give them significant new responsibilities and give them less money than they had the year before when they're supposed to now have derivatives and hedge funds makes no sense. the gentleman from missouri acknowledged she misspoke when she said we had cut it by $600 million. she cut it by $600 million. i wish she hadn't and i wish she hadn't done other things. but we're trying to send a message that we believe the s.e.c. should get some of the funding, not all they asked for, not all the administration asked for, what we have is a test of whether people support the deregulation of the financial system, keep the shadow system in the shadows and i believe we should not. >> would the gentleman yields? mr. fattah: i yielded him my time, i'm glad to yield to the gentleman. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise?

>> i seek to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. maloney: i rise in strong support for accountability and oversight and strong support for the frank amendment that would help give the tools to the s.e.c. to so that they could better enforce the laws of this country. our republican colleagues have proceeded that the s.e.c.'s budget should be cut back to -- proposed that the s.e.c.'s budget should be cut back to roughly 2008 levels. but i can hardly imagine that anyone on this body on either side of the aisle is pleased at the level of oversight that was performed by the s.e.c. in 2008, the year the economy cratered under the bush administration. and according to the s.e.c. inspector general, the republican proposal would force the agency to let go 600 in staff, right when we need more activity by the s.e.c. in oversight. just as our colleagues across

the aisle are calling for more accountability, they would cripple one of the key agencies that holds people in a key sector accountable. the s.e.c.'s budget for all of 2010 is equal to just a small fraction of the bonus pool for just one major investment bank or for hedge funds in the financial sector that they are charged with overseeing. it is a small fraction of what they are charged to oversee. the total loss of household wealth as a result of this great recession has been estimated to be approximately $14 trillion. it was a financial disaster that did not have to happen. lack of adequate oversight and regulation were major contributing factors. we heard that from the committee report yesterday. so the republicans' new proposal

to cut the badly needed oversight of our financial system brings to mind one of the oldest sayings in our country, they are being pennywise and pound foolish -- penny wise and pound foolish. the majority party is basically resisting any increase in the funding for the cops, the major cops under financial beat. they can look back on the carnage of the past years, look at the way the middle class has been brutalized and how people have had their dreams stolen in this recession, how their hopes were crushed, and declare that the statute us kyo is just fine, thank you. we're not even going to fund it at the status quo at the time that we had the great debacle and crash of our financial system. they want to defund it even more. i really do not agree, i feel strongly about it. this is a huge mistake. let me finish my statement, please.

they would deny the needed relatively modest funding that is required to begin supervising over-the-counter derivatives trading. let's take a look at some of the numbers. the over-the-counter derivatives market is valued at about $600 trillion. in 2010 the g.d.p. of the entire world was just over $74 trillion. the infamous flash crash on may 6 temporarily wiped out of our economy $1 trillion. in 2010 the budget for the entire cfdc was just $169 million. so the number of new staffers that the s.e.c. would like to hire, that they are saying they'd like to hire, who understand this new type of training, the kind -- trading, the kind of high frequency trading that tends to dominate today's marketplace, they're trying to hire five new

oversight professionals. and the number of such specialists that the opposing party seems willing to fund is absolutely zero. so you can have no one looking over this new type of trading. so zero is the level of effort that the republicans seem willing to make to see to it that we don't suffer through another great recession and to make sure that a bernie madoff doesn't happen again. so this is not the way to proceed. we should fund them appropriately so they can oversee the new dodd-frank bill that requires many new studies and new rules and give this country the protection they need from risky trading. how can we enforce to see that the capital markets and the leverage rules that we're putting in place are enforced? we can't do that unless the s.e.c. is properly funded. this is an important amendment. i think it's one of the most important before this congress.

i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the frank amendment so that we can oversee the financial markets and make sure that they're enforced and that the american investor, the american public is protected. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? missouri. the gentleman from missouri. >> i move to strike the last word, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i just wanted to put a few comments on the record with regards to the last speaker, the gentlelady from new york's impatient speech there. i serve on the same committee she does. i heard the same testimony yesterday. it's interesting that she's talking about trying to continue to fund an agency that was totally absent with regards to the last -- to the crash back in 2008. mr. luetkemeyer: yesterday we asked the question of the s.e.c.

representative about whether there was anybody that had been put in jail, anybody that had been fired, any changes to the personnel that were there, and the answer was no. there was some ongoing investigations, but yet at this point nothing had been done. so we're going to try and give some more dollars to the group that was mismanaging the thing to begin with, without any more accountability. i think that's the wrong way to go and with that i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from missouri. the chair: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized. mrs. emerson: thank you, thank you for yielding. i just want to point out a couple of things that i believe needs some clarification. number one, yes, we had the inspector general in our committee earlier in the week and i want to say to that, when he was talking about the loss of 600 jobs, that would be if we went back to funding at 2008 levels, which we have not done in this continuing resolution. number two, that this agency has

probably received more money than any other government agency in the last decade and has hired over 1,000 employees during that time period. and certainly with that compliment of excellent staff, they should have been able to see all of the problems with regard to madoff and with the stanford financial and other things. but at the end of the day they've got to prove their own ability to manage money. they have to do their financial reports correctly. they have to perhaps take the structure they have and make it work in order to comply with dodd-frank. there is a lot of overlap in the bureaus and commission -- the bureau -- the new bureaus that dodd-frank asks them to do, but they've got offices that do those functions already. they can use what they have and perhaps fix it with moving employees around within that

office. but at the end of the day, they still have to prove that they can do the job they have -- the job. they have not. and they already received too much money as far as i'm concerned. and if they can better manage personnel and do that job, then i'm more than happy to look at funding then at the levels my colleague suggests. but not until they can prove they can manage what they've got already. and i yield back. mr. luetkemeyer: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york, a member of the committee, rise? the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: let me first clarify something. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, came to me, told me where he wanted to take the cuts to pay for this. we were both not happy about it but we felt that it was so important to do this, that we would take it from where we had to and then deal with it later.

but let's understand something, now. there are some new members here who are either watching in their offices or here on the floor who need to know something. i've been in public office 36 years. this is my 37th year. and the state assembly in new york and in congress. i've never seen, except for once, a commissioner or a secretary or a director of an agency come before me as chairman of a committee and when i asked them, do you want, do you need more money, they said to me, no, we don't want, we don't need any more money. you know who that was? you guessed it. the s.e.c. a few years ago told us that they didn't want any more money, they didn't need any more money. why? because that was during that era when there was the word out throughout an administration not to enforce, not to regulate, not to practice oversight. let it go. the watt already clean itself, the air will clean -- water will

clean itself, the air will clean itself, wall street can monitor itself -- itself. that was thed a ute -- that was the attitude. now we're seeing another pattern. folks on the other side know i mean it, i have tremendous respect for, but we know, i'm not fooling what the game is. the game is, we pass a health care bill, some insurance companies don't like, so we're not going to fund it. we pass regulations on wall street that could go a long way to stopping the criminals from doing it again, we're not going to fund it. that's what this is all about. this is not about whether the s.e.c. did a good job or will do a good job. it's simply about a law that now will make it very difficult to commit the crimes that were committed on wall street which tumbled down the whole economy and now we're saying that we're not going to fund it. so as we move forward this year,

this weekend, the next two years, and we propose not funding certain things, every so often at least let's do it and kind of wink at each other because we know the truth. this is not about cutting a budget, this is about not enforcing some rules. and so we will open it up again and the same folks, because they're pretty smart, who pull all those crimes on this society, will do it again. and, my god, interestingly enough the movement that brought you into the majority, those folks that i saw on tv at those town hall meetings did have one thing in common with the folks over here, they agreed that something had to be done to the folks on wall street, that they couldn't run amok and go crazy again. that was the one thing we agreed on. so it could be that this is

running counter to your own base, not that i should advise you on that. because they want wall street police. so the s.e.c. needs to enforce this bill and if you really want to undo dodd-frank, then try what you're doing with health care, which is to change the law. but not to fund it is simply to find a very funny way of accomplishing the same thing. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. perlmutter: thanks, madam chair. just so we don't forget where we were, colorado in august of 2008 had about a 4%, 4.5% unemployment rate. we had a crash the likes of which we haven't seen in decades in september, october, november of 2008.

on the financial markets centered on wall street. colorado then went to 8% unemployment, thousands of people in colorado lost their jobs because of the recklessness that we saw on wall street. there were no police on the beat or if they were on the beat they were told to look elsewhere. since barack obama took office the beginning of 2009, when we were losing 800,000 jobs a month , stock market in the fall of 2008 under the last months of the bush administration lost thousands of points, since march of 2009 the stock market has doubled because people understand that there is some restraint and enforcement of the financial markets now. people are starting to get back to work. the middle class is realizing they have pensions that are

growing again. we have to have confidence, we have to have certainty in the financial markets and to underfund and take away the police that are trying to deal with these unbelievably complicated types of financial transactions is wrong for middle america. middle america got hit hard, it's just getting back on its feet and my friends on the republican side of the aisle who just want to pull that rug right out from underneath them again and let the bums start pill anding wall street again -- pillaging wall street again. no. i look to my friend from missouri because i was listening to her, two of the biggest ponzi schemes ever in the history of the united states, $65 billion with mr. madoff and i can't remember how much mr. stanford was or the stanford investments, but billions of dollars, millions of transactions, we had testimony in our committee that the s.e.c., during the period

from about 2001 to 2007, was notified 21 times during that period about mr. madoff and they did nothing. so now we finally have certainty back in the marketplace -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. perlmutter: just one secretary and i will yield to my friend. the market has doubled and now we want to take those police off the beat when middle america is strengthening itself again? i yield to my friend from missouri. . mrs. emerson: i want to comment or add to my good friend from colorado, the i.g. said to our subcommittee, it wasn't for lack of resources since we have increased the budget 163% over the last 10 years, it wasn't for lack of resources but rather the staff working within the s.e.c. did not perform their duties properly and so -- mr. perlmutter: reclaiming my

time. resources now have been added and they're performing their duties and the stock market has doubled so the people in colorado, the moms and pops of middle america finally see their pensions growing again and so much was lost, whether it was out and out fraud or recklessness, we don't have that anymore. that almost brought its country to its knees and this cut to the s.e.c. is very misplaced. we can't forget what happened two years ago and with that i'd yield back to the chair. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. green: i think i understand what dr. king meant when he said the truest measure of the person isn't whether the person -- where the person stands? comfort or convenience but

where do you stand in great times and controversy? this is a time of challenge and controversy that will measure our truest measure as people of goodwill. i ask anyone to show me the empirical evidence cannoting that we should reduce funds to get better service, to get better scrutiny, to get better cops on the beat with the s.e.c. every police department in this country has some problems or has had some problems. no one would say let's eliminate the police department because it has not performed up to a standard of 100%. the s.e.c. is not perfect but what it does is this, it overseas 38,000 entities.

11,450 investment advisors. and these investment advisors are managing $33 trillion. something that bears repeating. these investment advisors, 11 ,450 of them are managing $33 trillion. do we really want to take the cops off the beat? would we ever make such an announcement as it relates to any police department in this country? let us stop for just a moment and take a deep breath and understand what is about to take place here. we are about to send a signal to those who would perform dast arrested -- dastardly deeds that we would allow you to do

this with impunity, not because we want you to do so ostensibly but because there would not be the deterrent in place that we know exists to prevent them from doing these dastardly deeds. so i'm asking my friends on both sides to stop, take a deep breath, and let us ask ourselves, in this time of challenge and controversy, will we present -- prevent the s.e.c. from overseeing these mutual funds as they should or seeing the 5,000 broker/dealers as they properly should, from overseeing 10,000 companies as they properly should, 35,000 entities as they properly should? this is a time of challenge and controversy. and i'm proud to say that i'm going to stand for making sure that those who invest are properly protected. this is our time. this is a moment to stand up and be counted.

and i hope that every investor out there will look to see who stood for making sure that investments are properly protected and that the integrity of the system is properly in place. i stand for doing the right thing and the right thing is to make sure that this s.e.c. has the right amount of capital in place to protect our investors and our investment, and i thank you for the time and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman has asked for a recorded vote and pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. amendment number 506. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment number 506 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: i thank the chair. the continuing resolution bill before us handcuffs the consumer financial protection bureau by setting a maximum level that the federal reserve can fund the cfpb for the fiscal year that we are in. this amendment would allow the cfpb to function as intended. as a result of an open process last year that included a rare

house/senate conference, the congress passed historic reforms to the nation's financial system. it included such things as providing for disassembly of large failing financial institutions so taxpayers wouldn't be saddled with the bailout. and it did a number of other things. but i would argue that probably the most important thing it did was to create a consumer financial protection bureau. members of the house and the senate, after much deliberation, concluded that in order for the cfpb to protect effectively american consumers, it must be independent. the dodd-frank legislation, which is the law of the land, is clear on this point. this new financial watchdog, which would serve consumers in every kind of financial transaction where they had had

no aid, no protection, no help before would be an independent organization, insulated from partisan fights on capitol hill , deriving its operating budget from the federal reserve. may i ask for order? the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee is not in order. the committee is not in order. members are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i thank the chair. section 1017, 2-c was very explicit on this. now, some of the appropriators, being the appropriation animals that they are, may not like the fact that this is to be kept independent of appropriations. but it was to give this commission independence so that they could offer protection for the consumer. now, i suppose we should applaud the ingenuity of the

authors of this continuing resolution to get around the law of the land. maybe we should applaud their sheer nerve in trying to defund this board. now, less than two months into the 112th congress, the majority, through this continuing resolution bill, is attempting to sneak through a provision in direct conflict with the spirit of the law, the intention of the law, and in direct contradiction to this intent to protect the consumer. it handcuffs the cfpb in order to preserve the status quo that benefits big banks at the expense of american consumers. if we've learned any lesson from the financial crisis of the last several years, it should be this -- by protecting

consumers, we can protect the rest of the financial system. this amendment simply would correct section 1517 by inserting the appropriate amount of money that the cfpb estimates that it will need to get the work done for the sake of american consumers. this amendment would ensure that the recently created consumer financial protection bureau, when it assumes consumer protection authority this summer, will have the independence and will have the resources that it needs to begin its critical work of protecting consumers. and, by extension, protecting the entire financial system of this country. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri rise? mrs. emerson: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady from

missouri is recognized for five minutes. mrs. emerson: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the continuing resolution already cuts the i.r.s. by over $600 million compared to fc-2010 and over $1 billion compared to the fy-2011 request, and i believe further cuts to the i.r.s. enforcement provision will ensure the tax chiefs win because there are going to be fewer audits, fewer investigations, fewer prosecutions, fewer convictions. the consumer financial protection bureau was created by dodd-frank to promote fairness and transparency but the bureau itself seems to be anything but transparent. the general powers organization and goals of the bureau are laid out very well in the law, but the specifics of how the bureau will use its powers and achieve its goals are not known. moreover, the dodd-frank law provides $500 million a year from the federal reserve to the bureau without any input from

the congress at all. so without a doubt -- and without a doubt, i'm not disagreeing there is a strong need for consumer protection, i'm a mom, i believe in that very strongly. but just as commerce shouldn't run wild, neither should consumer protection. and so the limitation in the bill, i believe, represents an adequate level. it represents the level of resources that are currently expended by regulatory agencies on consumer protection activities. for example, the office of controller of the currency, which we all know will move into the consumer financial -- parts of it will move into the consumer protection -- financial protection bureau. i believe that we should look at this a little later because, as the bureau's specific activities become known as -- and the cost of those activities become known, then

we'll have an opportunity to revisit the limitation, providing half a billion dollars a year without any congressional oversight to the bureau is, i believe, a very irresponsible abdication of a constitutional check and balance and ask my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and impose unchecked and unbalanced bureaucracy. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from missouri yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. jones: thank you, madam chair, and i want to congratulate the gentlelady from missouri for an acrobatic defense of the continuing resolution's treatment of the consumer financial protection bureau. this is not about whether government should be big or small but about which side the government should be on. the c.r., the continuing resolution, does not save a penny from the deficit because

the money from the cfpb, the consumer financial protection bureau comes from a separate source. this is about hobbling the consumer financial bureau to keep it from getting up and running and doing its job. mr. miller: the cfpb is to put government on the side of americans who are trying to make an honest living, so they don't have to worry every time they sign a financial contract that they're going to get gouged, they're going to get cheated out of their income and their lifesavings by some trick or trap, some dishonest little clause hidden in the fine print of the legalese written by the banks' lawyers. . the cfpb will set rules to make sure those contracts are honest and they'll enforce those rules and it has not started yet so it's a little early to criticize them for not getting the job done. the c.r., by cutting funding by

half or a little more than half, is really about putting government or continuing to have government as it has been for most of the last decade on the side of the financial predators who are not trying to make an honest living but are trying to make a killing and succeeded in making a killing by cheating ordinary americans with the fine print. and they cheated them on mortgages, on credit cards, on overdraft fees and on and on and every american knows about because just about every american has experienced it. now, a couple of -- in talking about the f.c.c. earlier, ms. waters and mrs. green -- mr. green both used the term cop on wall street. they didn't attribute that phrase but it's from will rogers. back in the can great depression, even after we learned of all the corruption that had led to the collapse, the stock market crash, when congress was considering legislation, a bill, a law that would set rules for wall street and given the securities and

exchange commission the power to enforce it, the securities industry fought it fiercely because the boys on wall street don't want a cop on their block. and of course they don't want a cop on their block, they'll make less money. they don't want a cop on their block now either. they don't want the cftb now either because if their contracts have to be honest they'll make less money. vote to put government on the side of american -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. miller: both to put a cop on the wall street block, vote for this amendment. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. miller: i do yield. mrs. emerson: i just want to point out one thing. crob does score this amendment as saving -- c.b.o. does score this amendment as -- the text of the bill scores are limitation at $30 million for f.y. 2011. mr. miller: i now yield to mr. frank. mr. frank: i thank the gentleman and when we saw that c.b.o. did

that we decided we had to offset that so we did, as the gentlewoman indicated, go to the i.r.s. and i do want to say, the gentlewoman is i guess being very responsible chairing the subcommittee, she is defending the internal revenue service against the consumer bureau and the s.e.c. the gentlewoman is entitled to due credit for her staunch support of the i.r.s. as we try to divert funds to protect consumers and police wall street and i'm sure there are many in the tea party who would be very grateful for her stoic support for the i.r.s. funding. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yield back his time? mr. miller: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you. i rise this afternoon to oppose this amendment. it's kind of -- let me start my discussion by talking about two things. number one, about the usefulness of the committee and then about the funding of the committee as a whole.

number one, i have some grave, grave concerns with regard to the usefulness of the committee to begin with as a former bank regulator in one of my previous careers, the kind of astounding to me that with all of the laws that are in place we had all the problems that we did. we don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones that are in place. and in testimony yesterday in our committee, in financial services, that was consensus of many of the folks that were there. so what we're doing is trying to continue to overregulate and again put in place another entity to compound and to promote some more regulation. exactly what we don't need in the private marketplace. but again, why are we having another committee to do more regulation when we could have the existing people do the job the right way? it's kind of like to me having a police department who doesn't do its job and instead of firing everybody at the police department and starting over and find some good folks who can do the job, you create another police department.

so now we have two police departments to fund. i think that's what's going on here and this is why i'm very concerned about this model, about this committee. this board. and from the standpoint of being a former examiner, this is exactly the wrong thing toward with regard to the mission of this committee. we are now putting consumer protections over safety and soundness of our institutions. and that's wrong. that is absolutely the wrong model. we're flipping completely upside down. we're reprioritizing the way financial markets should work and regulatory systems should work. in my view we're going the wrong direction. but, with regard to the funding mechanism that's in place, this group at this point has a line of credit basically from us and this c.r. cuts that off to a limited amount which the chairman a minute ago addressed as $80 million and we think that's an adequate fund at this point. they're only going to use at the annual rate of about $65 million

and this amendment intends to put $63 million back into it. i think that's unnecessary, it's wasteful. at a time like this when we need to be consolidating and finding ways to cut our dollars, we don't need to empower needlessly. we don't need powers that are not defined at this point, we don't need to be doing it, we don't even have a director in place yet. we need to be confining this thing so we can provide oversight over it rather than giving it a blank check and unlimited powers. with that, madam chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. waters: thank you, madam speaker. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: madam speaker, and, members, i have long been an advocate of consumer protections and consumer rights and i'm proud of the work we accomplished in the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act of 2010, to create a consumer financial protection bureau.

madam speaker and members, i didn't get elected to the congress of the united states of america to protect big banks, banks too big to fail, or to protect their shoddy products, criminal schemes that are designed to rip off innocent citizens who go to work every day. i don't know how anybody can come to this floor and represent that the consumers, the workers, the people of this country don't need any protection. the consumer financial protection bureau is needed because it is very clear that our current regulatory framework ,ed in a -- framework inadequately protects consumers. just look at the wrongful foreclosures on our veterans which was exposed by reporters last month and was the subject of a veterans affairs hearing last week. you go tell those veterans that they didn't need that protection. that they shouldn't be protected. the proliferation of harmful

financial products and practices went unchecked because our banking regulators were tasked with both consumer protection and bank safety and soundness responsibilities. and we're seeing that probank, anticonsumer stance won every time. that's why we created the consumer financial protection bureau. to make sure that the consumer voices aren't shouted down by the industry and that an independent agency is beholden to the consumers and not the c.e.o.'s of the big financial institutions. opponents of the consumer financial protection bureau claim we don't need this agency, they say. because the other banking regulators are already charged with consumer protection. this argument doesn't hold water. because there are several types of consumer financial products which because they were offered by nonbanks fall into what may be classified as the shadow

banking industry. these products and institutions escape federal regulation yet often lead to federal problems such as our current economic foreclosure crisis. the consumer financial protection bureau would bring nonbanks who offer financial services to and interact with consumers into our regulatory system. another reason the cfpb was needed is to protect consumers from complicated products and hidden predatory fees. according to elizabeth warren, who is the special advisor to the treasury on the consumer financial protection bureau, the average credit card offer now comes bundled with more than 100 pages of fine print. buried within this fine print are provisions about restrictions, teaser rates and penalties. this fine print makes it nearly impossible for consumers to make

informed decisions and pick the credit card or other lending product which is right for them. this leads some borrowers to be trapped in credit cards, a loan product with hidden and abusive -- the cfbb would resolve this problem by working with the industry to reduce the fine print and hidden fees. we also need cfpb to provide stability to our financial markets which are supported by consumer lending. our current crisis began when collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities were packed with exotic products which, -- which are known as no doc loans and liar loans. it was exacerbated as consumers were continually squeezed with excessive penalties and fees from bank products, reducing purchasing power and leading families everywhere to make tough decisions.

a strong regulator, one which focused solely on consumer safety and champion simple disclosure and products could have prevented all of this. we need cfpb. this kind of crisis should never occur again. amendments to the fund -- to defund cfpb or prevent it from doing its work will only hurt america's consumers and in turn our economy. so i urge a no vote on these amendments. madam speaker and members, i don't know how any elected official could go home and talk to their constituents and tell them they want to limit the funding to the s.e.c., the cop on the wall street block, to protect investors and then add to it, and i don't want you to have any consumer protection. we don't like what has been done, we're against these kinds of regulations. it is baffling, it is not to be

understood and i believe that in the final analysis this body will do the right thing. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes and the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. members are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from texas. mr. burton: -- mr. barton: thank you, madam chairman. i rise in opposition to the holt amendment. in kind of listening to the banter that we've been hearing back and forth, you'd think we were trying to eliminate the consumer financial protection bureau. mr. neugebauer: but in fact what we're trying to do is limit it. one of the things, if you look at the history of this entity, is that it's the typical answer in washington, when we have other regulates that are aren't doing their job, the solution always is, let's throw more regulation, more regulators and more money at the problem.

and so what did we do with this new bureau? well, we said, guess what? we're going to throw $700 million at this new agency. we're going to take $500 million out of the fed and we're going to give the ability to come and ask for another $200 million. now, what's going on right now is that we don't even have a director at the consumer financial protection bureau yet they're standing up a new organization and so basically what we have from this administration is another czar. i don't know how many czars that they have over there, what the latest count is, but here we are spending -- an agency that has the authority to spend millions of dollars yet we don't even -- can't even get this -- madam chair, the house is not in order. madam chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the committee is not in order. the gentleman is correct. the gentleman affords the respect to be heard.

the committee is not in order. the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: thank you. one of the most egregious parts of this and it was very clever by the other side is they realized in the last days of the 111th congress that there was going to be a change possibly on november 2, they took this entity over into the fed, trying to be able to limit congress' ability to have oversight over this organization. and so i want to applaud the appropriations committee for figuring out a way to bring some accountability to this organization. now what's at play right now is that this entity in august received $18.4 million in december they received $14.37 million and if you annualize that rate, they're going to need less than $65 million and yet what we're say something that republicans want to limit that to $8 to million.

this amendment, the holt amendment, wants to increase that another $63 million. you know, what's exactly wrong and the reason we've been having these hours and hours and hours of debate is the american people spoke very clearly last november. they're tired of big government, they're tired of government making -- trying to make all of their decisions and what this new entity is going to do is hurt consumers in that it is going to drive the cost of consumer credit up for many americans. it's going to -- some of the financial services that they've been able to enjoy, this new czar will have the ability to say that those products cannot be offered anymore. . bringing this accountability into the process is a positive thing. it was a mistake to put this entity in the fed to begin with. it's a mistake to let this administration continue to stand up this organization without going through the appropriate constitutional

requirement this person be confirmed by the united states senate. it's an egregious use of executive power, and one of the things we hope the president will do very quickly is nominate someone to oversee this organization but basically we have people that haven't been nominated or confirmed by the senate making very big decisions, spending millions of dollars over here, standing up an entity, quite honestly, that will not in fact do what a lot of the folks in this building think the entity is going to do and that's provide consumer protection. what this entity will do is provide more cost to consumers. with that i urge defeat of this amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the member of the committee rise? >> thank you. madam, i would like to inform the chair and the balance of the people here that it is our intent to finish this amendment and ms. mccollum's amendment,

and then we'll be going to a vote, and i thought for information purposes, i would let everybody know our intent, what we'd like to do. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. carter: thank you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i rise in support of -- i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> after four million forelours, we'll reach $17 million in loss of home value. mr. ellison: after massive unemployment and after an enormous financial bailout bill we have to do to save this economy, it's impossible for me to understand how it is anybody would not want to have a strong consumer protection provision in our law. how in the world, after the massive recession that we went through, after all the damage

that we've gone through to hit this economy, what started in the consumer sector, madam chair, that started because consumers were taken advantage of with loans packaged into securities and then hedged by these credit default swaps which warren buffett called a means of financial destruction, how could we want to undermine consumer protection? the fact is, consumer protection helps to make sure we have a strong, sound, and safe system and if it would have been in place, we'd not be in this situation now. we are in this situation now for one reason and one reason only. it is the laissez-faire attitude that pervades the opposition to this fair amendment and it should be -- the holt amount is right and i yield to the gentleman. mr. frank: just to make this point, my colleague from texas said since the old regulation wasn't working we wanted an additional regulator. no, that's simply untrue.

what we said was this, consumer regulation before the passage of the financial reform bill was entrusted to the bank regulators, and their primary mission and primary focus was on bank protection. and we do not create new powers so much here as take the powers that were vested in the federal reserve, great defense of the federal reserve -- i am struck by my republican colleagues trying to defend the integrity of the federal reserve and the i.r.s. that's a new republican party. but we took it from the control of the currency, from the fdic, and put them in a new agency whose only responsibility is consumers. it's not additional money. and it's not any new regulation. now, we do add a set of unregulated entities previously. payday lenders and check cashers and others in the shadow of the banking system. there is some increasing consumer protection. but fundamentally we didn't say we wanted one additional

regulator. we've taken the regulation authority from the bank regulators who haven't exercised it well and put it in a new agency. i thank the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. let's be clear what's going on here, madam chair. it's crystal clear, frankly. this side tends to believe in more government, this side tends to believe in less government. mr. price: this side tends to believe in more control, this side tends to believe in less control. this side tends to believe in more spending, this side tends to believe in less spending.

this side tends to believe in more regulation and more oppression, this side tends to believe in less regulation and less oppression. this side believes in big government, solutions. we believe in people. pretty simple. and if you believe in big government solutions, you've got to ask the question, how's it going? and the fact of the matter, it's not going real well. the 410,000 new individuals applying for unemployment today . this is a chart here, madam chair, that shows be -- shows back before the big government people got in charge, the amount of spending at the federal level, down in 2006, about $2.6 trillion. here's where we are now, madam chair, way over on the other side. that's what big government does for you. it spends money that you don't have. deficits, annual deficits,

$1.4, $1.4 million, and $1.6 trillion. it's government picking winners and losers. that's where we are right now. how's it going? the free market frankly can't function when the government is picking winners and losers. and that's exactly what the american people have gotten over the past two and four years and certainly what it got last year when congress passed the dodd-frank bill and formalized their new political economy. now, the administration's bureau of consumer financial protection, what we're talking about right here, right now, charges bureaucrats to produce more red tape regulations, none of which, none of which truly help the consumer. now, they make for bigger government, that's right. but much like the new health care plan that prevents the american people from picking a health care plan that works for them, the bureau of consumer financial protection would simply tell american families which financial product is right for them, which credit card is right for them, which

bank account is right for them, which mortgage is right for them, directing people in very, very specific ways. now, there are real challenges within our financial system, there's no doubt about it, absolutely not. but the failure of the regulators to do their job, as my friend from texas said, doesn't mean that you need more regulators. you need the regulators to do their job. and that's not what the cfpb does. the cfpb has been given authority to write the rules, to enforce the rules, to conduct examinations, to approve disclosures, and on and on and on. is there anything that this federal agency is not allowed to do? now, the underlying bill appropriately limits the use of the funds to carry out and implement the cfpb. this amendment, the amendment we're discussing right now, expands the mandates. expands regulation, expands the economic tinkering that's been

handed down from this administration and from democrats in congress. so if you like this track, if you like big government and you like more spending, if you like a government that borrows more and spends more and taxes more and industry -- and destroys jobs, then side with the folks who are specialists in that area. if, however, you believe we ought to spend less at the federal level and we ought to spend within our means and work as diligently as we can to create joonsd we ought to allow more freedom for more americans, more choices for more americans, then i would suggest and recommend you vote down this amendment and support the underlying bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> let me first be clear that we are not expanding anything in this amendment.

the statute says exactly what the consumer financial protection bureau is supposed to do. mr. watt: this amendment just allows the funding to enable them to do it. this is an appropriations bill. we're not supposed to be expanding or contracting anything in an appropriations bill. that's what i thought the appropriations committee is about money, not about authority, not about expanding or contracting authority. so i don't know what my colleague was talking about when he says we're expanding something if we pass this amendment. second, there's some debate from some of my colleagues, i can understand the first term member who got up and says, i don't know why we have a consumer financial protection bureau, what i can't understand why the subsequent colleague who serves on financial services got up and said the same thing because he was on

the financial services committee, served with me when we created the consumer financial protection bureau. so let me just give a little history here about why we have it. we had theoretically consumer protection as one of the objectives of the federal reserve and other federal regulators. we had in that same federal reserve the responsibility for safety and soundness of our financial institutions. those two things obviously were in conflict with each other because the federal reserve, instead of looking out for the interests of consumers and protecting consumers allowed consumers to get into mortgages and financial transactions that

ended up in destroying our financial system. and they did it saying, well, you know, this is going to add to the safety and soundness of financial institutions because our definition of safety and soundness is a financial institution which can make more and more and more money. so what's the solution to that? you don't do away with safety and soundness. we didn't do away with safety and soundness. it's important to protect safety and soundness of our financial institutions. we continued to give that responsibility to the federal reserve and the regulators. but if you're going to protect consumers, you don't give the authority to the same entity that has disregarded the interests of consumers and led

us to a financial services meltdown. so we took those consumer protection responsibilities and put them into a separate entity called the consumer financial protection bureau. now, the gentleman who was a freshman here, i don't expect he would have been around to understand that, you know. he just got here. but for my colleagues who served on the financial protection -- financial services committee to get up and say, well, i don't know why we have a separate consumer financial protection bureau, they must not have been paying attention. now, to do further over the objections of some of us, we didn't want to necessarily put this in the federal reserve, but to get it funded

appropriately, the federal reserve can set some fees and charge the industry for this agency, not the taxpayer. this is not taxpayers' money, at least not tax dollar money. i guess at some point everything is taxpayer money, but this is not appropriated money. so this would come out of the federal reserve's budget, which i thought my colleagues didn't -- they don't like the federal reserve anyway, at least that's what they've been telling us all this time. they want to do away with the federal reserve. you would think they would want to take some of their money and put it into consumer protection -- consumer financial protection bureau. all this amendment does is try to restore the funding to a level so that the consumer

financial protection bureau can do what it is charged with doing. let's not overstate or understate that. this is an important amendment. let's support the amendment and pass it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. >> madam chair, i rise in support of the holt amendment. was moved to come to the floor because i was stunned that in their deregulatory zeal, in their ideologically driven desire to shrink the size of government that the republican majority would choose to leave the american consumer unprotected. mr. himes: i mr. himes: i represent a lot of

consumers. they sure do understand what it means to open up that credit card bill at the end of the month and see hundreds of dollars of charges that they didn't anticipate. millions of americans now understand what it is to have a mortgage blow up on them. a mortgage that if we were all honest with each other we would recognize that none of us really understand our own mortgages. millions of americans now know what it is to see interest rates hop up on a mortgage. and to lose their homes. of all the things the republican majority could choose to gut, that they would choose to leave the american consumer to be prey to predatory practices is unconscionable. madam chair, we don't allow toasters that will burn your house down. we don't allow cars that will blow up. but evidently the republican majority would allow mortgages that would blow up your house or other financial products

that would bring an american family to its knees. i've heard the counterarguments, i heard the gentleman from georgia stand down there an say that this is an expansion of government spending. what the gentleman from georgia didn't say is that probably the most politically unpopular bit of spending we've seen in the last several years was hundreds of billions of dollars requested by a republican president and a republican secretary of the treasury to bail out the financial industry. i'll say it again. republicans requested the bailout. that was a terribly expensive thing to do. this consumer finance protection bureau will prevent that. help prevent that in the future. it's a good investment. i've heard arguments about czars. i must say, i've talked to tens of thousands of my constituents and nobody is saying that czars are a problem in the united states of america today. i'm hearing a slightly better argument, one that i don't accept as a former banker, that

we are separating consume brother text from safety and soundness. as a former banke i that those are not separate concepts. that when you have bank customers defaulting on their mortgages, when you have bank customers running up credit card debt and being subject to fees that they can't possibly repay, let me use that phrase again, that they can't possibly repay, you stick a knife into the safety and soundness of that bank or whatever institution that we are talking about. i will yield. >> you see the importance of having both of those issues, how there's not a hard dividing line between the two, is that what you're saying? mr. himes: that's correct. >> is the -- are they charged with looking at something other than cop sumer protection, something other than safety and soundness?

mr. himes: reclaiming my time, this country has long had a history of the examination of the safety and soundness of our banks and what we are saying now is that we will assist and support the safety of our banks by keeping the customers of those banks from defaulting through good consumer protection. so i support the holt amendment and think this is terribly, terribly important to american families and the safety and soundness of the system and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman -- >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: does the gentleman -- >> and rise in support of the amendment and i yield to the gentleman from north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> i've heard mr. price's arguments before and i -- mr.

himes' arguments before and i talked to people and i found that that was not really a freedom that they valued. in fact, they didn't really believe that was the reason the financial industry was opposing consumer protection legislation. mr. miller: they thought that the reason the financial industry was opposing the legislation was so they could make more money by cheating people. which was not something they wanted. so any more than americans 100 years ago valued the right to byran sid beef as the meat packers argued a century ago. they were opposing pure food legislation so they could protect the right of people to byran sid beef. americans done believe it. -- to buy rancid beef. americans done believe it. i asked the gentleman in committee if he could give me some names for people who qualified for prime mortgage bus got a subprime mortgage or someone who really wanted to have a credit card contract

that required them to continue to pay interest on a balance even after they had paid off the balance. he said that was a rhetorical question. he didn't have to answer it. it was just a rhetorical question. but i mean it. if somebody can tell me someone who qualified for a prime mortgage and instead asked for, wanted, chose a subprime mortgage introduce them to me. if there's one who wanted a credit card contract that required them to pay interest on the balance even after they paid off the pans, introduce them to me. i want to understand that consumer choice. i have been assuming the reason they entered those contracts that were so hideous to them is they got cheated. mr. dicks: reclaiming my time, i yield to the gentlelady from new york. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership. i ask unanimous consent to

place in the record an eight-page document from the americans for financial reform. the chair: the gentlelady's requested is -- request is covered by general leave. mrs. maloney: this has eight pages of state, local and city ordinances in support of an independent consumer financial protection bureau. i'd also to like to place in the record this article from the washington journal titled "house g.o.p. targets the consumer protection bureau with the c. reform." the chair: the gentlelady's request is covered under general leave. mrs. maloney: the republicans are chipping away at the independence of this very important beau roe. we put it in the fed to have financial independence for regulation. they're putting it back urn the appropriation system and cutting it cramatically. dodd-frank did a lot of good things and one of them was to try to level the playing field with -- for the consumer with the creation of the consumer

financial protection bureau. for far too long in our financial system and its products, any concerns about consumer protection came in a distant second, a third, or not at all. now, any american who opens a checking or savings account, anyone who takes out a student loan or mortgage, anyone who opens a credit card or takes out a payday loan will have a federal agency on their side to protect them. for the first time consumer protection authority will be housed in one place and the democrats funded it. the republicans are taking away that funding and that independence. this is a critically important amendment for the financial independence, security, and well being of the consumer in our country and for really the financial system. we are suffering through the

great recession because there was no oversight. the democrats have put in oversight. accountability. and the -- and the republicans lose the vote on the floor, repass it, but they're trying to win by cutting away the funding. so they can't function. so they can't do their job. taking away their independenceful it is outrageous, it is wrong, it is an insult to the american people and my friends on both sides of the aisle should join congressman holt in support of his important amendment. it is important to the financial independence, security of the american public and i urge everyone to support it. i yield my time back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: again, i strongly rise in support of the holt amendment. if you look at history in the years 2003 to 2005, the budget was cut. chip the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. dicks: vote for the holt amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. mr. dicks: madam chair. i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 189 by ms. woolsey of california. amendment number 208 by mr. cole of oklahoma. amendment number 514 by mr. price of north carolina. amendment number 404 by mr.

walden of oregon. amendment number 516 by mr. camp of michigan. amendment number 195 by mrs. lummis of wyoming. amendment number 165 by mr. carter of texas. amendment number 204 by mr. scalise of louisiana. amendment number 458 by mr. frank of massachusetts. amendment number 506 by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 189, printed in the congressional record, offered by the gentlewoman of california, ms. woolsey, 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 189 printed in the congressional record, offered by ms. woolsey of california.

the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having

the chair: the house will be in order. thank you. the committee will be in order.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment numbered 50 presented in the congressional record offered by ms. mccollum of minnesota. ms. mccollum: mr. chairman, there's no volume. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 50 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. mccollum of minnesota. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. the gentlelady will suspend. the committee will be in order. i ask members to take their conversations off the floor on both sides of the aisle. i ask members in the well to take their conversations off

the floor. i ask members on the majority side of the aisle to take your conversations off the floor. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you very much. first i'd like to thank the committee staff on both the republican and democratic side and would like to thank the floor staff for their patience, their hard work, their dedication, and their help to me this evening. mr. chairman, my amendment is tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers dollars that are being wasted on sponsorships of nascar race cars by the department of defense. mr. chair, i hate to do this because the house is not in order. the chair: the gentlelady will suspend. the committee will be in order.

members take their conversations off the floor on the minority side. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you again, mr. chairman. again, my amendment and tens of millions of taxpayers dollars are being wasted on sponsorship of nascar race cars by the department of defense. with $-- with trillion dollar deficits this is where the rubber meets the road for my republican tea party colleagues who want to cut wasteful spending. defense department waste is nothing new.

many americans remember in the 1980's, the pentagon was spending $400 for a hammer, $600 for a toilet seat. now we have the army spending $7 million for a decal on a racing car. talk about taxpayer sticker shock. for $7 million the army buys a decal on a race car and a few drivers appearances. it's not only the army spending millions of dollars, the air force sponsors a nascar race car for millions, and so does the national guard. and incredibly over the past decade, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have subsidized race car owners, millionaire drivers in the name of military recruitment. now here's the $7 million question, does slapping a sticker on a race car convince a young man or woman to volunteer to serve our armed country in the armed forces? not according to the marine corps. fact, in 2006, the marine corps dropped its sponsorship of

nascar. a marine corps spokesman said, and i quote, we don't have a tracking mechanism to track how many people contracted because of a advertisement on the hood of a car, end of quote. a fact, the same year the coast guard dropped a million dollar nascar deal. fact, in 2008, the navy dropped nascar sponsorship, and i quote from the navy, it's not always easy to measure a return on investment. unbelievely that year the navy also paid one driver, dale earnhardt jr. the outrageous sum of $800,000 in taxpayer funds, twice the salary of the president of the united states, just to make public appearances. for all the top budget cutters in congress, shoe know the citizens against government waste has endorsed this amendment. so i would urge my republican colleagues who are cutting

homeless veterans, cutting law enforcement officers, cutting firefighters, why not cut some real waste and at the same time free nascar from its dependency on the american taxpayer. this amendment gives you a clear choice, a vote to end weasful spending and one to stop funding waste. i urge a yes vote. many parts of the military were using nascar sponsorships as part of their driver recruitment. they found they could not track the success of this program, and so they ended it using their resources towards something that they knew they could track, knew that they had something that was successful. so, members, i urge you to end the taxpayer funding to nascar. let's put the dollars to work in the department of defense for something they know is

trackable and accountable. and with that, mr. speaker -- excuse me, mr. chair, i yield my time back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order. i ask members to take their conversations on the minority side out of the aisles. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, we support the gentlewoman's effort to ensure every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely and effectively. our committee has always been focused on that. effective recruiting is critical to the military's ability to attract new, qualified military men and women and maintain our all-volunteer force. the department of defense uses

its sponsorship of nascar and other sporting events to create awareness of the different military services and the unique advantages and programs that come with serving our nation. quite frankly, mr. chairman, it's a great public-private partnership. nascar sponsorship has proven to be a very cost-effective recruiting tool with some estimates stating that for every dollar the military puts in nascar sponsorship, it gets $4 in equivalent in advertising through television, merchandise, and other outlets. we believe the dollars are well spent, and thus i oppose the amendment and yield to mr. mchenry of north carolina for any remarks he may have. mr. mchenry: i want to thank my colleague from new jersey for yielding. let's be clear, this amendment will not save one single dime. my colleague from minnesota is

simply misinformed. every dime spent in this sponsorship program is measureable. you can measure the number of media impressions you have, which the u.s. army's participation in nascar sponsorship netted $484 million media impressions, 34 million of which were offered specific army recruiting messages. so let's be very clear. this sponsorship is about recruiting. this amendment is about politics. in certain districts for certain groups of people. but the vast majority of nascar fans, 1-5 nascar fans have served or are currently serving in the u.s. military. it's a target-rich environment for armies recruiting message and a target-rich environment for the military and the military message. so i would just urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible amendment that is certainly politically charged

but at the end of the day will not save the taxpayers one single dime. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from minnesota. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. op thosed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. mccollum: i rise to request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from minnesota will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 232. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 232 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the gentleman will suspend.

the committee will be in order. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to offer this amendment along with the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, and the gentleman from california, mr. stark. the continuing resolution provides approximate $100 billion for the department of defense operations in afghanistan. this amendment states that not more than $10 billion of the funds made available by the bill may be used for military operations in afghanistan. the intent is clear. it is time to bring u.s. involvement in the war in afghanistan to an end and to bring our troops home. the war effort in afghanistan is no longer serving its purpose of enhancing the security of the united states, which should be our goal. we were attacked on 9/11 by al qaeda. al qaeda had bases in afghanistan. it made sense to go in and

destroy those bases, and we did. we had every right. we had every duty to destroy bases which are being used to plot attacks against the united states. but the c.i.a. tells us there are now fewer than 100 al qaeda personnel in all of the country of afghanistan. congress and the american people helped greatly reduce u.s. involvement in iraq through the election in 2006 and 2008, we forced a new direction in iraq and helped bring thousands of troops home. we must now do the same in afghanistan. the intent of this amendment is to reduce the funding for afghanistan sufficiently to leave enough funds to provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops but not funding for our ongoing combat operations. the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, earlier today said he would propose an amendment to establish a blue ribbon commission to examine our war effort and to ask the question of how best to fight the war. with all due respect, that is

the wrong question. the right question, the first question is why do we need to fight this war at all? it is pastime to admit that our legitimate purpose in afghanistan, to destroy al qaeda bases, has long since been accomplished. but it is a fool's air and to try to remake a country that nobody since genghis khan managed to conquer. what makes us think, what arrogance gives us the right to assume we can succeed with the moguls, the british, the soviets failed? no government in afghanistan, no government in kabul has ever been able to make its run in the entire country. . why should we take a government that is not supported by the people and is corrupt and impose it on this country?

they have been in a civil war, we have no business intervening in that war and we have no necessity to win it for one side or the other? this whole idea of counterinsurgency, that we are going to persuade the people left alive after our firepower is applied to love the government we like is absurd. it will take tens of near, hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of american lives, if it can be done at all. an we don't need to do it. if they want to have a civil war, we can't stop them. we can't choose the rulers they have. we don't have to like the rulers they have. we don't have to like their choices. it's not up to us. at this point, we must recognize that rebuilding afghanistan is beyond our ability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from attacking the united states. if it be said there are terrorists operating in afghanistan, that may be, but it is also true of yemen,

somalia and many other countries. we do not need to invade and conquer an occupy all those countries and they provide no greater need for military occupation. we are debating hundreds of budget cut, cuts that will hurt millions of americans, in order to decrease our expenditures by about $60 billion, yet we are throwing $100 billion a year, $100 billion a year plus countless lives, down the drainpipe for no useful purpose at all. and with very little discussion of our purposes and whether our policy matches our purposes. to continue so bad a policy at so high a cost is simply unconscionable. it is unjustifiable to sacrifice more money and more lives this way. i urge my colleagues to join me and ms. lee and mr. stark in voting to bring the u.s. involvement in the war in afghanistan to a close.

vote for this amendment. let's bring our troops home. let's stop wasting our lives and our money and our treasure and our forces. let's bring our troops home. let's devote our resources to something that helps the people of this country. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i rise to strike the last word and in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, i'm not going to debate the issue of the war in afghanistan. the fact is, we're there, our soldiers are getting hurt every day, and too many of them are dying, so we're not going to debate that particular part of the war. what we're going to debate is this amendment. this amendment -- i've said in the last three days, a number of times, we're not going to do anything in this defense appropriations bill in the savings that would have an adverse effect on the war fighter. this amendment would affect the

war fighter. especially those in afghanistan. this $10 billion that the gentleman would leave in the fund to finance the operations in afghanistan, that has already been spent in the first quarter of this fiscal year, the afghanistan operation cost $16 billion. he would only leave $10 billion which means we're already in deficit of $6 billion during the first quarter of the year. what kind of confusion would there be immediately? what would our troops be thinking? where would they have to go? what would they have to do? what would the rules of engagement be? you can't do this to our soldiers, you are war fighter, in after dwan stan. -- in afghanistan. you can't do this based on whether we should be in afghanistan or shopt be in

afghanistan. the fact is we're there. our soldiers are getting hurt and dying. we can't let them hang out there without proper funding. if you want to bring the troops home from afghanistan, the truth is, $10 billion won't even accomplish that it'll take more to bring everybody out of afghanistan that we have deployed there. with the equipment, with the infrastructure, with the headquarters, would cost much more than the $10 billion the gentleman would leave. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. young: this amendment doesn't -- does affect the war fighter and i will not support any part of an appropriations bill or authorizing bill that has an adverse effect on those who stand to fight for america. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: first of all, let me just thank congressman nadler for his ongoing support, consistent support, for efforts to end the war and for offering this amendment, which is really very straightforward. let me just yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from new york for a response. mr. nadler: the remarks of the gentleman from florida are incorrect. this amendment limits $10 billion from this c.r., enough to bring the troops home, funds that were already spent were appropriated from the previous c.r.'s. so it hasn't already been spent. ms. lee: let me be clear, reclaiming my time, be clear up front that our service men and women have performed with incredible courage and commitment in afghanistan. they have done everything asked of them. but the truth is that they have been put in an impossible situation. in fact, this concern of war

without end is why i oppose the resolution. i know we disagreed with that, but many of us agree now that we should not have this war without end continue. but i oppose the resolution authorizing military force on september 14 because it was a blank check. i believed then and it remains one now. there are a few things we know with certainty regarding the situation in afghanistan. we know corruption persists unabated and in many cases has been fueled by the u.s. occupation and influx of foreign cash. president karzai has proven himself time and time again unwilling or at least unable to meaningfully root out corruption in his own administration. we know the united states' troop presence has increased from around 5,000 troops in 2002 to more than 100,000 troops in 2001. at the same time, military and civilian casualties have increased at record rates. in 2010, unfortunately, that

was the deadliest year in afghanistan. we also know that al qaeda's presence in afghanistan has been all but eliminated. the administration has been consistent in its assessment that there are maybe between 50 and 100 members of al qaeda remaining in afghanistan. the fact is, the modern threat of terrorism can emanate from the tribal regions of yemen or, yes, a hotel room in germany. it's not feasible or in our national security interests to address this threat through a military first, boots-on-the-ground strategyful we know as military and foreign policy experts have told us repeatedly that the situation in afghanistan will not be resolved by a military solution. the united states has quandered more than $1.1 trillion on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. economists estimate the total direct and indirect cost of these two wars by their end may be a toal of $6 trillion.

no one can deny that the increasing cost of the war in afghanistan are constraining our efforts to invest in job creation and jump start the economy. at the same time, we are fighting here in congress to protect investments in education, health care, public safety, public health, transportation, the war in afghanistan will cost more than $100 billion in 2011. regardless of the situation in afghanistan, the pentagon will come back to us and ask for more time, more troops an more resources. if we're not doing so well there, they'll ask for more time, more troops and more resources. if they're doing well there they'll say we want more time, more resources, more troops. so it's time to say enough is enough. it's time to begin the safe and orderly withdrawal of u.s. troops an military contractors from afghanistan. we should do so today. i speak today as the daughter of a lieutenant colonel who fought in several wars, one who knows the trauma and the devastation of wars on

families. so i want to just thank congressman nadler for his leadership and i hope that we all will support my legislation that i introduced today, the responsible end to the war in afghanistan act. thank you again. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> thank you very much, mr. speaker and members. the chair: does the gentlelady -- ms. waters: i strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: i rise to support thed in a lear amendment and thank them for bringing this amendment to the floor. i would like to thank them and the other progressives in this house for the work that has been done in an attempt to make sense out of the war in both iraq and afghanistan and all of the traveling, the speeches,

thing orny sise -- the organizing that has been done around this war issue. we continue to fight to bring our troops home. i know that there are those who would think perhaps because they have not heard a lot from us that somehow we had removed ourselves from this struggle. but that is certainly not true. we have been respectful. we've allowed this administration to make some commitments. the american people decided to give the administration the opportunity to work to bring our troops home. and we're still committed to that. but this amendment that we are basically dealing with today would provide -- the c.r. would provide $100 billion for military operations in afghanistan. that doesn't sound as if we're trying to wind down. that does not sound as if we

are ready to recognize that it's time to get out of afghanistan. why are we there? unfortunately, this war has been very traumatic on our soldiers, on their families, and on the american public. yes, as has been said over and over again, we salute our soldiers. we appreciate the sacrifices that they have made and have they made sacrifices. more suicides in this war, in this iraq war, than we've had in all the wars of the united states of america. it breaks my heart to hear about the brain injuries and the loss of limbs that these soldiers have suffered. why is this happening? what are we doing? in afghanistan, leon panetta, the head of the c.i.a., said there's less than 100 al qaeda

operatives in afghanistan. that is more than $1 billion per al qaeda operative. why -- the chair: the gentlelady will suspend. the committee will come to order. the gentlelady may continue. ms. waters: let me reiterate. the cricra cray tells us there's less than 100 al qaeda operatives in afghanistan. at the rate we're going, c.r. providing $100 billion for military operations, that is more than $1 billion per al qaeda operative. our amendment would limit the funds for military operations in afghanistan to $10 billion to provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of forces. as we stand here debating this $100 billion allocation in the c.r., i cannot help but

contrast that with the fact that our domestic agenda is being cut and cut and cut, not only by this c.r. but by the budget, both from the opposite side of the aisle and the white house. the homelessness is shameful in america. we have people who are wondering how they're going to keep their homes warm. we're cutting heating oil. in america. the environment is taking a licking with this c.r. at the same time we talk about innovation and creating jobs, i don't see anything in this c. reform that will create any jobs. what i see is unwise expenditures such as we are witnessing. for the $100 billion. what i see on the opposite side of the aisle is a dedicated commitment to getting rid of regulations that can save us money and create jobs.

and so led by the progressives, we stand strong in our commitment that this war must end. we must bring our soldiers home. it is time for us to concentrate on the domestic agenda. there are those who would tell us we're training the military in afghanistan. we're going to have afghanistan soldiers who are ready to take over. i don't see that happening. what is win? what is success? how do you define it? i haven't found anybody on the other side of the aisle who can define that. and i would say that it is time for us to have the courage to do what must be done. let's support the nadler-lee-stark amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. . choim the chair: the chair would remind members the rules don't provide the rules for you to walk in front of the chair and

the speaker. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chair. it's simply the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place. terror experts agree a terror threat in our nation does not emanate within the borders of afghanistan. there is a very real terrorist threat to the people of this country but by the very nature it's a stateless menace and is a menace that's likely to use its face of operation wherever anarchy prevails, wherever the rule of law is lacking. mr. polis: we cannot actively combat this threat by occupying one country after another, after another. it is true when we occupy a country, al qaeda and other terrorist operations will likely flee to other areas.

but, unfortunately, mr. chairman, there are areas of the world which provide a hospitable foothold for al qaeda which is why a more effective strategy this nation also is encouraged engaged in, but to a certain extent is not complementry but another strategy is intelligence gathering operations against terrorist operatives wherever they are. to be bogged down in one particular nation state, one that is host to a negligible number to al qaeda operatives. it's been estimated there are only 50 to 100 al qaeda operatives, is simply counterproductive to the goal of keeping american people safe. beyond being counterproductive, mr. chairman, this is money we can't afford. this amendment, which i strongly support, will cut $90 billion from the occupation of afghanistan, allowing $10 billion to be used to safely bring the conflict to an end and maintain a lighter

footprint of military operations to ensure al qaeda does not regain a strong hold within the borders of afghanistan. it's clear, mr. chairman, that the current strategy is not working. the expenditures in afghanistan under the currency are $100 billion. that's more than a billion dollars per al qaeda operative that's within the borders of afghanistan. most of al qaeda's operations have moved across the border to pakistan and gained a foothold in yemen and meanwhile remain bogged down in a costly war without any clear end game that can be articulated by the people on the ground. when we enter a military scenario, it's critical to find what success looks like. the nation building operation undertaken with regard to the occupation of afghanistan does

not have a clear outcome that is reachable. the situation there will not be better in six months or a year, in two years or three years. it's time to stop sending american taxpayer money that we don't have to a war that does not further the security interests of the american people. that's why i'm a strong supporter of the nadler-lee-stark amendment, and i encourage my colleagues to vote yes and i yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for his remarks and for yielding. i want to make one comment on what was said a moment ago by the gentleman from florida. this amendment reduces funding in this c.r. to $10 billion, which should be enough to withdraw the troops. but the argument was made that to reduce the funding is not to support our troops. to rob them of the implements of doing their jobs. but the fact is the only power that congress has to effectuate the war making powers and to

control whether we should be at war somewhere or another is the power of the purse. we are not saying that we want our -- by adopting this amendment, we would not be saying we want our troops there with no weapons and for torte. -- so forth. we'd be saying use the funds to bring the troops home. it's more supportive of the troops to bring them home from a war that they should not be fighting that is not vital to our national security, it's more supportive to bring them home than it is to give them weapons to fight an unnecessary war which some of them unfortunately would lose their lives. i say support our troops, bring them home, support the country, stop fighting where it doesn't make sense, and spend our military resources where it helps the national security of the united states, which is not in afghanistan right now. i thank you. i yield back. mr. polis: i'd like to conclude the passage of the nadler-lee-stark amendment as part of the continuing underlying resolution would allow america to focus on the

real stateless terror threat to the nation by preventing us from being bogged down in one particular occupation in a nation which has no significant al qaeda presence. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. lee: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i'd like to rise to support the nadler-lee -stark amendment. i believe it's a starting point. for those of us who have consistently raised questions about where we are in making sure we follow and adhere to long-standing commitments to our troops and to their families that have served boldly and ably, both in iraq and afghanistan, how we can orderly bring them home.

mr. chairman, a couple years ago as we continued to feel frustration in iraq, i raised the question and filed legislation called the day of honor. in which we would bring our troops home from iraq and then subsequently afghanistan and honor them throughout the nation. in fact, i remember arguing with the bush administration and raising the issue as to why our fallen soldiers, when they came into dover air force base did not have the honors of public view if agreed to by their family. i believe our troops are owed a debt of gratitude, respect, and honor. and those that are fighting now deserve that respect and honor. this legislation in no way dismisses or diminishes their service or the blood that they have shed. but what it says is that we are now in the midst of a major budget crisis, and as we have

seen over the last 24 hours, we're willing to cut children and substance abuse and mental health and teachers and environmental protection, if you will, oversight, literally gut the running of the government. these soldiers want to come home to jobs. we've done nothing about creating jobs. i frankly believe this is a starting point of an astute analysis as to what we're doing going forward. we already know that we're looking forward to bringing troops home and to downsizing, redeploying. we begin redeploying by redeploying money. let me give you an example. on the floor just a few hours ago, there was an amendment discussed by the transportation committee to almost gut the transportation security administration. our chair -- i chaired in the subcommittee in the last congress and serve as a ranking member in this congress. if we had done that, it would

have had a double detriment to the security of the homeland, 900 positions would have been lost, impacting 450 airports, governing some 445,000 t.s.o. officers. maybe some of those officer positions could go to returning soldiers who are looking for work. in addition, it would impact the intelligence gathering and disseminating. it would also impact covert testing that goes on at passenger checkpoints and also cargo. where we have seen that we're still in the eye of the storm. there is no proof aviation travel is in the eye of the storm for homeland security and protecting the homeland. while we have $100 billion set aside for a war which we have already been given the direction as downsizing, redeploying, bringing troops home, and yet we have $100

billion. so i would simply say this is a time when we should come together and determine that we are moving to bring our troops home, that we're going to use smart money and work on diplomacy, getting afghanistan to invest its moneys that it has, in building democracy and educating its children. we support that. i recall one of my earlier visits to afghanistan, taking books to school children, and the excitement of the schools way beyond kabul where they were excited to receive these books and the students were excited to receive and be able to be educated. of course, in leaving afghanistan and going to iraq, we've lost certainly momentum that had been gathered and school girls can't even go to school, but that comes to diplomacy and buying in to a sovereign nation that believes in some dignity for all people. so i applaud the troops that are on the ground. i applaud their leadership.

but if we have amendments that would gut the transportation security administration and keep us from protecting the homeland, then we know that we're going in the wrong direction. support an amendment that reduces the amount of money to be spent for afghanistan to invest in the homeland and the security of that homeland and promote agencies like the transportation security administration agency that's fighting every day to secure the american people. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. nadler: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the yeas and nays are requested. does the the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. nadler: yes, i do. the chair: a recorded vote is requested.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri rise? mrs. emerson: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized a. -- is recognized for five minutes. mrs. emerson: thank you. i would like to enter into a colloquy with mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. emerson: i yield to the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i rise to enter in a colloquy with the chairwoman. madam chairwoman, without consulting with my office in any way, the general services administration took advantage of the lack of specific congressional direction in the stimulus bill and initiated renovation work on the richard h. pau federal building, a building in my district in roanoke, virginia and was funded at $51 million. however, the total cost of the renovations are now in excess of $65 million when you factor

in the relocation costs for the agencies that were located in the building. i have repeatedly demanded a comprehensive cost benefit analysis from the g.s.a. showing that this project is financially worthwhile as is required by law. to date i have not received such an analysis. it is completely unacceptable for g.s.a. to move forward any further with this project until such an analysis is produced. i would like to request that you and the committee commit to working with me to demand the g.s.a. provide a comprehensive cost benefit analysis that shows these renovations are worthwhile before any further funds are appropriated to renovate this federal building. mrs. emerson: i thank the gentleman from virginia, and i'm pleased to know that not only am i very happy to work with the gentleman on trying to conduct better oversight of the g.s.a. and its -- and ensure it

does cost benefit analysis, but i have also had quite a similar experience in my hometown in missouri of cost overruns and no type of real cost benefit analysis or explanation for those cost overruns other than perhaps inattention to detail. and so i'm thrilled to be able to work with you and look forward to doing that. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentlewoman. mrs. emerson: i yield back my time, except for the fact that we have another colloquy, so let's try to fit it in. all right. i'll yield back to the gentleman. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i now rise to enter into colloquy with the chairwoman. madam chairwoman, i intended to offer an amendment that would have prevented funds from being used in the spill to subsidize wireless phone service in the underlying legislation. as you know, the universal service fund pro