some reserve of rental housing. in 2004 president bush -- yes, those came in 2004. president bush raised it from 42% to 54% over my objection. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

mr. kanjorski: i hoped we could have helped regulatory reform. i had gatherings to hear diverse viewpoints from some of the brightest economic minds and business leaders of the country. i was pleased that three of the four capital markets legislative proposals in this bill, the democratic bill, gained bipartisan support during markup. the republicans also incorporate -- incorporated one of those bills to create the federal insurance office into their substitute. ultimately, however, the republicans opt against strong reform of financial regulation. their substitute is inadequate and seems designed to protect wall street rather than to reform it. regulation of hedge funds and capital is a very important piece of the democratic bill. in committee this provision passed 67-1, and yet the republican substitute ignores this issue. and the rating agencies reform,

which many rrps voted for in the -- republicans voted for in the committee markup, the substitute does nothing to address the issue of liability. and without liability the republican plan has no accountability for the rating agencies. because the status quo is not an option, rating agencies reform is an essential part of the democratic plan. the republican plan also does little to improve investor protections. just this week, the capital markets subcommittee held a hearing on the largest ponzi scheme in history industry, the failure of the securities and exchange commission to detect and investigate this massive fraud after numerous leads demonstrates we need reform. and yet, under the republican alternative, it appears that nothing ever happened. we durable the funding of the -- we double the funding of the commission and put up comprehensive reform. they gave the very little and do little to change the agency. the g.o.p. plan chooses bankruptcy for systemically significant firms. well, lehman brothers went

through bankruptcy and still in bankruptcy which resulted in credit markets freezing up around the world. this is not a real solution. the -- in sum, h.r. 4173 reforms wall street for the protections of the consumer and the investor on main street. the republican alternative in contrast represents business as usual for wall street. we don't need more of the same contained in their plan. we need substantial reform found in h.r. 4173. vote none the republican substitute. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bachus: madam chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. biggert. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman for yielding and, madam speaker, i rise in support of the republican alternative. it seems like every time we

come down to debate this issue we begin to focus on past history. history is good because we can learn from that, but i think we need to hear more about what the substantive issues are in this bill, what is happening rather than to look at the past. we need to get it right. and i think the alternative -- republican alternative does that. there's no question that we don't have a need to reform the financial industry, but for -- and for consumers, for the health of our financial services industry and the economy, we must get it right. but this bill isn't the answer. there are a few good bipartisan provisions in the underlying bill, but the good doesn't outweigh the bad. america needs a financial recovery and a reform bill, not a fermnant big brother government bailout program. we need reform that will facilitate competition in the

marketplace and generate more choices for consumers. we need reform that will equip consumers with the information that they need to shop around and make the financial decisions that are best for their family. we need a stronger regulatory regime to quickly expose and put behind bars any wall street crooks that break the law and financial firms that fail must do that, fail. we also need greater transparency and improved regulation for over-the-counter derivatives. we most close the gap between regulators and have them more efficient and effective. we need to get credit flowing again so that small businesses, like those in my congressional district, can get the financing and expand the jobs that american families need so desperately. that's responsible financial reform and our republican terpt aims to get us there. -- alternative aims to get us there. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired.

the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i have only one remaining speaker to close so i'll reserve until then. the chair: and the gentleman has the right to close. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bachus: madam chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from west virginia, mrs. capito. the chair: the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capito: thank you very much. and i want to thank the ranking member, my good friend from alabama, for yielding me the time. i'd also like to thank him for his leadership on our committee over the past year. i rise today in support of the republican substitute. my colleagues have a choice today. do they want to perpetuate bailouts or continue to put taxpayers at risk or will they support the republican substitute that ends bailouts? there's two features in this bill i am going to address. the substitute creates a new chapter of the bankruptcy code. this new section, chapter 14, will allow for an expedient resolution of failing firms as there will be trained personnel who have the necessary skills to ensure a sufficient resolution. this is not chapter 7 or chapter 11, as in the

discussion we had in the committee as my friends on the other side has asserted, although the bill does not pronibt a nonbank from pursuing these chapters if they so wish. there is not taxpayer-funded bailout fund in our measure. it's straightforward for all market participants. if you take on too much risk and fail, then you go through an expedited bankruptcy. the taxpayers will not pick up the tab. this is fair to all market participants and it's fair to the taxpayers and i urge my colleagues to join us in ending the bailout. another important section of the republican substitute is that we address reforms to the g.s.e.'s, fannie and freddie. while there may not be consensus on the reforms proposed, this body must have an honest discussion about the future of these two entities and what role, if any, government should play. after all, a major component of financial crisis was the failure of these two entities. to ignore their reform in a financial reform package is irresponsible.

i would urge support for the republican substitute. this is a financial reform package that we need. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania. the gentleman from pennsylvania continues to reserve. mr. kanjorski: we continue to reform, madam chairman. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: madam chair, the american people want more jobs and fewer bailouts. the democratic majority will bring them fewer jobs and more bailouts. their bill creates a permanent wall street bailout fund, the only reason to have a bailout fund is to bail people out. the republican bill says we're tired of the bailouts. no more bailouts. you cannot have a system where

you private ties your profits and socialize your losses. that's what bailout nation is all about. the big get bigger. the small get smaller. the taxpayer get poorer. and the economy becomes more political. jobs. the democratic bill still believes that if we have an unelected czar who can ban credit products, who can ration credit products that somehow we will have bliss in our economy. if you raise the price of capital, you get less capital. you cannot have capitalism without capital. our small businesses are starving. we need more capital. this will simply cost the economy more jobs. the democratic bill fundamentally assaults the economic liberty of the american citizen. it says, now you have to go on

bended knee to washington before you can put a credit card in your wallet or get a mortgage for your home. the republican bill respects the liberties of the american citizen. we want to make sure that you have open and transparent information, but we respect your freedom, we respect your choices, we respect the freedom that this nation represents. let's have more jobs, fewer bailouts, let's respect the freedom of every american citizen. reject the democrat bailout bill. support the republican bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bachus: thank you. madam chairman, as i understand it, the chairman is going to -- has one more speaker on his side? at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the chair: the gentleman from

new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: and i thank the chairman. the american people have spoken loud and clear. they have spoken that they are opposed to more tax-funded bailouts. the american people have said they're opposed to job-destroying legislation. the american people have said they're opposed to growing and expanding the size and spending of the federal government. the majority bill that we have before us earlier is a bill that fails on all accounts to listen to the american public. it -- there's no one on the other side of the aisle who cannot deny that their bill will continue taxpayer-funded bailouts. there's no one on the other side of the aisle that can deny that their bill will continue to the destruction of jobs in this country. and finally there's no one on the other side of the aisle who can honestly deny that their bill will not create a bigger, more expensive, expanding government. their bill will create bailouts, destroy jobs and create a bigger government. earlier the majority leader was on the floor and he was speaking

in an amusing, if not illuminating manner, when he used the football analogy, when he talked about the refs on the field. in their bill we'll end up with a stadium with only refs on the field, maybe highly paid and highly charged with authority bureaucratic refs but no players. there will be no players in the game anymore and quite frankly, the american lick will not be able to pay the toict admission -- american public will not be able to pay admission to the stadium. the only example of deregulation that the majority leader could think to was a piece of legislation that he actually voted for and in fact of course was not deregulation at all. so we have presented now a republican substitute. a republican substitute that listens to the american people, that provides the appropriate level of regulation. the republican substitute will actually end taxpayer-funded bailouts. the republican substitute will

actually do so by making sure the responsible parties pay. the republican substitute will end job-destroying legislation and practices and instead create a facility that will expand liquidity and credit in the marketplace so that we can create new and expansive number of jobs in this country. the republican substitute will end the practice of growing and expanding the government as we have seen time and time again. instead, the republican substitute will make sure that we have -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bachus: thank you, madam chair. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer. before i do that can i ask a parliamentary inquiry as to my remaining time? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. bachus: thank you, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. neugebauer: thank you, madam

chairman. the republican alternative actually brings real reform to the regulatory process and not big government. the first thing that the republican alternative does is it ends bailouts. the american people are tired of bailouts and particularly they're tired of bailout when is they come at their expense. the other thing that the republican substitute does is it gets the government out of picking winners and losers. if companies make bad decisions they fail. if they make good decisions they succeed. the other part of the republican plan is we say, you know what? if you're taking risky behavior or you're involved in businesses that cause more risk to the system you have to have more capital. the other thing that the republican plan does is it actually protects consumers and not limits their choices. i think that's the big difference in this piece of legislation is that this piece of legislation that the democrats want to do, they want somebody else to make the choices for you. they've got a credit czar and that credit czar is going to

tell what you kind of car loan, what kind of house loan, what kind of student loan that you can get. and you know what? i've said all along the i think the american people have enough sense to make their own people. in fact, i just recently came back from afghanistan where we have young men and women that are deployed and they're over there trying to protect the american people's ability to make their own choices. i hope they're not going to be disappointed when they find out that back here in the good old u.s. of a where they've been defending our freedom and liberty that we're over here trying to pass legislation that's going to limit their choices, limit their choices to be able to have the kind of house loan or car loan or student loan or maybe they want to come back from serving this great country and this great nation after their distinguished service, they want a small business loan, only to find out the united states congress is limiting the ability of banks and credit unions to provide new business loans for these men and women. i don't think that's what they're fighting for. i urge you to vote for the republican substitute and vote against the underlying bill.

thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bachus: madam chair, i'd like unanimous con sent at this time to recognize -- consent at this time to recognize our troops that are in the gallery today. the chair: the chair cannot entertain that request at this time. the house will be in order. mr. bachus: thank you. madam chair, at this time i yield our remaining time to our republican leader, mr. boehner from ohio. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boehner: madam speaker, my colleagues, it's been quite a year. this house has been on a spending spree and a regulatory spree and a bailout spree that i could never have imagined in any of my prior 18 years here in congress. it was a $1 trillion spending plan was supposed to be about creating jobs and turned into

nothing more than big government spending. a budget that had trillion-dollar deficits on average for as far as the eye can see. a $1 trillion national energy tax that's going to create this giant bureaucracy and tax americans over their gasoline, their electricity and everything else that moves in america. then we have the nearly $1 trillion government takeover of our health care system. and people wonder why employers are frozen, why they're not hiring more employees when all of this is coming down the pike. if all that wasn't bad enough, we have no idea what's going to happen to tax rates. there have been suggestions that increased taxes in many of the bills that have passed this house this year and now we come to the grand daddy of all of it. the financial regulatory bill that's in front of us today. all of us recognize there are shortcomings in our financial regulatory system.

but i do believe that the overreach by my democrat colleagues on this bill is really beyond imagination. it's going to have more bailouts for banks in this bill, nothing that will reform fannie mae and freddie mac, the real culprits at the beginning of this whole financial meltdown, but there's no reform in this bill when it comes to those two entities. and if all that isn't bad enough, to put more money in here, to bail out bad actors, it's exactly hat american people don't want -- what the american people don't want. so i rise in support of a commonsense regulatory approach offered by my republican colleagues. and i want to congratulate spencer bachus and all the members of his committee for the work that they've done to put this commonsense alternative together.

that will fix the regulatory gaps that we have without bailouts, without tens of thousands of new federal employees that we see in the underlying bill. and i would hope that my colleagues would support it. although if my colleagues don't support the alternative that's being -- that's on the floor at this moment, when that vote comes, a republican -- republicans will offer a motion to recommit. a motion to recommit that will scrap the entire underlying bill. it will also say, tarp ends on december 31 this year. and all of the funds that come back from tarp should be used to repay the federal deficit and, thirdly, we will bring down the debt limit commence rat with those repayments. tarp was there for an emergency. everyone involved in tarp over a year ago understood that when

that money came back it was to go back to the treasury, to reduce the federal budget deficit. it wasn't to become a political slush fund that we've heard bantered about here over the last couple of weeks. all kinds of ideas about how it takes tarp and use it for more bailouts and more spending from here in washington. and so i'm going ask my colleagues, if you've had enough of the bailouts, if you've had enough of tarp, let's do the right thing for the american people. they're already saying enough is enough. let's end tarp, let's pay down the deficit and if this substitute doesn't pass, you'll have a chance to put an end to this entire process. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i yield myself the remaining time.

an example of the widely excessive hyperbole i guess came from the gentleman from new jersey. increased regulation of derivatives require overextended financial companies to have more capital, don't let people sell mortgages that will get in trouble and there will be no players on the field, there will be only refs. the feeling that the republicans have to regulation leads them to talk crazy. my friend from texas, mr. neugebauer, said, you need permission to get a car loan. no sane person, including mr. neugebauer, thinks that. as a matter of fact, over the objection of any of us, car loans are exempted from the bill he. he is widely exaggerating. so it's an inaccuracy built on an exaggeration. what we have also is their great fear of not having in this bill the bailouts that they want to

attack but before i get to that, let me take directly one of their arguments. the american people were told, have said, no more expansion of government. not in the area certainly of financial regulations. their view that the american people want no more restraints on wall street is wrong. their view that the american people want nothing to be done about the former executive compensation that is obscenely excessive but destabilizing because of the way it's structures, so it's true, they put nothing effectively about executive compensation. they say the american people like derivatives to be spread out with no capital to back them up so when there are failures you have trouble and they carry through. they're right. i disagree that the american people think that the status quo with the financial industry was a good one. and then the gentleman said, well, you can increase the cost

of capital. yes, in some cases. i want to increase the cost of speculation. the problem with the way capital has been imported is it has been imported for useful purposes to gather up funds that can be used to produce goods and services but for some the means became the end and, yeah, if we will increase the cost of capital of some of the speculative trading that goes on, that would be a good thing. less of that would be a good thing. so let's put to the american people, do you prefer the republican position of doing literally nothing to rein in these abuses or should we try to rein them in? and that leads to a difference in the bill. we are not simply in our bill saying let's deal with what happens when there's a failure. they say, here's their bill, if there's a failure, let them go bankrupt and that's it. we also say if there is an institution that's overextended we let it fail and we have specific language that says no money can go to that institution of its shareholders or board of

directors. but unlike them we don't think you should wait until then. we don't think it is responsible for the society to say, go ahead and fail, we don't care. we do care. we're not here to go to their aid the way it was done last year. under section 1303 which we have amended so it can't happen again and you cannot have what the bush administration did with 1303 and the a.i.g. and don't think they were wrong necessarily, but that's what they did. we stopped that. but we think you should step in and don't let them get to that point. it's not healthy for the society where you don't do anything about compensation, derivatives, you don't regulate them at all and you let them crash but when they do crash here's the argument. you have a permanent bailout fund. madam chair, in their heads is the only place that permanent bailout fund exists. or maybe in their hearts because it pains them to recognize that we have curtailed it. here's what the legislation

actually says in a binding way and why their analogies to last year are so directly wrong. here is on page 397, i know it's a big bill, maybe they couldn't get all the way through it, i apologize, we would have given them a reading guide if they'd asked for it. separate funds to be known as the systemic disillusion fund, that's what they call the bailout fund. it is to facilitate and provide for the orderly and complete disillusion of any failed financial company or company that poses a systemic threat in the financial markets. and it pays the expenses of them getting out of business and nains them. they really do sympathize with goldman sachs, with jpmorgan chase, with morgan stanley, with bank of america, city corp and, yes, hedge funds of about

$10 billion. these wonderful, healthy companies, why should they have to pay for the bailouts? because they benefit from that safety net. and going on to say the funds shall be available with use for the dissolution of a financial company to cover the costs incurred by the receiver to -- and to cover the costs of systemic stabilization actions. the funds shall not benefit any director of such company. and it says earlier on when we talk about the establishment of that fund on page 288, it can only be used the money that comes from morgan stanley and goldman sachs and jpmorgan chase. we won't have anybody to come play football because they have been told not to speculate. it says that such action --

they can only do this if such action is necessary for the purpose of financial stability and not for the purpose of preserving the covered financial company. and if there is a loan from taxpayers it makes it very clear, any funds from taxpayers shall be repaid. that's a loan to be repaid by a fixed assessment from these big companies that shareholders do not receive payment until other company pays. and loan payments are made to creditors until they pay the money back. we ask that the substitute be rejected. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment buffered -- offered by the gentleman from obama as modified by the order of the house on december 10, 2009. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is -- chafment alabama. mr. bachus: madam chair, i request a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama will be 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 19 by mr. marshall of georgia, amendment number 32 by ms. schakowsky of illinois, amendment number 35 by mr. minnick of idaho, amendment number 36 by mr. bachus of alabama. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for the second and third vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 19 printed in

house report 111-370, offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. marshall, 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 19 printed in house report 111-370 offered by mr. marshall of georgia. 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 @@@