the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 227. the nays are 173. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- mr. sessions: for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from will suspend. the gentlewoman from florida, for what purpose does do you rise? ms. brown: i request unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor from h.r. 605. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. sessions: for the purpose of debate only i, yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the rules committee, my friend, the gentlewoman, ms. slaughter. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. sessions: madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's correct. will all members who want to have conversations please take those conversations from the house floor. on both sides of the aisle. members will take conversations off the house floor, please.

all right. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: house resolution 358, provides for a structured rule designated by the rules committee for consideration of h.r. 1315. this rules allows 11 of 14 amendments submitted to the rules committee to be made in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. will members please take your conversations off the house floor.

and those members who are talking in the chamber, please either stop talking or leave the chamber, please. on both sides of the aisle. the longer this takes, the longer we're here. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. this rule provides for debate and amendment opportunities for members of the minority and majority to change the legislative text of the underlying bill. madam speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. this legislation, consumer financial protection safety and soundness improvement act was introduced by my dear friend in wisconsin, the congressman, sean duffy, on april 1, 2011. the bill went through regular order, with hearings, subcommittee markup, and a full committee markup. madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct.

colleagues, please take conversations off the house floor. members in the back of the chamber who would like to talk, please exit the chamber. we'll try one more time the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i applaud my friend, the distinguished chairman of the financial services committee, the gentleman from alabama, spencer baucus, for providing such an open process and an opportunity for all members of the financial services committee to participate in reforming and changing this bill. additionally, the chairman of the rules committee, the gentleman from, david dreier, has once again provided members of this body with a rules committee vote to ensure that

we have transparency and accountable structure under the rule which we are discussing today. allowing members from both sides of the aisle this opportunity to offer amendments and to join in the debate of the underlying legislation. today marks the first anniversary that president obama signed into law the 1,300-page unprecedent federal overhaul of the financial services industry. the frank-dodd wall street reform act. i had the opportunity to discuss this bill today and also i did last congress and we spoke at that time about its overarching reforms that were being made in that legislation. additionally, i will discuss why and how it is bad for our current economy and what the republican underlying bill will do to protect consumers, ensure credit, and allow for economic growth. last year i stood before this

body to state that our friends on the other side of the aisle, they were once again allowing the government to overstep its boundaries well into the private marketplace. one of the most far-reaching provisions of the dodd-frank bill signed into law last year is the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau, best known as cfpb. the cfpb is a classic example of the government unnecessarily crippling its authority into the free enterprise system. this massive new bureau, which will be led by a credit czar, who will have unprecedented and unchecked authority to restrict product choices for consumers and impose fees on consumer products and financial transactions. just about any business or financial institution who offers any form of credit falls underneath the jurisdiction of

the cfpb. the new bureaucracy would raise costs for consumers. i will say this again, will raise costs for consumers. it will reduce the number and types of products available to them. it will increase the micromanagement of financial services firms, and will greatly increase the confusion caused by differing and conflicting consumer laws across the united states. the underlying bill we are voting on today is designed to promote greater accountability and transparency at this cfpb and to ensure that the cfpb fulfills its consumer protection mandate without undermining the safety and soundness of the financial system. this bill achieves this mission by making the leadership structure of the cfpb a cliegeyabble body, streamlining the financial stability oversight council or what is known as f-soc. their review and oversight of

cfpb rules and regulations and delaying the transfer of functions from other federal regulatory bodies to the cfpb until the date on which the chair of the commission of the cfpb is confirmed by the senate. this comes and it is of great deal of importance since it was just this week that president obama nominated richard conray as the director of cfpb which officially begins its oversights of banks with more than $10 billion of assets today. so, no director, no mission statement, no accountability. . no hearing in the senate to confirm who would have this extensive authority and responsibility. the consumer financial protection safety and soundness improvement act makes three important changes to the current

cfpb. first it would change the vote required to set aside a cfpb regulation from 2/3 of the fsoc membership to a simple majority vote. excluding the chair of the cfpb. a letter from the american bankers association from may 3, 2011, states, and i quote, the very purpose of the fsoc was to avoid problems that could lead to risk that threatened the economy, to ignore the majority view point of the regulators with this responsibility is completely counter to its mission statement and that of the council. this first provision ensures that the council carries out the intended mission and goal. second, the bill would clarify that the fsoc must set aside any cfpb provision that is inconsistent with the safe and sound operation of u.s.

financial institutions. lastly the bill amends dodd-frank which provided for the cfpb to be headed by a director -- to be replaced with a bipartisan commission, with the responsibility of exercising the bureau's authorities. this was in the original house version of the bill and was changed by the senate during conference. in a letter sent by the u.s. chamber of commerce dated may 3, 2011, the u.s. chamber expressed support saying, the chamber strongly supports this reform because it would conform the bureau to other independent agencies, ensure impartial decision making, minimize the risk of regulatory capture and ensure continued and -- continued stability over the long run. reforms to the cfpb as it stands are necessary to avoid business

closures, limitations to startup companies, slower economic growth and to ensure that we do not hinder the free enterprise system. these are all in the best interest of consumers. and our country. the underlying legislation ensures thalt original intent of this legislation -- ensures that the original intent of this legislation -- legislation is carried out in a fair and unbuysed manner to ensure that safety and the -- unbiased manner to ensure that the safety and soundness of our financial institutions. i encourage a yes vote on the rule and the underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, the consumer financial protection bureau is a reflection of the nation's valueless. it embodies the ideals of fairness, accountability and equality.

values that help us define who we are as a people. just as importantly the cfpb brings accountability and transparency to the financial sector and recuses the risk that consume -- reduces the risk that consumers will be sold financial products they don't understand and can't afford to buy. the cfpb is already hard at work, this agency has started by proposing simplified disclosure of mortgages so that consumers can read them. isn't that refreshing? in plain language the terms of agreement before signing on the dotted line. despite this valuable start, today's bill is designed to effectively neuter the agency before it can fully begin to serve the middle class. in so doing this bill is a giveaway to special interests in the financial sector that fears they will finally be held accountable by the law. apparently unchasened by the economic crisis they plunged us into, financial firms continue to take advantage of unknowing consumers.

just this past year a row bow signing scandal -- robo signing scandal led to banks foreclosing on many families who had done absolutely nothing wrong. these firms will not stop trying to take advantage of people unless someone forces them to stop. despite all this, the majority proposes that we weaken the very agency designed to protect consumers against the illegal practices and unfair play. the cfpb was launched thanks to the great work of professor elizabeth warren and a team of professionals that she has assembled to launch the agency. their work has been tireless and invaluable. professor warren asecurityly understands the struggles of american families -- acutely understands the struggles of american familyless. -- families. while speaking about the nomination of richard cornray, professor said, i remain hopeful that those who want to cripple

this consumer bureau will think again and remember the financial crisis and the recession and job losses that sparked one lousy mortgage at a time. i also hope that when those senators and congressmen next go home, excuse me, they ask their constituents how they feel about fine print, about signing contracts with terms that are incomprehensible, about learning the true cost of a financial transaction only later when fees are piled on or interest rates are reset. i hope they will ask the people in their district if they are opposed to an agency that is working to make prices clear or if they think budgets should be cut for an agency trying to make sure that trillion-dollar banks follow the law and members of the house --ent quote, members of this house will do well to remember her words. when we vote today to protect the middle class and the millions of consumers struggling to make ends meet, or will this

body stand with financial lobbyists and leave the middle class to go it alone? in the strongest possible terms, i urge my colleagues to take a vote that reflects our values and vote against this rule we're considering today and against the underlying bill. please let's stand up for the american families and the helpless people who are simply struggling to get by. despite what we have done for them. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. in encouragement to my dear colleague, the gentlewoman, ms. slaughter, i would like to inform her that i have fewer speakers as a result of committee hearings and would encourage her to run through several -- perhaps two of her speakers at this time and then i will be available with mine. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield five minutes to mr. frank of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: how much time?

ms. slaughter: five. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: first i want to express my objection to the rule, the chairman of the rules committee said maybe i can get a unanimous consent agreement to modify it. all the members are not created equal. this rule gives a total of 10 minutes for each amendment, five and five. that is simply inadequate, grossly inadequate, for discussing some of these important amendments. there are two amendments in particular where i will be approaching my colleagues in the majority to see if we can get an extension of time. but if that's not the case, i will be very, very disappointed that major issues here in this important subject of consumer protection would be given only five minutes on each side. now, let's get to the substance. my republican colleagues have had a little bit of a change of heart since last year. when we debated this bill in committee, actually we debated it in 2009 in committee, this particular section, they wanted to kill the whole bureau. they were opposed to the notion of an independent consumer

bureau, understand where we are. consumer protection has always until last year been con signed to the financial -- consigned to the financial regulators. indeed the largest single share of consumer protection was given of all entities to the federal reserve and it's been at best a second thought for them and for some a nonthought. and the republican position during the debate on this was, do not set up a separate agency. now they say, well, we're not opposing the separate agency, we're just wanting to dismantle it in effect. so we will get into the specifics but let's be clear, this is as close as they dare come now because of public opinion to abolishing the whole agency. they want to weaken it and then they will want to undercut it altogether. of course this is the third major assault they've made on the financial reform bill. yesterday in committee incredit pli the financial service committee voted to -- incredibly the financial service committee voted to reduce the liability

rating agencies will face if they put an inaccurate statement into a perspective. if you buy that security based on inaccuracies from the rating agencies they want to lessen what we give people in the bill of rights to sue and consistently the republicans have voted specifically to deny to the commodities, futures trading commission the funds they would need to deal with speculation and energy and mr. kingston on behalf of the majority said, speculation's not nothing to do with oil prices. no one believes that except apparently him and maybe those republicans who voted for him. today there is an assault on the most important thing that's ever been done to protect consumers in the financial area. now, the republicans have been saying, we're not trying to kill it, we just want to make it workable or better. but last year, and i will ask unanimous consent, madam speaker, to put into the record statements from about a dozen of the republicans, mr. garrett, mr. hensarling, mr. price, mrs. biggert, mr. manzullo, mr. bachus, many others, they made

it clear they didn't want the whole agency. so this notion that they're just trying to improve it is belied by the fact that they tried to kill it. even then mr. bachus sometimes has trouble sticking to his own line. here's what he said this morning on cnbc. we're not trying to kill it, that's been totally misrepresented. republicans stand strongly behind consumer protection. we however think that safety and soundness has to be considered so that we don't worry about a federal reserve or an fdic but we do worry about a consumer protection agency whose sole goal is to benefit consumers without considering how that benefit affects the stability of our financial institutions. well, it doesn't go the other way, they don't worry about what the financial institutions do to consumers, but let me read again what he says. we do worry about a consumer protection agency whose sole goal is to benefit consumers without worrying about the poor banks and what the bill will do

basketball will -- will to put the bank regulators in charge of consumer protection and these are the bank regulators whom mr. bachus earlier said, the regulators' job is to serve the banks. so in round about ways they are trying to accomplish here what they admitted they wanted to accomplish before. the consumer agency does not have an aggressive role, it doesn't go out there and do things in a positive way, it is a protection agency. now, we passed a credit card regulation bill and many on the republican side were very opposed to that a couple years ago, it's worked very well, one of the main authors is here. that's helped people, it hasn't hurt them. one of the things the consumer agency gets under our bill is the power to cover currently nonregulated entities, payday lenders, mortgage lenders who aren't covered. frankly that's in the interest of consumers, the credit union federation likes much of the

republican bill, but they don't like the part that would slow down the takeover of regulation over their competitors. bad mortgages were not just a problem for individuals, they were a problem for the whole economy. we want to strengthen the ability to have bad mortgages. they don't want that to happen. this is a party, the republican party, that want to kill this -- i ask for 30 seconds. ms. slaughter: let me yield the gentleman another minute. mr. frank: thank you. madam speaker, you gavel so -- i didn't realize. what we have is, as the statements i am submitting show, the republicans wanted last year to maintain the status quo in which the regulators of the banks whose jobs it is according to the republican chairman of the committee to serve the banks would maintain this and they worry about an institution whose sole goal is to protect consumers. they don't worry, he says, we don't worry about the federal reserve, we don't worry about the fdic, we worry about an

institution whose sole goal is to protect the consumers. they do understand that politically it's not a good idea to be fully straightforward about their intention and they'd really like to appeal it but what they are trying to do today is substantially weak continue and the most important thing they will do is to put back in charge of the independent consumer regulator the very bank regulators who historically have not protected the consumer because some of them agreed with the chairman of the committee, the republican chairman, that the job was to serve the banks and it would substantially weaken consumer protection. i do not think that is the right way to go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. delauro: madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the

majority's attempt to undercut the consumer finance protection bureau. just as it is set to open its doors. yet again this majority is siding with wall street, credit card companies, predatory lenders and against the interests of the american people. three years ago we suffered an economic meltdown that was brought on by greed, corruption and raw documented incidents of predatory behavior. we are still dealing with the economic ramifications of that collapse today and people all across america are losing their jobs and fighting for their homes. that is why as part of the financial reforms that democrats passed last year, we created the consumer financial protection bureau to reintroduce transparency and accountability in the financial sector, to put an end to predatory lending practices that were abused by the banks and the mortgage lenders, to precipitate this crisis and to protect the public from future malfeasance. but now this republican majority

wants to undo all of that hard work, put wall street back in the driver's seat. the bill eliminates the bureau's independence and it gives the regulators who missed the financial crisis -- it gives them veto power over its actions. all to ensure that nothing of consequence gets done to rein in wall street. . in order to the bill before us also removes the position of director and the five member commission at the head of the agency, while delaying consumer protection authority until a commission chair is named. this comes as republicans have constantly attacked the bureau's architect, elizabeth warren, made clear they will not approve any nominee for director, including president obama's nomination of richard cordray last week. we are not here to represent the interest of wall street. the bank, predatory mortgage

lenders, credit card companies, as my republican colleagues are choosing to do by smothering this new agency in its crib. we are here to represent the american people. that is what the consumer financial protection bureau has been designed to do. i urge my colleagues, put main street before wall street. stand up for ordinary, hardworking, middle class families, oppose this rule and the underlying legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. session: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from san antonio, texas, a freshman member of this body, congressman francisco canseco. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. canseco: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank mr. duffy, chairman baucus, and chairman capito, for their leadership on this important matter.

madam speaker, i strong -- i rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying bill with which important measures of accountability to an agency that currently operates independent of any real oversight. the mission of the consumer financial protection bureau is indeed puzzling. how exactly a government bureau is going to determine what financial products are suitable for every american family has been explained -- has never been explained. i have great concern that consumer protection is merely a euphemism for consume -- consumer restriction and creal. equally concerning is that this agency currently operates outside the normal checks and balances that exist of the bedrock of our system of government. the director of the agency has enormous influence over family decisions regarding credit cards and mortgages and there

currently exists an extremely high and nonsensical standard for overturning cfpb rule. the director can set the cfpb's budget every year without ever having to appear before congress. despite all of this, the person appointed by the president to advise treasury on the setup of this agency came before the house financial services committee and called it the most constrained and most accountable agency in government. only in washington can someone make that claim with a straight face. i fully support h.r. 1315 which would replace the single director with a more democratic commission and would also require a simple majority of vote of the financial stability oversight council to overturn a cfpb rule. madam speaker, the financial crisis did not occur because of

a lack of rules, and it certainly did not exist because of a lack of federal bureaucracies. regulatory overkill does not equal effective regulation. it means fewer jobs and higher unemployment. the last thing we need is an unrestrained agency adding more uncertainty to our economy and destroying our ability to grow the economy and create jobs. this legislation will help remove the threat to economic and job growth that the cfpb currently poses. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the great leader from new york state for her leadership on this committee and this great congress and for fighting every day for the american people in new york state. one year ago today president

obama signed into law the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. this landmark law helped restore faith in our institutions and markets, helped our economy, and helped consumers. yet on this historic day my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing everything they can to defund, defang, and derail the important consumer protection office. now, what is this office supposed to do? it is going to make prices clear to consumers. risks clear to consumers, and make markets work for the american middle class families. we need this independent office. for too long no one was looking out for consumers, and we paid dearly for it in the financial crisis. but now with the cfpb, everyone who takes out a student loan,

everyone who takes out a mortgage, everyone who takes out any financial product will have a financial consumer protection agency on their side. and we need this protection. just yesterday it was reported that one of our largest institutions received the laveragest -- largest fine ever, $84 million for illegally pushing borrowers into subprime mortgages. 10,000 americans in this suit alone for falsifying loan documents. if a cfpb had been in place, that could have helped the 10,000 people. let me tell you, i'm calling this republican bill, let's just forget that the financial crisis ever happened. let's just forget the pain that it caused to people. and the painful lessons of the great recession. these practices cost our

country dearly. according to the figures from the federal reserve, between the spring of 2007 and the first quarter of 2009, the u.s. household wealth fell by about $16.4 trillion. that is pain to the overall economy and to the families. and that is a sum that would be more than enough to pay off the entire u.s. national debt. and if the cfpb had been in place in 2001, we might have avoided the most painful and disruptive economic downturn in our lifetime. we must fight to protect consumers and i believe when it comes to great recessions, once is more than enough. let's stop these practices that hurt consumers. protect our overall economy. and protect our people.

the american people agree. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. maloney: 93% favor it. the american people favor the c fpb. we should let it open its doors and protect consumers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: we'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the gentlelady. if there is a problem, it's that it was passed two years after rather than two years before the wall street meltdown. that was a catastrophe. it was so bad that one of the most conservative presidents in the history of this country came to congress with the goldman sachs secretary of the treasury, asking congress to authorize $750 billion to bail out wall street collapse.

that was an avoidable situation . the reason it collapsed is because of the fact that the only problem worse than no regulation -- or little regulation is no regulation at all. that's what wall street had enjoyed. the heart of the crisis were the subprime mortgages that were loans to people who had no documentation, no ability to pay them back. they were sold not because it was even in exeffectation they would be paid back but they were sold to the mortgagees so that they could then be sold off to investors. this was the architecture of catastrophe. and the american economy is still reeling from it. the tradition of regulation in this country goes back to teddy roosevelt. a republican trust buster, who understood that the public had to be protected. who understood with proper regulation you set fair rules

for business to operate. that levels the playing field for those good banks to do what's right, to do it in the light of day, to provide protection to consumers who are busy with their own lives and don't have time to go over all of the forms. this consumer protection agency is absolutely essential to providing fairness to consumers and security in their transaction, to protect them from unscrupulous activity that does and can occur, and it's important to our banks and our financial industry that wants to play by the rules and do it the right way. this is very important legislation and we must defeat the infect repeal and retraction of dodd-frank. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. >> only a year ago republicans were using every trick in the book to stop any consumer protection bureau. they never really stopped. the party of wall street bailouts, big bank buddies, were denying our families basic protection from credit abuses. mr. doggett: the lyrics of steve earl who grew up on the edge of san antonio ring true for so many families, you go to school, and learn to read and write, so you can walk into the bank and sign away your life. so many families were deceived by taking out mortgages or credit card or payday loan on terms that only in the fine print did the big lenders understand. many of these families were counting on a home, on a job, on a retirement plan, or maybe with their credit card just to put clothes on the kids and

food on the family's table. nobody was there to protect them from the tricks and traps that some creditors used to enrich themselves and fleeze consumers with loans with incredible interest rates. in too many of these transactions, what were once known as loan sharks can today legally ply their trade. if you're mugged on the street, you can lose your wallet. but if you're mugged on wall street you can lose a lifetime of savings. that's why we need this new squad of financial cops whose sole job will be to protect those who borrow from abuse. with foreclosures at near record heights in san antonio and in austin, now is not the time for a retreat by consumer law enforcement. oppose this latest republican attempt to roll back the power of the consumer financial protection bureau, and oppose the effort to take cops off the beat when we need them the

most. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. sessions: we'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i am pleased to give more time to mr. frank, the ranking member of the financial services. five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: madam speaker, if i had to stand up here and defend weakening consumer protection in the area of financial activity, i wouldn't be too eager to do it, either. i understand the absence of discussion here. let me make one general point. when we legislate you have to take history into account and what the balance is. the argument essentially of the republican party here s. i wish it wrrnt partisan, but it is, they made it partisan, not us, the position of the republican party is that there is a serious danger that we will overprotect the consumer. that the federal regulators will do too much for the

consumer. that's an extraordinary fear to have. indeed, that is not a fear, that's aphobia. it is based on unreality. the fact is as we have seen this now, we were able to get this legislation enacted with the brilliant work of elizabeth warren whose nomination did not come as it should have, although i very much admire her. what we had was an unusual moment because the irresponsible practices of many, not all on the financial community -- by the way, let me repeat, much of the problem came from the unregulated. not from the financial institutions. and one of the things we do in this bill which is supported by the consumers union -- credit union association is to cover the unregulated. so that community banks and credit unions which did not cause this problem are protected from the pressures of unfair competition by the unregulated. but

but what we had was an unusual moment in which there was a great deal of public awareness of the need to deal with this. so we were able to get an independent consumer agency through over the unanimous opposition of the republican party. but as things go forward the average citizen has got other things to worry about. so what we'll see are the bank lobbyists and the nonbank lobbyists and all the people who represent these mortgage lenders already trying to erode things. and apparently my colleagues would like people to believe that they seriously think that the danger is we will protect the consumer too much. i defy anyone to show me a moment in american history when we did too much to protect the consumers in the financial area. what we try to do here is to put something in place that will go against that overriding tendency to underprotect the consumer and the republicans say, oh, no, we're for consumer protection, we're not trying to abolish this agency, yes, they are. and let me cite the bill they

sponsored last year, the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, supported the bill. and what it did was it would take the federal financial institutions council, expand it to 14 members, it would put on there for consumer protection a whole range of options and others and it would give them the power to study this issue but it is very, very clear that this council would have no power . here's what it says. this is the biggert bill that was submitted -- biggert bill that was submitted. page 5, no provision of this subsection shall be construed as conferring any enforcement authority to the council. here's what it does. to come to the aid of the beleaguered consumer, it sets up a hotline. i don't know what movies they've seen but i can't remember one where a hotline rode to the rescue of the imperiled.

so they shall establish a toll free hotline and website to contact regarding inquiries or complaints related to consumer protection. and what does this powerful council do with this important hotline? it referred them, it refers the inquiries or complaints to the appropriate council member. you know who your council members are? the bank regulators, the federal reserves, the control of the currency. so instead of having an independent agency and, yeah, the chairman of the committee, mr. bachus, said, we think that safety and soundness has to be considered so we don't worry about the federal reserve and fd, they had no interest in the fact that they underprotected consumers, allowed consumers to be abused historically. we do worry, mr. bachus says, a consumer protection agency whose sole goal is to benefit consumers without considering how that benefit in fact affects the banks because he believes the regulators are there to serve the banks. so here's the republican plan. you take the bank regulators, you throw in a few other

officers, you get it to an unwieldy size, you let them do studies and you let them set up a hotline. you let them set up a hotline, what a powerful toolment and when things come in over the hotline, they then refer them back to the very same bank regulators who failed to do this. now that's what they really wanted. we were able to get this passed. and they know it's popular. they understand what the public thinks. the public does not think that the poor banks need to be protected against these consumers. so they come up, instead of repealing it outright, with ways to weaken it. we ought to reject this because these -- this particular bill is a proxy for what they really want to do, abolishing the whole agency. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. you know, i'm going to have to stand up for what we're here for today and that is, madam speaker, that after this bill is passed it took almost one year for the president to appoint the person who would run the cfpb.

the person who runs the cfpb is required to have senate confirmation. during senate confirmation, it's a process that takes place for senior administrators who run our government, during that period of time this person would be expected, who is nominated by the president, would be expected to come on behalf of the agency as a result of understanding their mission statement and the things that they do, would be expected to come to the united states senate and to express their ideas. this is a brand new agency. how it would be run, what their mandate would be, how they would manage the assets and resources not only of the agency but how they viewed that mission statement vis-a-vis the industry. the president took a year to nominate this person.

that person has not even begun their hearings. i think, and this is what republicans think and this is what our bill says today, i know the gentleman, mr. frank, said, oh, no, republicans have something far greater and bigger, it's that they don't want this agency. well, perhaps we don't want the cfpb, perhaps we don't, but that's not what we're here today saying. we're here saying that until that head of that agency has a chance, a brand new agency has a chance, after all, it's taken a year, to come and speak forthrightly to elected okses that are called members of the senate to answer questions about how they would run this agency, what the philosophy should be, what the intent of the agency is, how the interaction between other agencies really should be done, what they think of the law

and what they see their job as being, those are important issues and so republicans are saying, we should not move forward on that until such time as we are able to go through that process. so, that's really what republicans are here for and i know there are a lot of people listening and watching and think there's something sinister about republicans. this is common sense. republicans are here talking about an agency that will have broad and almost unlimited access to the marketplace, to overregulate if you look at the possibilities and we're trying to say, before we kick this thing off let's make sure we have an idea of what the leader would say. otherwise we should go to a group of people who will run this not just one. so that's what we're here today. i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i will once again yield a minute to mr. frank from massachusetts. mr. frank: first, madam speaker, i want to reassure the gentleman from texas i don't think you're sinister. i think he is opposed to effective consumer protection. i think he and the other republicans, at least some of them believe the chairman of the committee that the regulators serve the banks. i do think they were opposed to it last year and appreciate his honesty, his approach towards openness when he said, per haps they're against it. perhaps, shmerhasps, they're against it. they understand there would be a good idea to weak continue. but let me respond to his point about about confirmation. it's bogus, madam speaker. he says, we're just trying to hold this up until there's a confirmation. but 44 republican senators, 44 republican senators have announced that they will not allow any confirmation to go forward. they will filibuster it and they have more than the 40 they need to do that, until the agency is

weakened. they have said they will not allow it to go forward until we allow the bank regulators, who republicans think are there to serve the banks, can overrule this. so the gentleman -- and they weren't just saying that about elizabeth warren. 44 republican senators contradicted the gentleman from texas, they said, he talked about this wonderful confirmation process. it can't happen because 44 republicans have said, until we give in and weaken the agency, they won't confirm anybody. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. you know, i appreciate the gentleman's perspective of looking into my brain and knowing what i think or talking about how 44 senators override what i'm saying, i would tend to offer the argument that as we near now the august recess they had every understanding that the president, without this person going through hearings, having to come to congress, to the

senate, to talk about and go through these hearings, that the president would just offer a recess appointment and in other words bypassing exactly what we're talking about should happen and that is where this brand new nominated person after a year, waiting until just a few weeks before the august recess, they would just -- mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. sessions: i'll let the gentleman have his own time. i got my time, you can get yours. mr. frank: you have plenty of time. mr. sessions: and, madam speaker, what we're saying is, we're not going to allow in the senate the 44 senators saying they're not going to allow a recess appointment where this person is appointed, nominated and just gets it done because the senate is gone. we're not going to allow him to skip out of coming and having to be thoughtful and talking about what he's going to do as the

head of this cfpb. so, to say that 44 senators really are trying to do the wrong thing or that i'm here trying to suggest something different is not true. we believe that this new agency must have the person that's going to head it to come to congress, be for the right and open to hearing questions -- be forth right and open to hearing questions and answering back. i think that's open, honest, transparent and legitimate. if the president waited a year he should expect that we would probably have an opinion that we would not want a recess appointment. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker.

i thank my friend from new york for yielding. tomorrow will be yet another friday without a paycheck for 15 million americans. and this is the 198th day of the republican majority, it's the 198th day that they've brought no legislation to the floor to address the jobs crisis and create jobs for the american people. now, most of those 198 days they've ignored the problem. today's bill is a curious approach to the problem that i think makes it worse. americans painfully remember what happened in the fall of 2008 when the big banks started to go under and slip under. people's 401-k accounts melted, people's home equity disappeared and to this day, to this day most americans' homes aren't worth nearly what they were worth in the fall of 2008. foreclosures went up, jobs went down, people's hopes went out the window.

the predicate of today's bill is the reason that all happened is there weren't enough regulators watching the banks or excuse me, the predicate of today's bill is that there were too many regulators watching the banks. i had it backwards because it's so obvious. you understand that today's bill starts from the presumption that the problem here is that there were too many people watching what the banks did to make sure they did the right thing by the country. i think exactly the opposite was true. i think the fact that these banks could take money insured by the taxpayers under the f.d. -- fdic and gamble it on credit default swaps was wrong. i think the fact that they could sell junk bonds massacre aiding as -- masquerading as valid mortgages was wrong, i think the fact that they charged exer to the -- extortionist credit card

bills was wrong. and the problem was not that their hands were too tied. the problem was that they were being ignored by the regulators. ms. slaughter: i yield the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. andrews: i appreciate the gentleman -- the gentlelady. i would say to you that after 198 days of essentially nothing on jobs, they now bring to the floor a bill that says, let's fix the jobs problem by having fewer regulators watch the big banks. there are very few people in america who think the problem is the banks didn't have enough regulators. unfortunately almost all of them are in this chamber on the republican side of the aisle. i yield to my friend. mr. frank: my friend sun fair to republicans because they do create more jobs in this bill. the c.b.o. says this bill will cost $71 million because it says a single administrator, they want to create four more bureaucrats with more staff. so c.b.o. says this will cost $71 million. so in fact there are some jobs they're going to create, they'll be for bureaucrats that can dilute the activity the of the

consumer pool. mr. andrews: i would correct the record and say the republicans have created four jobs, for miles an hour more bureaucrats who will ignore the banks predicating on the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield to -- five minutes to the gentleman, the chairman of the financial services committee, the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. mr. baucus: i have been listening to the debate on the floor and although this was concerning the rule, there have been a lot of false claims lodged against what this legislation does. it does not gut the consumer financial protection bureau. it is not anti-consumer. it is not an attempt to repeal

dodd-frank. it does three simple things, andual three of those things, mr. speaker -- and all three of those things, mr. speaker, the democrats were for before they were answer. these are all proposals that they have made. we all know who the person that first proposed the consumer financial protection bureau is. i think all the members of this body would say was elizabeth warren. what did she propose? she pros posed a bipartisan commission. -- proposed a bipartisan commission. she did not propose the end result of dodd-frank which was an unaccountable czar. instead of creating a five-member board as is done for almost every other agency, the one exception being the

e.p.a., and the o.c.c. both of those, the o.c.c. is accountable to congress because it is part of the treasury department. it is subject to o.m.b. the e.p.a. is a presidential appointment. a cabinet member. he has to be confirmed. but not only that, he has to come to the congress for appropriations. there is no accountability on the part of this body. now, i would yield to the gentleman, i'll yield him 10 seconds just to answer this question, he's got to his feet. was the bipartisan commission proposed by elizabeth warren? number one. then you can respond to -- ask me a question. did you propose or did she propose a bipartisan commission? and number two, is that what you introduced into the house saying that was the fairest approach? mr. frank: if the gentleman would yield. first i would say the control

of the currency is in the treasury for administrative purposes is legally independent. the secretary of the treasury has no right to interfere. and the control of the currency is not subject to appropriation. so the control of the currency is even more independent -- mr. baucus -- mr. bachus: that doesn't sound like a yes or no. mr. frank: i made a statement about the control of the currency i thought was inaccurate. as to elizabeth warren, yes. that's what she originally proposed and i decided and others on our side decided this would be more effective. we thought after listening that the five-member commission wouldn't work as well, particularly with the senate refusing to confirm. mr. bachus: that's right. mr. frank: we listened -- mr. bachus: what the gentleman said is yes. that's what elizabeth war roan proposed. and then he says, yes, that's what i introduced. but then he said, but i decided at some point that we would rather have an unaccountable

czar. because we -- mr. frank: would the gentleman yield? mr. bachus: the second thing -- mr. frank: point the order, mr. speaker. point of order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama suspends. state your point of order the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: the gentleman just simply misstated plainly what i said. said i want a single accountable czar. he was not quoting me. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman state his point of order. mr. frank: the gentleman misstated my words clearly and i believe they should be taken down. mr. bachus: he said a single director which doesn't have to come to congress for an appropriation. and the second thing we did is we have an appeal process or review process. now, what the -- if i could have the second slide. what we have asked for is what you said you gave us.

but you created this legislation, i won't say who, created a sham review process. a sham review process. we want a realistic review process. we don't think anyone, we don't think any single person ought to be able to dictate a rule without any accountability. so our third slide, or third -- what do we do? what have you -- what is set up in dodd-frank? what is set up is seven out of the 10 regulators have to determine that any one rule will endanger the entire financial system. in other words, one rule, president obama's appointees, it takes seven of the 10 to say

that it would bring down the entire financial system. well, how would one rule ever do that? what we say is it endangers the safety and soundness of our financial institution. and that's -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. bachus: that's all we do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i would like to inquire how many speakers remain on the gentleman from texas' side? mr. sessions: i appreciate the question. we are through with our speakers and would encourage the gentleman to finish his side. and then we'll close. mr. polis: how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york has two minutes left. ms. slaughter: i thank you very much. i shall use that to close. my colleague i understand has no more speakers. mr. speaker, this rule and this bill will do nothing but get in the way of the important work of an agency designed to help

consumers being taken advantage of by inscrupulous lenders. the consumer financial protection bureau is not even up and running yet. there is no reason to think it won't work exactly as intended. and is that what the majority is afraid of? are they afraid that cfpb will make prices clear? that they'll make terms and conditions clear? that thee will ensure that mortgage disclosures are short, relevant, and understandable by the consumer and lender? were they worried about letting consumers shop for the best product at the lowest price? to help consumers understand the true cost of a financial transaction? that a cop on the beat will make sure the largest financial institutions in this country are following the law? if that's what they are afraid of, then we don't want to join them, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule. no on the underlying bill. so that consumer financial protection bureau can do its job without congress getting in the way and i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york yields back her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: i thank you, mr. speaker. congress has an opportunity today to ensure that we protect consumers and american business. both. additionally we have an opportunity to ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions in the united states. that's what we are here to do also. reforms to the cfpb are necessary and i believe timely. congress must and has a responsibility to do everything that we can to encourage economic growth, jump-start the free enterprise system, and put americans back to work. growing our economy and slowing federal spending will be the best way that we can work together to get our economy back on track and get out of rising debt and also of the financial malaise that's under way. this legislation provides for some of these necessary steps.

i applaud my colleagues. i thank my colleagues also on the republican side who were here to not only defend what we are doing but to talk about the need for such action. this bill that we are facing here today has the support of the chairman of the financial services committee, the chairman of the committee on rules meet, -- committee, and i applaud them for providing such an open and transparent process. i also encourage a yes vote on the rule and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time having expired, without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are

ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 359 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 58. house resolution 359. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 2551, making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate, the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution and except pro forma amendments offered at any time by the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees for the purpose of debate. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as

may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: house resolution 359 provides for a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 2551, the fiscal 2012 legislative branch appropriations bill. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule providing

for consideration of h.r. 2551. this rule represents a continuance of fulfilling the new republican majority's pledge to implement a more open legislative process in providing for consideration of a bipartisan list of 16 amendments which is more than at any time dating back to at least 1988. 12 amendments were made in order in both the second session of the 103rd congress and first session of the 104th. this is in stark contrast to the past two congresses in which democrat domination of this house provided for a collective grand total of four amendments that were allowed to be debated during the past four years when three remain in order during the first session of the 110th, and one in the first session of the 111th. in fact, even considering the legislative branch appropriations bill is a change

of pace from democrat control when two years yielded no consideration of stand alone funding legislation, the second sessions of both the 1 -- 110th and 111th congresses. in other words, with the consideration of this single rule and bill, the house republican majority is making in order four times as many amendments on stand-alone legislative branch appropriations legislation as were provided for in the previous four years of liberal democrat house domination combined. . given the terrible budgetary mess we inherited from the liberal democrats, the underlying bill reflects the republican house majority's continued drive for restoring the fiscal restraint that is so desperately needed in this city. the bill promotes $3.3 billion for legislative branch entities including $1.2 billion for house

operations and $2.1 billion for legislative branch agencies and other offices including the capitol police, congressional budget office, the library of congress, the government accountability office and government printing office. this total is $227 million or 6% less than the current funding and $472 million or 9% less than requested by the offices and agencies covered by this bill. the cuts come on top of the $2.-- 2.5% or $115 million cut from fiscal year 2010, contained in h.r. 1473, which was the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution deal that was ultimately signed into law. the bill provides $4.5 billion for that -- that bill provided $4.5 billion for the legislative branch including a reduction of

$55 million in funding for the house from the year before and provides a 5% cut in member, committee and leadership office expenses except for the appropriations committee which offered a larger 9% cut. at this point, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert at this place in the record a budgetary outline of h.r. 2551. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. even with all these funding reductions, it's easy for those who look at washington, d.c., and see only political dysfunction to oppose providing any funding at all for the legislative branch. while they may see this bill simply as a vehicle for fattening the paychecks of congressional staff and other undesirables we must remember the important work these support people provide in the function of the most important branch of government. contrary to popular belief,

congressional staffers work notoriously long hours for relatively little pay and help us represent the views of our constituents. furthermore hundreds of thousands of constituents throughout the country are help ed to navigate the federal bureaucracy every day by a local case worker working in nearby district offices. their work here is hardly the self-enrichment many people are led to believe by populous media sources, eager to post headlines. at the same time we must remember the many important functions this funding provides in sever serving and protecting the american preliminary -- in serving and protecting the american public. given ever evolving security threats, this bill funds the capitol police who protect critical infrastructure as well as secure the safety of the thousands who visit capitol hill every day and we thank the capitol police for their invaluable service. furthermore, this bill's funding

provided for the maintenance, operation, development and preservation of 17.4 million square feet of buildings and more than 460 acres of land throughout capitol hill including the house and senate office buildings, the u.s. capitol, capitol visitor's center, the library of congress buildings, the supreme court buildings, the u.s. botanic garden, the capitol power plant and other facilities which are needed for presidential inaugurations and other ceremonies of national importance. the responsible funding level in this bill provide adequate funding for the critical functions of the legislative branch but also represent a step in the right direction towards enhancing government efficiency. during these times of fiscal restraint, this bill underscores the new house republican majority's will to share in the pain of difficult spending decisions. mr. speaker, not too long ago it

used to be that funding levels weren't rising fast enough. then congress was -- that if funds levels weren't rising fast enough then congress was seen as cutting a program. that reality is no longer. when the new house republican majority says we're going to cut spending, we actually reduce spending. this is the commonsense understanding of the american people which is reflected in the underlying legislation and i will urge my colleagues over and over to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves her time. the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentlewoman from north carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and rise in opposition to the rule, again, a rule that is not an open rule, it allows for different amendments to be

brought forth under this rule as we have done with other appropriations bills. i also rise in opposition to the underlying bill. mr. speaker, when americans think of congress they rightly picture our beautiful capitol building, its iron dome, the rotunda filled with so many tourists each day and so many sites on the national mall and around the capitol complex. but that is really just the physical infrastructure that we all live in and around. what really makes congress function or fail to function are its people. its human capital. the staff that we have on the hill to help keep members informed and able to effectively operate an increasingly complex world, the bill before us risks squandering congress' human capital. the bill cuts the legislative branch by 6.4% below 2011 and 9% below 2010 funding levels. what that means is the hardworking and underpaid and overworked men and women who staff our offices and our committees, giving long hours,

frequently giving up their weekends, they'll be working through next weekend, mr. speaker, and i think very few jobs are they thrilled to be informed that they have the weekend off and i know that not only myself but my staff rejoiced in leadership's decision to allow us not to work this weekend. i think that that is a thing that most people assume they're not working on the weekends and we assume we are and we're happy when we only have a five-day workweek and that's the type of dedication that brings people to this line of work. this cut will result in layoffs and pay cuts for members of the staff and i'd like to point out it doesn't ask anything of the highest paid people here, the members of congress. we make $174,000 a year, i'm a co-sponsor of a bill to reduce that by 5%. but here we are cutting salaries for people making $30,000 and $40,000 a year without cutting the salaries of any of us who make $174,000 a year. and again i think that's just wrong. i think it's consistent with the

republican agenda, of preserving tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year and making hard working middle class families dig deeper and pay more by cutting student loans and programs that they benefit from. so it shouldn't come as any surprise that this legislation -- legislative appropriations bill is consistent with that in that it asks great sacrifices at a time that we all agree our country has to cut back, but it asks great sacrifices of those making $30,000, $40,000 a year and takes nothing away and demands nothing of those who are earning $174,000 a year, namely the members of congress themselves. another concern about this bill is the set of strengthening security -- instead of strengthening security in the wake of violence against members including the events in tucson several months ago, and instead of investing in inspectors they've slashed under this proposal every operation under the legislative branch except

for capitol police but including the sergeant at arms office. and again this represents a potential physical threat to members at a time when unfortunately our national discourse is has -- discourse has become more divisive than ever. this bill also cuts the library of congress by 8.5% and i want to explain, mr. speaker, what the library of congress does and how we as members of congress rely on them. they are our objective research service. my staff and i, along with other members of this body, rely on the congressional research service. we get experts on issues on the phone, bring them to our offices to gain their expertise on complicated appropriation, budget issues, peace process in the middle east. this information is a vital part of producing sound legislation. they are our only objective source of information. by reducing their ability to supply members of congress and our staffs with quality

information, we only empower the lobbyists and the other exclusive purveyors of information in this town who will give less objective information than members of congress and their staffs will have to increasingly rely on rather than the congressional research service. the government accountability office is cut by 6.4%. i want to point out that the g.a.o. saves money. again, every dollar we spend to the g.a.o. results in $4 in savings. this is an office charged with finding savings and excess, duplicative expenditures. so by cutting their ability to do that we actually increase wasteful spending elsewhere in the budget. it's the congressional -- congressional watchdog, taking away funding from the g.a.o. means taking away methods of how we can alert policymakers to emerging wasteful spending. and wasteful programs throughout government. g.a.o. is proven to protect taxpayer dollars, it was g.a.o. that warned congress about problem notice saving and loan industry, it was g.a.o. that warns congress about the dangers of deficit spending, if there's a looming issue that's not

getting public attention but threatens public dollars the g.a.o. needs to be there to do thoughtful research and help congress understand these issues. also very concerned with the cuts to the congressional budget office a 6% cut. the congressional budget office is critical to reducing our deficit. to cut congressional budget office spending now at a time when we are coming up with trillions -- trillion-dollar plans to reduce our deficit would prove that the majority does not value proper accounting or prompt consideration of important policy proposals. we want to make sure that what we are passing has cost savings, reduces the deficit and cuts spending and the taxpayers are protected. we also want to make sure we pass legislation as expediently as possible. and if we're cutting off funding to the congressional budget office then we expect layoffs, i'm not sure that we have the taxpayers' best interests at heart. there are also amendments brought forth in the rules committee that unfortunately had

-- if we had an open amendment process we would be able to include, but we're not -- but were not made in order thunderstorm particular rule, including a bipartisan aement -- amendment by debby wasserman schultz and representative shike earth. it would have provided $100,000 rededicated from another account to name one of our rooms in the capitol visitor's center, the gabriel zimmerman meeting room who is gabriel zimmerman? he's the first staff person in this country's history to die in the line of duty. he was with representative giffords in the january 8 tragedy in tucson, arizona, that struck this country and shocked our nation and really tore through the fabric of the congressional community. representative schweikert and wasserman schultz came together to provide a fitting memorial for a member of our congressional family that died in the line of service. gabe zimmerman was a loyal, dedicated public servant and he made the ultimate sacrifice to this country as the first

congressional staffer murdered in the line of duty in the history of our country. this distinction wouldn't cost taxpayers any money and would recognize not only the devoted service of gabe but also of the thousands of other staff people on capitol hill and i think would have been appropriate particularly at a time when every member's office will be involved with pay cuts and layoffs as a result of the 6.5% cut to. show that beyond the dollars -- cut. to show that beyond the dollars, the giving of your life and the dedication of the staffs that keep us well informed and making decisions is appreciated by the institution of congress as a whole. i therefore oppose the rule as well as the underlying bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. my colleague from colorado would

have the american people believe that we can't make any cuts in spending at the federal government level. but i don't believe that argument's going to go very far. the american people know that we can make big cuts in spending at the federal government level and republicans are making sensible cuts in spending at the federal government level. in the legislative branch it's not a huge amount of money that we have control over but we believe on our side of the aisle that we should make spending cuts everywhere. many millions of americans have lost their jobs since the democrats took control of this congress in january, 2007. we had a 4.35% unemployment rate when they took over and now we've had north of a 9% unemployment rate for several

years. those people didn't have any choice at all about whether they continue their income or not. what we're saying is we want to continue the vital functions, those particularly that serve the american people. we want to keep this capitol looking great, we want to keep the capitol police force at full force, we want to give them the tools that they need. but everybody in washington, d.c., can work a little harder and spend a little less money to make it easier on the american public and that's what we're recommending in this bill and i believe this rule does a very good job of representing the amendments that were presented to the rules committee. mr. speaker, i could go on and on about the problems we are facing here, but i think it's better if i quote someone who

puts some of the situation that we have here in perspective. so i'd like to quote a "washington post" article by charles krauthammer, a billant essayist, who has put forward these -- this article. he said, these are solutions that are being suggested -- other solutions are being suggested by the man who, and i'm going to quote throughout, mr. speaker, and i'll tell you when i'm ending my quote, ignored the debt problem for two years by kicking the can to a commission, promptly ignored the commission's december 2010 report, delivered the state of the union address in january that didn't even mention the word debt until 35 minutes into the speech, delivered in february a budget so embarrassing it actually increased the deficit that the democrat-controlled senate rejected it 97-0. took a budget mulligan april 13

debt plan speech, asked in congress how this new budget framework would affect the actual federal budget, congressional budget office director replied with a devastating, we don't estimate speeches. you can't assign numbers to air. the flip-flop is transparently political. a clever strategy it is. do nothing and invite the republicans to propose real debt reductions first. and when they do voting for the ryan budget and it's now infamous and courageous medicare reform demagogue them to death and up the anti-ee -- amount nte. first you get the get the g.o.p. by daring to lay a finger on nements. then you demand the g.o.p. seize the third rail by violateling this no tax pledge. a full spectrum electrocution, brilliant. and what had been obama's own debt reduction ideas? in last week's news conference he railed against the tax break

for corporate jet owners, six times. i did the math. if you collect that tax for the next 5,000 years, that's not a typo, 5,000 years, it would equal the new debt obama racked up last year alone. to put it another way, if we had leffleff have ied this tax at the time of john the baptist and collected every year since, we would have 500 years to go before we offset half the debt added by obama last year alone. obama's other favorite deficit reduction refrain is canceling and oil company tax break. if you collect that oil tax in the corporate jet tax for the next 50 years, you will not have offset obama's deficit spending for february, 2011, end quote. mr. speaker, there you have it. liberal hypocrisy exposed in another brilliant krauthammer essay. the choice before the american

people is clear. we can either continue accommodating the fashions of the liberal elite in cementing a bloated dependency state fueled by job crushing tax increases, or we can trim spending so private sector employers and innovators who are the real creators of wealth can do what they do best in healing the wounds of unsustainable government largess. mr. speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply cannot stand any kind of cuts. what they want are tax increases and continued irresponsible spending. republicans are bringing a different message, a message from the american people. and with that i reserve the balance the my time. -- reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, is recognized, for 3 1/2 minutes. ms. lee: i thank the gentleman for yielding and also for his leadership.

i rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to the underlying bill. as a member of the appropriations committee and former vice chair of the leg branch subcommittee, i am deeply saddened by republicans' ongoing efforts to weaken and dismantle our democracy. leh appropriations bill is simply an inadequate and misguided bill. we must not gut one of the co-equal branches of government. we should be working to ensure that we are strengthening and preserving the most direct voice, the american people have in our government. the legislative branch, especially the house of representatives, the people's house. passing this bill will undermine one of the fundamental building blocks of our democracy and it will weaken our nation. failing to provide adequate resources to the leg branch will mean that all of our congressional offices, both here and in our home district,

will face cuts in staff. the constituents services that we provide would suffer right when our people need them the most. our constituents rely on our staff to help us develop sound legislation and to provide constituent casework. our constituents rely on them to keep them informed about the complex and incredible diverse issues that face our nation each and every day. i worked as a staffer for my mentor and predecessor, congressman ron dellums. i know very well how hard staffers work to help us represent the american people. these staffers are paid much less. they work more hours than most public employees not to mention the private sector employees. we need to keep in place the resources necessary to attract the best and the brightest to public service. when you cut this budget, you are creating more unemployed people who will need to go on unemployment compensation.

this is an example of the policies that republicans are putting forward to create more unemployment and a nonresponsive government. it is vital that our district offices and our washington offices are fully staffed to make sure that our constituents, this is about our constituents, that they will continue to have access to the services so that they don't just get hung out there once again because in this hard economic time, many, many people are desperate and they need our help. this is just another sign post on the road to ruin during this good luck republican congress. this bill says good luck to finding a job. it says good luck to finding affordable health care. this bill says good luck to keeping your home and your family intact. good luck to feeding your family and your children. when the public demands, as

they should, constituents services and help, this bill says good luck to our constituents, representative democracy is really on its way out the door. casework will be greatly diminished with these unrealistic budget cuts. bills like this clearly show the republican agenda for what it is. it's really good luck, you are on your own. let me ask members to please oppose this bill because this is not good. it's not good for our staffs. it's not good for our constituents. it's nod good for the country. thank you. -- it's not good for our country. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to my distinguished colleague from texas, mr. sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, is recognized for three minutes. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you vch. i want to thank the distinguished the gentlewoman

from north carolina who sits right next to me in the rules committee and has for a number of years. i appreciate not only her leadership but her service. mr. speaker, i want to stand up just as a member of this body. we are all equal representatives in this body, and i do recognize that there are people that come down here and talk about all the layoffs that will occur and all the hard times. people losing their insurance. and all the dramatic things that will happen. mr. speaker, we need a 6% cut. we need a 6% cut because we have been receiving outlandish increments of increases for a number of years, including the first year i believe that speaker pelosi was in, a 10% increase. mr. speaker, the american people are having a tough time. but the american free enterprise system when faced with these students, and i think it's what will happen in our offices, we are all going to look at each other and instead of laying somebody off,

we'll all understand there's not enough money to go around and we'll have to take a sacrifice. that's what i intend to do in my office and i hope my employees will understand that. this is going to mean some changes. and sometimes change is hard. but just to continue to receive more money because the taxpayers who we control the money, that taxpayers would expect us to just answer every one of their questions and do every one of the things is an outlandish example of a government out of control. we need to make sure that our offices are just as responsible as other areas of the government. it's time to cut back. it's time that we take a hit. it's time that we join with the rest of the american people and understand these are difficult times. these are difficult times because government is too big, costs too much money, listens too little, and now is inadaptive to the hard time

themselves. mr. speaker, i say let's vote for this legislative appropriations bill and let's cut the amount of money that we have for ourself and the house of representatives. a 6% cut helps lead the way. we can do that. that's what republicans are -- why we are in the majority. we can make tough decisions in difficult times. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire as to the whether the other side has remaining speakers? ms. foxx: we have no remaining speakers. we would be happy to close. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: again i know how my colleague from texas and my colleague from north carolina have discussed how this is -- how tough these economic times are and how congress needs to tighten its belt. that's true. but where is the actual belt tightening for members of congress ourselves? what are members being called

upon to sacrifice? did we cut our own salaries to help spare layoffs for staff people making $25,000 a year? no. how about the many members of congress who proudly talk about living in their offices. are they going to start paying rent? they are essentially living rent free on the government dime. they use electricity, water, and other taxpayer paid for resources. we have members of congress who are squatters in government buildings. and as a businessman i can tell you if i owned a piece of commercial real estate and decided to start saving money or rent by living in my office, i would be violating the law. don't tell us we are being frugal by living in our office. we are living free at taxpayers' expense. any member who does that. how about the cars the members lease? i know too many americans giving them a free car to use. but members of congress have that benefit. and many abuse it with car leases that cost as much as $1,000 a month or more. i appreciate there is an amendment on this issue, but those car leases should be eliminated in this bill not capped at $1,000. members would still be

permitted to have cars that cost $950 a month paid for by taxpayers at the same time we are slashing salaries of staff people making $25,000 and $30,000 a year. in difficult economic times it makes sense it cut back on everything. it makes sense to cut back on our own perks before laying off hardworking employees. congress chose not to do this with this bill and the closed process associated with this bill does not allow us to bring these proposals forward. when it comes time to cut, the majority has said, hit the little guy. leave the big guy alone. hit the person who can least afford to go without. talk about shared sacrifice right up until it involves giving up something that benefits you or your friends. if you vote for this bill, mr. speaker, please tell me that you are willing to make the hard choices about the budget for the good of the nation's. we have made the easy choices. this bill cuts members' day to

day ability to effectively represent constituents while leaving all of the perks of office unch touched -- untouched. i strongly urge a no vote on both the rule and the bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, yields back his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i don't think members of congress should be extravagant in their spending in any way whatsoever, but i think it's up to the voters to hold those members responsible for what they do. if there is a member that's leasing a car, that's paying an exorbitant amount of money, the voters should turn that person out if they think they are wasting their money. i would certainly think that person's wasting his or her money. that's up to the voters to take care of. we are doing our part here in the congress. we are balancing between making

sensible cuts and making sure that the public is well served when it visits washington, d.c. , and the pun lick should be -- public should be well served by the individual members. and i hope if there are abuses on the part of any member of congress, no matter which party he or she belongs to, that the voters will look into that and take care of that person, but that is not our exact responsibility here. our responsibility is as it is everywhere, is to allow certain amount of money to be spent in the members' offices and then hold each member -- each member should be held individually responsible. . mr. speaker, we've discussed why america needs this rule and this bill. voting for these measures will allow the house to continue its work toward resolving the debt crisis currently gripping the nation. as we continue this debate, we must remember the simple truth that tax increases have been

tried before and led us to the mess that we have made today. we are not doing -- we should not be raising taxes because tax increases do nothing more than fuel parasitic, wasteful government spending. we are cutting the spending for the legislative branch in a very responsible way and that's what we should be doing. but it's past time that we pursue an innovative idea, one that's unparalleled in modern american history and that's cut spending and shorten the long arm of government that's currently choking economic prosperity and that's what's happening in every appropriations bill that we're passing. as we rapidly approach our federal debt ceiling, our economy's struggling, people are looking for jobs, americans crave accountability and belt tightening in washington and need the federal government to stop draining job creating resources from the private sector to fund misguided adventures in social

engineering. they demand action and they demand answers. h.r. 2551 for which this rule provides consideration reflects the house republicans' majority's unending commitment to restore fiscal discipline that is so long overdue in this city. it represents a sensible balance between the vital need for budget restraint and funding the critical functions of the legislative branch. without compromising the safety or security of critical infrastructure, this bill further trims the fat and encourages efficiencies while demonstrating that we're not immune to feeling the effects of much-needed spending cuts that are so desperately needed throughout our bloated federal bureaucracy. it is for these reasons that i urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill so we can begin to restore the trust americans have in their federal government. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, yields back her time.

time having been yielded, without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. ms. foxx: with that, mr. speaker, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman from north carolina ask for the yeas and nays? ms. foxx: yes, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 0, this 15-minute vote -- 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of house resolution 359 will be followed by a five-minute vote on adoption of the house resolution 358. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the ayes are 239, the nays are 172. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 359 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 57, house resolution 358, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1315 to amend the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act to strengthen the review authority of the stability oversight council of the bureau issued by the bureau of consumer protection and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the

resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 238, the nays are 177 and the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia rise? mrs. capito: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to

revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 1315 and to insert extraneous material thereon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. capito: pursuant to house resolution 358 and rule 18, the chair declares the house -- oh, that's you, not me. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 358 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1315. the chair appoints the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1315 which

the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act, to strengthen the review authority of the financial stability oversight council of regulations issued by the bureau of consumer financial protection. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentlewoman from west virginia, mrs. capito, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, will each control 30 minutes. the house will come to order. the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. members will take their conversations off the floor. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself four minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection -- the chair: without objection. mrs. capito: thank you. a year ago the president signed into law the most sweeping financial regulatory reform package in nearly a generation. the centerpiece of the dodd-frank act was the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau. while there was nearly unanimous consent -- agreement that improvements were needed in the regulatory system for financial services and consumer credit, we as republicans did not agree that the best answer was creating an entirely new bureaucracy. the chair: the gentlewoman will suspend. the committee will come to order. members take their conversations off the floor. the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized. mrs. capito: no legislation is perfect and dodd-frank is a law that needs to be improved and refined. the legislation before us today marks an important step in improving the structure of the consumer financial protection bureau. and i would like to thank both chairman bachus and mr. duffy

for their leadership on this issue. the creation of the cfpb presents the first time in which consumer protection and safety and soundness will not be handled by the prudential financial regulators for institutions over $10 billion in assets. while we do not agree that many of the prudential regulators -- while we do not disagree that many of the prudential regulators failed to uphold their responsibilities in the years leading up to the financial crisis, there is a legitimate concern in separating consumer protection from safety and soundness. this is why h.r. 1315 is a much-needed improvement to the dodd-frank act. the act gives the financial stability oversight council, known as fsoc, the ability to override a cfpb rule or regulation. however, the flesh hold is set so high -- threshold is set so high, the threshold is so high for the fsoc to consider the overturning of the cfpb rule or regulation that in reality it will never happen. furthermore, a 2/3 majority of the fsoc is needed to overturn

the rule once a petition is filed. this simply sets the bar too high and further exacerbates the problem. this is mr. duffy's bill and it will lower the threshold for petitions the fsoc to regulation which is subject of the petition is inconsist with the safe and sound operations of the united states financial institutions. and will require a simple majority of the fsoc to overturn the cfpb rules. this is a critical improvement to the cfpb that will ensure that the cfpb regulations strike that balance between consumer protection and safety and soundness. also in the print is considered two bills that the financial services committee has reported favorably. the first represents an important change to the leadership structure of the cfpb that will provide greater stability and leadership and moderation and in rule making. as we've seen over the last nine years, the current leadership structure provided for the cfpb is subject to toxic political

fightless. individuals and groups from across the political spectrum have advocated for whom they believe to be the ideal candidate and in some cases the only acceptable candidate. this is not good for consumers, and it's not good for the legitimacy of the agency. rather than a single director we are advocating for a five-person commission. this strengthens the leadership of the cfpb in two ways. first, a commission provides greater stability in the leadership. we're all aware of the challenges in the senate's ability to improve nominees. a commission where the individual commissioners are staggered will provide greater stability by ensuring there's always some form of leadership at the cfpb. a commission will also provide greater consistency, not only in rule making but also in administration. i fear that a single director will set up a situation in which the leadership of the cfpb will be subject to the variances and ideology from one administration to another for whoever is appointing the director.

consumers stand to lose the most if we have a situation in which the directorship of the cfpb swings back and forth between the extremes of the political spectrum. and finally h.r. 1315 includes legislation that i introduced to prevent the transfer of full powers to the cfpb which should begin today until there is a senate confirmed director or chairman in place. personally i think this is really good government. we are talking about an agency that is failing -- sailing into unchartered waters without a captain of the ship. it is irresponsible to proceed without a leader confirmed by the senate. in conclusion, i know the creation of the cfpb is a great source of -- is a source of great passion and i look forward to discussing this. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mrs. capito: thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, is recognized. mr. frank: mr. chairman, i yield to one of the leaders in this committee, the gentleman from california, ms. waters, three

minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. chairman. first, i'd like to take a moment to thank barney frank for his leadership in establishing one of the most important pieces of legislation that has ever happened in the congress of the united states of america. and that is the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act of 2010, to create a consumer financial protection bureau. and i'm so pleased to have been able to serve not only on the financial services committee but on the conference committee that worked through all of the difficulty of creating this bureau, to give protection to consumers that had been forgotten, had been dropped off of the regulatory agency's agenda, who had not been protected because they simply

said that they had the responsibility for safety and soundness and they didn't know much about consumer protection, they failed on both, but our consumers have been harmed. the cfpb is needed because it is very clear that our current regulatory framework inadequately protects consumers. just look at the wrongful foreclosures on veterans, the robo signings on foreclosure documents, the 500% interest rates on payday loans, the list of abuses go on and on and on. this bill would undermine the cfpb by creating a commission instead of a director, making it easier for the financial stability oversight council to override cfpb rules and delaying the transfer date for the cfpb until there is a director confirmed by the senate. in short, this bill would bring us back to the days when harmful financial products and practices

went unchecked and consumers paid the price in the form of high interest rates, predatory subprime mortgages and bad credit card bills. we've seen what happens when our banking regulators are tasked with both consumer protection and bank safety and soundness responsibilities. the anticonsumer stance wins every time. that's why we created cfpb, to make sure that consumer voices weren't shouted down by the industry and that an independent agency is beholden to consumers and not c.e.o.'s, a strong regulator, which one focused on consumer safety and champ oned simple disclosure and products could have preeventualitied the current economic crisis -- crisis and the ensuing foreclosures, bankruptcies and defaults, preventing the cfpb from doing its work as this bill would, would only hurt american consumers and turn our economy

upside down. i oppose this bill. mr. speaker, and members, it is evidence what was needed and it is inconceivable that at this point in time we could have legislation that would undermine the good work of the conference committee, of the dodd-frank legislation that is in the best interests of all americans, all consumers. i ask for a no vote on this bill. the chair: the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized. mrs. capito: i'd like to recognize the chairman of the full committee, mr. bachus of alabama, an i thank him for his leadership on this bill and many otherings. mr. bachus for sick minutings. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for six minutes. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, what is this awful thing that republicans

are bringing tpwhever congress today? this monstrosity the democrats have called it is an attack on consumers. it's a proposal first brought to us by our democratic colleagues and that was to have a bipartisan commission to protect consumers. that is what we're being attacked for today. a five-member board. now, all of us in this body are for consumer protection. our voters, our constituents, are all consumers. and we are all for protecting them. we're also for protecting our financial institutions and our economy. and we need a balance. so how do we achieve that? well, the democrats, elizabeth

warren, the originator of this -- of this consumer protection commission, back in 2007, proposed a consumer protection product safety commission. in 2008, the consumer federation of america pr posed a financial product safety commission. senator dick durbin, acting on their recommendations, introduced in 2009, a consumer protection commission. with a director and a board. then, the then-chairman of the committee, in july of that year, introduced a bill, five-member board. the energy and commerce commission followed that a few months later with, what, a five-member commission. then senator dodd issued his

draft discussion. what did he propose? a five-member commission. because it needed to be bipartisan. it needed to be balanced. but what was passed out of this body in the -- really, after three nights of amendments and sessions that went all day? well, what came about was an unaccountable czar. one person. the dodd-frank bill put a single director in charge and it gave him unmitigated discretion to issue rules. to ban financial products. to determine what products would be offered. whether you're a borrower, whether you're a lender, whether you're a consumer of financial services, or whether you offer financial services, he will determine or she will determine what those services will be and the terms of those services.

so, what is wrong with that? well, let me say this. in america do, we give one person the power to do whatever they want to to regulate every product and service that we are offered, or that we can accept, or that we as a company can offer? that sounds to me like a government command and control economy. with the government making choices that we make. so for that reason, we've been attacked for proposing a five-member, bipartisan commission instead of an unaccountable czar. the pattern from my democratic colleagues continues to be, we're going to put one person in charge of an agency and we're going to let them make

all the decisions and that -- there'll be no real review of those decisions. people can either take it or leave it. it's up to the government. the government controls everything. mr. speaker, i wouldn't want george washington, i wouldn't want abraham lincoln, i wouldn't want mother theresa to have that kind of power that, to me is not what a democracy is about. and if you look at the person who is he appointed by? he's appointed by the president of the united states. there's no input from congress. not only can he determine all these problems, but his funding, he doesn't have to come to the taxpayers or their representatives for funding. he doesn't have to come to the congress to get funding. he's totally unaccountable. now, mr. chairman, how in the

world is proposing for the consumer financial protection bureau the exact same model that the f.d.i.c. -- f.t.i.c. is set up with, the federal deposit insurance commission, the securities and exchange commission. all of these are commissions, all of them are bipartisan. they basically ensure that no one political party, one agenda, or one person will make decisions for every american, every day. but that's what has been created an the monster is not the bill we bring forward. the monster is the bill that you created. you took a good idea and ruined it. you took a good idea that was all about consumer protection and converted it into a one-man show where one person could control every financeable product or every offering in

america. it could ban any product. it could say to any american, you cannot enter into that financial agreement. it could say to every american, you can't make that financial decision. and mr. chairman, that is un-american. how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the quelt from alabama has 30 seconds. mr. bachus: i reserve my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from alabama may not reserve. the gentlewoman from west virginia controls the time. mrs. capito: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, is recognized. mr. frank: i'm appalled at the gentleman saying it's un-american. and he made a misstatement when he said we took a good idea and ruined it. if it was such a good idea, why

was ohe opposed to that good idea? he's making a big deal of the fact that we switched our view after listening to people, after having hearings, we made a change. that's why you have hearings. we desaied after debate that the model of the control of the currency a single individual, appointed by the president, was a better model for the consumer agency, to so does everyone else who supported it. the gentleman from alabama said, that was a good idea and you runed it. the gentleman from alabama was opposed to it when it was a good idea. he was opposed to the notion of an independence consumer agency. he makes a point of stressing that, yes, after hearing, a single individual would be better than a consumer hearing. he made a change that dwarred the tra yectry of ours. he is now telling us retroactively that it was a good idea. even then, today on television,

he said, we have concerns about an agency whose sole concern is to protect the consumer unless they worry -- worry about the banks as well. there are three parts of the bill and he took the only part he thought he could defend. it would say that the part of the bill that would give us powers over the payday lenders and mortgage lenders, he didn't talk about that. i will admire his discrergs of -- discretion. of the three parts of the bill, he only talked about up with he didn't taubt act -- talk about putting the bank regulators back in charge, and he didn't talk about their proposal to postpone until we get a senate confirmation which the majority in the senate, not a majority but the senate minority said they won't allow to happen, they'll have a filibuster, to postpone the knew power. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from west virginia mrs. capito: i yield two minutes to mr. bachus. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bachus: i never voted for a stand-alobe consumer protection advancement -- consumer protection bill, i never voted against it, because that was never offered. what was offered was a 10,000-page extravaganza for federal employees to enforce rules that weren't enforced in the first place. i consistently said let's enforce the rules we have and not just hire more regulators and create more rules. as you know, we offered a bill which did have several positions. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman from west virginia, reserves. mr. frank: the gentleman from

alabama did in fact vote against it. it wasn't just voted on in the final. we had a markup in committee just on this bill. and the gentleman voted against a free standing consumer agency whether it had five minutes -- members or not. he said it was a good idea which we ruined but he voted against it. the republicans offered a substitute which took 14 officials, made them a council, gave them the power to have a hot line and said if anything comes over the hot line, they hand it back to the bank regulators who he says are there to serve the banks, and they'll deal with it. i recognize the gentleman from maryland for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the ranking member for yielding. mr. speaker, we are still feeling the effects of a crisis that largely came about because the referees who oversee the

soundness of our financial system were not on the field. we took the referees off the field. as a result, millions of americans are still out of work. but while democrats have worked to restore proper oversight to wall street, republicans want the referees off the field again. and that would put us all at risk. this legislation puts the special interests ahead of the public interests by weakening the very entity that shields responsible consumers from financial abuses. last year, congress passed an important wall street reform bill in order to prevent a job the stroying financial crisis from happening again. and one of the most crucial parts of that bill was they the creation of a new consumer financial protection bureau, a watchdog, a watchdog that would

look out for the interests of ordinary americans who want to sign mortgages, apply for student loans and start businesses on honest and fair terms. the consumer financial protection bureau is empowered to ensure that lenders provide clear, plain-language explanation of loan terms and to stop the kind of abuse and deceptive loan practices that helped drive our economy off the cliff. if such protections had been in place since the last decade, the odds of a crisis occurring would have been significantly less. i want to tell my fren from alabama, he said that there was no congressional involvement. in fact, of course, the president does appoint but it is with the advice and consent of the senate, so that the entire senate, as is normal, is involved in this appointment. but the republican legislation that we have on the floor today would make it much easier to overturn these consumer

protection rules. it would make the people's watchdog far weaker at a time when they are needed more than ever this legislation is part of the republicans' stated goal to dismantle wall street reform. protecting special interests but leaving america unprotected from another pry crisis, removing america's defenses when we have not even fully recovered from the last crisis is a new level, in my view, of irresponsibility. i urge my colleagues, think of what we have been through. think of our response to believe the make sure it doesn't happen again. think of our responsibility to make clear that the interest of your constituents come first and vote this bill down. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from m.d. yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized.

kop kop thank you, mr. chairman. i'm really just amazeded a the -- mrs. capito: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm just amazed at the hyperbole of the dismantling and the weakening of the agency. the bureau will go forward with all of the consumer protections that it's empowered with in the dodd-frank bill. the original intent was a commission. we go back to a commission. let me just tell you, the president has had an entire year to nominate this very important person to lead this bureau. and it wasn't until the beginning of this week, monday, that he finally got around to it. what kind of signal what does that send? at least to me it send as signal it really isn't all that important to have that person there, senate confirmed as the minority leader said with the oversight of the united states senate. and let's talk about the financial services oversight commission, there's 10 people on there. all right? i'm going to go through they can quickly.

secretary of the treasury, he's confirmed. chairman of the federal reserve, bernanke, he's confirmed. director of the cfpb, somebody nominated four days ago, empty. chairman of the fdic, acting director, a nomination but nobody confirmed. controller of the currency, acting director, no one confirmed. chairman of the ncua confirmed, chairman of the s.e.c. confirmed, chairman of the cfpb confirmed, director of the ffha director, no nominee. five of the people on this 10-person commission are not even permanently -- mr. frank: will the gentlewoman yield? mrs. capito: no, i will not. i say to myself, what kind of priority is this administration putting on this markey part of the dodd-frank bill? now i'd like to yield to mr. hensarling, our vice chair. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i thank her for her leadership

on this issue. mr. chairman, already we know that in america we are looking at 9.2% unemployment. since the president told us if we would pass his stimulus plan, $1 trillion, unemployment would never go beyond 8% and now he is presiding over the longest period of high unemployment since the great depression. we just got the statistics since they've been keeping them, it now takes almost 10 full months for somebody unemployed to find a job. one in seven on food stamps. the fewest new business starts in 17 years. this economy is not suffering so much from a lack of capital, it is a lack of confidence and a lack of confidence primarily in the policies of our president and the previous congress.

part of that lack of confidence is attributable to dodd frank and this -- dodd-frank that cfpb which, yes, does have some wonderful consumer protection powers but also has historic draconian powers to ration and ban consumer credit for families and small businesses. and yet here it is, as the gentlelady from west virginia pointed out, almost a year later, only now, only now has the president seen fit to appoint some type of director. the lack of confidence in these policies is what is keeping jobs and capital on the sideline. it is incumbent upon us to return that confidence so, yes, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is yet again another jobs bill. we need to say, you know what? small businesses of america,

there's not going to be one czar, one czar who controls consumer credit, we're at least going to have a panel representing both primary parties in the united states. and oh, by the way, at least now somebody will have to consider safety and soundness and what this bureau does, the people who are telling us don't worry about it are the same people who told us, don't worry about safety and soundness when it comes to fannie mae and freddie mac. come on, it's all about consumers, it's all about homeownership, let's roll the dice, donets worry about safety and soundness. well, mr. speaker, we have to worry about safety and soundness. american small businesses are worried about safety and soundness. it is time to bring some confidence, it is time to bring some certainty so that we can get our friends, our neighbors and our constituents back to work because they don't want welfare checks, they want pay checks and this is one small

step we can take today to provide that certainty. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the gentlewoman from west virginia reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: first i yield myself 15 seconds to say, the gentleman from texas talked about fannie mae and freddie mac. but he doesn't do anything about it. the majority has been the majority since january. the gentleman from texas filed a big tough bill about fannie mae and freddie mac a year ago. he has sat sweetly and quietly by while his majority has ignored it and taken no action on it. the republicans always talk tough about fannie mae and freddie mac when they're in the minority and then they get in the majority and they choke. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a leader in fighting in particular against speculation and the abuse of derivatives. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank the gentleman for yielding, for his advocacy on behalf of the american consumer. the dodd-frank act created the consumer financial protection

bureau with the sole purpose of ensuring that financial markets work for and not against american families. it established a single director empowered with a singular mandate which is simply to protect the consumer. this bill, h.r. 1315, seeks to weaken the cfpb on the day it opens its doors for the first time in two important ways. firstly it would make it more difficult for the consumer protection bureau to act by replacing the director with a five-member commission. mr. lynch: as has been shown, a single director with executive authority and who is directly responsible to the american consumeer is better suited to act quily -- quickly to address problems in the consumer financial area and he will be accountable to congress for the bureau's actions. on the other hand, a five-member commission creates nor bureaucracy that would be both less effective and less accountable to consumers. as a five-member commission would also, in this case, cost taxpayers an additional $71

million. to watch that, the cost of these commissioners and their staff, we're being asked to use the money from a federal housing administration program created to help responsible americans who have continued to make mortgage payments refinance their underwater homes. according to mark fleming, the chief economist for the property research company, underwater mortgages are a primary factor holding back the housing market and the economy as a whole. and so instead of working to solve this problem and boost our economy, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided that our money is better spent unnecessary -- on not necessarily ex -- unnecessarily expanding the bureaucracy of the cfpb. h.r. 1315 would also make it easier for the same regulators who in many cases were captured by the industries that they oversee and who fell down the job and the lead up to the financial crisis to now overrule the cfpb.

these regulators proved that they were not capable of ensuring the soundness of the financial system while simultaneously protecting american consumers. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, reserves. the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized. mrs. capito: thank you. mr. chairman, can i inquire as to how much time remains on both sides? the chair: the gentlewoman from west virginia has 15 1/2 minutes. and the gentleman from massachusetts has 19 1/4 minutes. mrs. capito: i'd like to recognize mrs. biggert of illinois, a leader on our financial services committee, and chairman of the housing and insurance subcommittee for a minute and a half. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for a minute and a half. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and, mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 1315 which would prevent the most visible legacy of the

dodd-frank act from also becoming the most costly and regrettable. today's legislation will provide the new agency with accountable leadership, proper oversight and a much-needed check against bad decisions. american consumers don't need more bureaucracy to stifle innovation and raise costs. we need regulators to understand that the job isn't just to layer on expensive new rules, it's about educating consumers and preserving a vibrant and competitive financial market that provides affordable and innovative options. unfortunately the current structure of the bureau is subject to virtually no oversight from congress or anyone else and unlike other agencies even the consumer product safety commission on which it is modeled, it is led by a single czar who has unprecedented power. even more dangerous, the financial stability oversight council must agree by a 2/3 majority before they can overturn a rule imposed by the

cfpb. even if that rule threatens to imperil our economy or shut down a financial institution. mr. chairman, our commonsense reform adds a few more voices to a panel that is supposed to protect all consumers, not just those favored by the political powers that be. and it creates a reasonable process to overturn bad or inconsistent decisions. mr. chairman, these reforms will help protect consumers and ensure that the government doesn't stand in their way. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois yields back. the gentlewoman from west virginia reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to be joined by so many leaders on the financial services committee and i now yield to one of them, mr. watt, the gentleman from north carolina, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. watt: thank you, mr. chairman. and let me say at the outset that i was a strong supporter in our committee for the creation of the consumer financial

protection bureau. and remained a strong supporter of the bureau and its mission. the reason i did that was because all of these regulators had within their authority a consumer protection initiative. unfortunately that consumer protection obligation was subordinate to other obligations that each of the regulators had. and so when we started talking about this, i kept saying to them, look, we need a consumer regulator that has as much authority and as least cumbersomeness as any of the other regulators. so if you're going to create a consumer financial protection bureau, don't give the other regulators authority to reverse

them unless you give the consumer financial protection bureau the authority to reverse the other regulators. now, if you think that's fair, do it both ways. this is the only agency that ended up with the other regulators, the federal reserve, the o.c.c., the fdic, having the authority to reverse them and we were able to restrict it to things that was in their jurisdiction if it was a systemic risk that the consumer financial protection bureau was creating by promulgating a rule or regulation, then we thought it was fair to have them police what the consumer financial protection agency was doing. but i don't know of any reason that we would create a child of

an agency to deal with consumer protection when we have -- we don't have a child of an agency dealing with other aspects of the regulation in our financial services industry. so for me this is just about parity. give this agency equal authority and umph as the other agencies have. and we are not asking that the consumer financial protection be able to overrule the federal reserve when it makes a decision, we're not asking that the consumer financial protection agency be able to overrule the o.c.c. when it makes a determination, neither should we be allowing those other agencies, the fdic, the o.c.c., the federal reserve, to

overrule the consumer financial protection bureau when they are not acting within their authority. i thank the gentleman for yielding the time and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to recognize the author of the bill, mr. duffy of wisconsin, for five minutes and thank him for his hard work on this issue. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to take a moment and thank chairman bachus and chairwoman capito for their hard work on this legislation and for their job to make sure that this bill came to the floor today. you know, all of us in this house agree that we want consumer protections where any one of our friends or family members, our neighbors and our constituents, when they deal with the financial institution, they're dealt with in a fair way and in a transparent way. our reform here to the cfpb

does exactly that. i want to talk about a couple of components of this bill. one is, we are moving this from a director to a bipartisan commission. i think it's important to note that my friends on the other side of the aisle, when they first crafted this bill, they included a bipartisan commission and the president when he talked about this bill, he was in favor of a bipartisan commission. and now, all of a sudden, today, as we brought this back up, they are now opposed to a bipartisan commission. i think it's important that we note that today you may have a democrat president and you might like the recommendation for the chairman of the cfpb. but i would guess that at one point in our future, there will be a republican president and you may not like his appointee. let's come together, make sure we have a bipartisan commission that's going to work on behalf of consumers because this isn't a republican or democrat issue.

it's truly an american issue that should be dealt with on a commission level. one other key component of our legislation is the review standard of rules that come from the cfpb. the way it is set up right now, the only way a rule can be overturned is if we are going to have armageddon in the financial industry. so the only one that can have a rule overturned is a big bank on wall street, one who is too big to fail. the way it is currently written, you have given a voice to those people who helped cause this financial crisis. you know what? i'm not from wall street. i'm from small-town, rural wisconsin. we don't have big wall street banks. we have small community banks and we have credit unions. the way the current bill is written, not mine, the one that's in existence today, it doesn't give a voice to the people in my community if a

rule that comes down from the cfpb is going to affect them negatively. on main street, the very people who had nothing to do with the financial crisis, who haven't been given a voice, but will if my bill passes, those are the people who deal with our small business owners. with our family members. people who are looking at expanding their business, growing their business, creating jobs in our community. they rely on community banks and credit unions for loans. and they don't have a voice. i don't understand that. and then, those same people that you look to when you want a mortgage for a home or a car loan, it's these people we look to. they have been left voiceless in the current law. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. duffy: i will not. my bill gives a voice to main street america. i have to say, the point, i don't think can be made clear with those who support my bill.

i don't have big wall street support for my bill. but i'll tell you what support i do have. i have the community bankers of wisconsin. i have the wisconsin bankers association, i have the independent community bankers of america, american bankers association, i have the consumer bankers association. all those who are about small community banks that deal with customers support this reform. we go a step further. we have the wisconsin credit union league. the credit union national association and the national association of credit unions. all people who didn't have any role in this financial crisis, all people in our communities who are looking out for consumers because if they don't, they don't survive in small-town america, and they all support this reform legislation. i would encourage all my colleagues to jump on board and support common sense reform that is going to strengthen consumer protection and provide great oversight for a very

powerful agency and it's going to hold it accountable. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: the gentleman made one more flat mistake when he talked about car loans. car loan rts exempted from this. this is an example of a failure to understand what we're talking about. secondly, he does have wall street support for this bill. i think he mentioned the american bankers association and the notion that the community banks aren't involved is nonsense. the community banks are favored here because the consumer bureau is given the right to examine banks of $10 million in assets or more but can't examine the credit unions and community banks. that was a recognition that -- of that. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

>> the reason that they want to discuss whether it should be five members on the commission or not or one director, that's the only thing you can debate in this bill. i also disagree with the argument that everybody wants to protect consumers. no they do not. we saw what happened in the last decade. we know who was doing it. it was the most powerful industry in america and they were making a ton of money by cleating consumers. cheating consumers on credit cards, on mortgages, cheating consumers on overdraft fees and on and on. mr. miller: we've heard the same arguments about this we heard a century ago, a century ago, when theodore roosevelt pushed for pure food law the meat packers said, do you want government to take away your right to buy meat? do you want government to take away your freedom to buy beef from diseased animals or spoiled beef and the american

people said, yeah, that's exactly what we want. we want to know what we're getting. and americans want to know what they're getting in financial products too. do they want to lose the freedom to get a subprime loan when they qualified for a prime loan? yes, they do. do they want to have a credit card to note what they're getting on the credit card? yes, they do. they want to know that there's somebody with their interests at heart who is reading all that fine print that the banks -- banks' lawyers wrote to be good for the banks, profitable for the banks and let the consumer have no idea what's in that little print in the legalese. yes, they want someone, a strong agency, reading that fine print with their interest at heart in saying, no, you can't do that. you can't cheat consumers that way. that's what this agency does and the american people want it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: could the chairman tell me how much time is remaining, please? the chair: the gentlelady from west virginia has nine and a half minutes, the gentleman has 13 and a half minutes. mrs. capito: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i am sorry the gentleman from west virginia would yield to me but there was a lot of talk about switching positions. the gentleman from west virginia vote -- the gentlelady from west virginia voted against this. now she's for it. i'm glad my republican colleagues, having opposed a consumer agency, now are all for it. now i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. pallone: i want to thank the --

>> i want to thank the gentleman. today, my friends on the other side, the stock market hit its highest point since 2008. isn't that wonderful? and yet we are at 9.2% unemployment. mr. pascrell: i looked at the treasuries, they're doing well. but main street isn't. that's what consumer protection is all about. main street. no question about it. we don't want to go back. we don't want to go back to 2007 and 2008. why? because the conditions that led to the mess we have now, we don't want those conditions to exist now and that's what we've been trying to correct

particularly over the last two years. and here's the consensus, whether our european financial person or someone in the united states. here's the consensus. dodd-frank puts us more on a level playing field. with regard to capital reserves, regards to too big to fail, regardless of what we're talking about, we are oceans ahead of our european partners and our allies in addressing these issues because we're addressing the causes of the financial meltdown in the united states and in foreign allies. and if it wasn't for the gentleman from massachusetts and the gentleman from connecticut at the other end of the building, we wouldn't be where we are today and we'd be saying, let's go back, we want things to be like they were in 2007, and 2008.

well, things were not good. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. pascrell: in this book by james stewart, "how false statements are undermining america," he zeros in on the madoff situation, which became a poster child, no one else has been really brought before us, no one else has suffered for the pain they provided to the middle class and to main street people. we don't want to go back. we want different rules and regulations do have a part in this. and the person strugging day in and day out needs our help. they don't need it. it doesn't matter who the president nominated. you'll turn it down. this is bureau you want to destroy. the chair: the gentleman's time has ex-spired. the gentlelady from inch -- as expired. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: today is a nice day, but we have 9.2% unemployment.

it's not a day i want to keep repeating with so many out of work. with that, i recognize the gentleman from west virginia, a member of the financial services committee, mr. hurt. mr. hurt: one year ago, the president signed into law a law that has staaled job growth in virginia's fifth district and across the country. a centerpiece of the law is the formation of the consumer financial protection bureau, a massive government bureaucracy with little to no accountability. h.r. 1315 will add much-needed oversight to this far-reaching new government agency. these checks and balances will help reform cfpb to help reform small banks and credit unions like those in central and south side virginia, from unnecessary government regulations. these institutions play a

critical role in providing critical capital tour businesses and families as we work to get our economy back on track. we must restore certainty to the marketplace, free throw the economy and create scrobs. i urge me body to pass this bill and i thank the gentlelady. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> mr. frank: i yield to the chair, former and now ranking member, of the small business committee, here's the best protector of small business in the congress, the gentlelady from new york for two and a half minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: mr. chairman, rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1315. my first question is, do my

colleagues on the other side of the aisle really have that short a memory? it was just three years ago when regulator indifference resulted in the single largest loss of middle class prosperity in this nation's history. costing over $3 trillion in this country. in fact, we had spent the last month debating the need to raise the debt, not because of the war in iraq, not the stimulus plan, but because of the massive bailout needed as a result of regulators turning a blind eye to unfair and unsafe lending practices. you can go to any community in any part of this country and see the collateral damage resulting from wall street playing fast and loose on the

disinterested watch of federal regulation. one in eight mortgages are in serious delinquency or foreclosure. ment it was this -- it was this type of dire situation that our working families were left with that necessitate wed create the cfpb. by consolidating all financial protection within cfpb, every american is given the peace of mind that someone is watching out for their interests, not some financial institution's bottom line. unfortunately, the legislation before us today will create a completely unmanageable regulatory process, once again leaving the average american in financial limbo. . i am not willing to go back to those days and

neither are the 200,000 seniors in new york city will be without protection should this legislation pass. vote no on this bill. let's not allow the very regulator that stood by and did nothing while trillions were stolen from americans. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: we're not taking any powers away from the cfpb. we are not reforming any of the reach of the cfpb. but we are looking at the accountability structure of who is going to be governing the cfpb. and the gentlelady was helpful in committee when we amended the commission to have one commissioner particularly looking at specialty issues concerning veterans, elderly and children. i thank her for her input on that and i would like to

recognize the gentleman from new york, a great member of our committee, grimm, for a 1 1/2 minutes. mr. grimm: i'm at a loss of words when i hear that we are weakening this and weakening that. this is simply a commonsense approach and correcting the buyer crack -- buyer crack overreach. it replaces a single director model with a five-member bipartisan commission. that's what this bill is doing. for example, the commission will decrease uncertainty over the rules issued by the cfpb. as the bill is currently structured, they can reverse a decision of his or her

predecessors. such power will do nothing but increase uncertainty in our markets and reduce credit access to businesses and consumers and that stifles job growth. today, we have unemployment at 9.2%. we must, we must stop the job-killing, economy-crushing policies that have come out of washington. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1315 and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself 0 seconds to say, i -- 30 seconds to say, many republicans objected, but a shorter bill -- he talks about one-third of the bill which he talks as if it is the whole bill. it delays the takeover of some of the powers. when a member can't get through a four, five-page bill, i can

understand why they think it's too complex. i now yield to the gentleman. >> imagine a wave of arson attacks was burning down houses and businesses across the city. imagine that the city council responded by trying to delay and water down new laws making arson a crime, refuse to apoint a police and fire chief and gutted funding for public safety. i know that sounds far-fetched but that's what the republican majority is doing in the aftermath in the 2008 financial crisis. american consumers suffered most through job losses, foreclosures, declining home values and decimated retirement accounts. the bill was designed to address fundamental weaknesses. the centerpiece of this law is

the consumer protection bureau, putting consumers first, not wall street or other special interests. the bills we are debating today are part of a coordinated effort by the republicans to let wall street go back to business as usual. they have been trying to delay the implementation of these new rules and gutting funding for the agencies that are supposed to be the cops on the wall street beat and refusing to allow qualified nominees to be considered for appointments. this bill is called the consumer protection act. this bill would make it easier for special interests to block or delay cfpb rules. the american people are sick and tired of gridlock, yet this bill only offers more of the same. in the example above, the fires breaking out across town, ask yourself, mr. speaker, would you -- who would you blame after the next building burned? would it be the understaffed police who failed to catch the

arsonist or the firefighters who failed to put out the fire or the responsibility lie with the politicians who failed to give them the tools that they need in order to do their jobs. i urming my colleagues to stand with consumers and oppose this legislation. we need the law stays in effect and keep fighting. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: i would like to recognize mr. garrett, chairman of the capital markets subcommittee for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: i congratulate the good work done by the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee and the gentleman from wisconsin for a common zhrep sense piece of legislation. and he said something like we didn't make this partisan, they did it. i remind the chairman that his underlying piece of legislation, the dodd-frank legislation had more democrats vote against it

than it had republicans for it and he pushed through a bill in extremely partisan manner and that's why we are here today. i believe that the agency we're talking about is really a one-stop-shop to allocate credit and give the government the power to control the economy and at the same time they are talking about consumer protection, what are they doing? they are separating safety and soundness from it. how can you have consumer protection when separating safety and soundness? i remind the ranking member who originally was the sponsor of dodd-frank bill, the bill that is going to destroy so many jobs in this country, he said he was in favor of the same type of legislation that we have before us on the floor. this is once again a case where the ranking member was in favor of it before he was against it. mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. garrett: not at this time. if the bill weakens the agency, then the bill you introduced

originally would actually destroy the agency. i have heard the ranking member during his debates do what he always does when he hasn't the facts or the law on his side, he attacks and twists other people's motives and he was in support of the elements of this bill before, but today, he comes out against it. he accuses everyone on our side of the aisle of trying to kill his legislation, but might i remind him to consider his own statements. the ranking member has claimed over the past week that the most important piece of the dodd-frank bill is the risk retention section of the legislation and then turns around and says -- mrs. capito: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: 4 1/2 minutes. mrs. capito: i yield 30 seconds. mr. garrett: he said the risk retention is most important and

then says any loans with 4% downdamente should be exempt. i don't know many loans that are at that level. i find it surprising that he is attempting to exempt everyone from the most important portion of his bill instead of trying to accuse everyone of trying to destroy jobs. i urge him to speak on this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. frank: how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentlelady from west virginia has four minutes and you have 5 3/4 minutes. mr. frank: i'm my final speaker. mrs. capito: i have no further speakers. mr. frank: i will use my time. first, the gentleman from new jersey misstates things i said.

i suppose it is flattering that he hangs on my every word. i wish i he didn't hang a stew on my words. once again, listen to what they say on the other side. this has three pieces. it has a single-member commission. more importantly, it increases the ability of the other bang bank regulators who have a terrible record of consumer protection who the chairman of the committee who says they are there to serve the banks, it would put them in a better position to cancel the work of the cfpb. i never supported anything remotely like that. i will say there is some motive. of the three parts of the bill, the only one they think won't be popular is the single chairman

-- single director versus a commission. the gentleman said i misstated, that i was in favor of something last year. i was never in favor of those parts of the bill. by the way, as to the risk retention, i did say you could get to 4% if you also had a very good debt-to-income ratio. the pattern of misstatements and it's flattering that the gentleman is so interested in what i say -- the gentleman didn't yield to me. mr. garrett: i thought you want me to answer the question. mr. frank: the gentleman is complaining i won't yield to him. typical of a certain pattern of behavior. mr. chairman, i ask for regular order. the chair: regular order. mr. frank: i didn't support putting the bank regulators pennsylvania back in charge. the gentleman from new jersey is more clear about what he really believes. again, i hope the gentlewoman

from west virginia will tell us she voted against this and she says we aren't trying to undo it. the gentleman from new jersey is very clear. he doesn't really like this and voted against it and he would abolish the whole thing and that's what we are saying, people who voted against it and he says we made it partisan, no. when the vote came, they all voted against it because they didn't want an independent consumer agency. the chairman of the committee said it again today on television. we don't worry about the fdic or federal reserve but the agency whose sole mission is to protect the consumer without worrying the banks. and the gentleman from new jersey claiming oddly, it seemed to me, this somehow hurts the small banks versus the bigger banks. the small banks are given preference with regard to who

gets examined and the ability to overturn rules -- no, and this is one of the things people may misunderstand. things that threaten the system, they could be a pattern like subprime loans, particularly subprime loans issued by nonbanks and this bill covers, regulates for the first time those nonbanks. let's go back over this. i do want to address the single member commission. the one issue they have found, it was originally proposed by ms. warren. we had hearings. we had conversations. and every single consumer group that we dealt with, the gentleman from wisconsin mentioned his supporters, wasn't a single consumer,, the consumer federation, et cetera, they persuaded me that a single member would be better than a commission.

i acknowledge we had hearings and i listened to people who were for it. here's the debate. we have everybody who was against establishing this in the first place, who were against it in principle and believe they should leave it to the bank regulators. we have everybody who supports the entity as an independent consumer protector, therefore a single member. yes, i was persuaded. i will acknowledge i changed my position based on the evidence. the gentleman's inaccurate suggestion was that i was for the other parts of this. no, i wasn't. putting the bank regulators doesn't work. and the republicans offered their own version last year. the gentlewoman from from illinois, ms. biggert and created a 14-member council and they were empowered to set up a hotline. and if they got things from the hotline and the web site that

were complaints about the banks, what did they do them? they september them to the financial regulators who failed to do things in the past. that's what they preferred. they opposed then and i believe continue to oppose an independent regulator whose primary role is the consumer. as the gentleman from north carolina pointed out, they want to give the bank regulators to cancel what the consumer regulator does but it's not reciprocal. if they think the bank regulators have been too lax, that is not reciprocal. they have never liked consumer protection. and finally, i want to say they do the banks a disservice and i stress again, the banks were not the problems here, particularly the community banks, they apparently think that a bank has to protect consumers, they will fail. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from west virginia is recognized for four minutes.

mrs. capito: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to make a few points in closing. i want everyone to understand that nothing in this package weakens or changes the ability of the cfpb to make rules and regulations for consumer protection. now the ranking member was criticizing me for trying to change something that i didn't support. guess what? i'm a realist. i see -- this is law. this is now a part of our government. and my chore is to try to make it better. if i wanted to get rid of it, i'd be arguing for a bill that totally dismantled the entire bureau. i'm not doing that and neither are my colleagues. we accept the reality that the bureau is going to exist and we want to see it exist in the best form. that's why we make changes to it. we can argue back and forth about whether a commission or

independent director is better or not. we believe a commission is better. there are others on the other side of the building who believe that to be true as well. to mirror some of the other regulatory bodies we have in the financial arena and other arenas. i find it a little bit amusing, and the ranking member keeps saying, you're only talking about one section. let's talk about the other section. the ability to everturn a rule promulgated by the director of the cfpb he says, we're trying to make it so that those rules can be overturned. his bill makes it -- he makes you able to overturn the rules he voted yes on that and so did everybody who voted on this bill. the concept of overturning a rule and regulation is reality. it's already in the bill. we're simply saying if you're going to have a rule that says you can overturn a rule and regulation or a law that says that, let's make it workable.

their standard is the whole safety and soundness of the entire financial system. please. what rule could do that? i'm sure there's one out there but i'm not sure what it is. so we've got to get over some of the over exaggerations of what we're trying to do here today. an the last part of the bill is actually my bill. that is saying i don't think we should be turning over the reins of the cfpb to a single person, number one, i don't agree with that, but if i'm accepting reality, then let's make sure the intent of that is a senate confirmed person. i'm saying in my part of the bill, i don't like the fact that we're going to throw everything into this bureau and have somebody who is not senate confirmed overlook this and then we don't have the oversight we have as members of congress. that's -- those are the three

sections of this bill. but none of the provisions we're talking about destroys consumers' ability to be looked after by this bureau. none of this bill undoes any of the bureau's ability to und -- undo deceptive and abusive practices. we think that's a laudable goal. we don't like, maybe, the way it's been constructed, but we lost that fight. the retail is the bureau is here. so let's make it better. let's make it better for consumers. because this is who we're talking about. i've had strings of people in my district before our committee saying we can't hire people because there's too much uncertainty. there's a regulatory structure here in the financial institution that we don't understand. we don't understand what it is. we don't understand what it's going to mean. it's constraining our ability to help small business owners and that's constraining our ability to grow jobs in this country system of that's ha we're talking about today. we're talking about getting

back up on our feet, weeding through the bureaucracy and making sure that the financial institutions are the heart and soul of this country, grow the jobs, grow the economy. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. the rule will be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be considered in order to consider as the original bill urn the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute. that amendment -- that amendment shall be considered read no amendment to the amendment as a substitute shall be considered in order except those pripped in house report 112-72. each amendment may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demapped for

division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-172. the ellison of minnesota amendment is he present? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk on behalf of the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison who is recover trg a knee injury. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report 112-72, offered by mrs. maloney of new york. mrs. maloney: i ask that the read being dispensed with. the chair: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 358, the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney and a member opposed each control five

minutes. mrs. maloney: thank you. today is the one-year anniversary of dodd-frank and it's also the date of transferring authority to the cfpb. so it can protect consumers in one single place. the consumer financial protection bureau is a critical part of last year's financial reform bill. it will ensure there's a cop on the beat, protecting consumers from predatory products and misleading information. but instead of supporting the cfpb on its first day, the house republicans are pushing forward with a bill to weaken this important agency, to derail, delay, and defang it. and i want to point out that many of the people on the other side of the aisle that are supporting the republican change are the exact same ones that voted against dodd-frank in the first place, opposed the

consumer protection and oppose the creation of the cfpb. i would say that the bill sets out to change the cfpb so it is less independent and instead is more bureaucratic. the house republicans want a five-person commission instead of a single director. but the single director structure is exactly thick oh o.c.c., the o.t.f. and other financeable agencies and a single director promotes more accountability, allows quicker reaction and change to market conditions. the five-person board would be slow, indecisive and more expensive. now, the office of management and budget estimates that this new form will cost $71 million and where do they propose to get this money? from a program that was helping

consumers who lost their mortgages, their mortgages were under water, but if we'd had a cfpb in place, we could have presented these sub-- prevented the subprime crisis in the first place. one of the problems is that no one in the whole regulatory structure was looking out for consumers. consumers were an afterthought, a third thought or were not thought about at all. this agency will be the first time that someone is looking out for the consumer. now, they also want to make it easier for bank regulators to override the cfpb rules so that they can go back to the status quo that led up to the financial crisis in the first place. that has cost the american people trillions and trillions of dollars. the ellison amendment would delete the section of dodd-frank that created the override. the other body included it as a

way to provide a check on a single director but if they're going to change the entire structure to a five-person commission, then there's no need for that additional check. the override power of foc would be entirely elimb thated. i ask my colleagues to support the ellison amendment. most importantly, americans favor a strong cfpb. in a poll this last week, it showed that 73% favor a strong and independent cfpb protecting consumers. as the chart behind me shows, they overwhelmingly support the critical functions of the bureau, including better credit cards, making it easier for lenders to offer loans, making it harder to offer loans that are confusing with confusing teaser rates an other features, allowing them to come forward with simplified forms so they could compare lice prices and get the best price and product

for them. it would make lists clear an prices clear. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing everything think can to defang and delay it. i now yield my remaining time to the gentleman from the great state of north carolina. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. >> i know that the republican political consul stands said they need to argue because americans like this agency that it has huge dictatorial powers but that's untrue. mr. miller: before they adopt a rule, they have to let everyone know that they can go about adopting a rule, they have to take public comment, propose a rule, and take more public comment. then after all that they can be taken to court. if the rule is arbitrary and

capricious or there's no evidence to support it, it can be overturned by the court. there's ample protection in the rule, in the law, already, we don't need the adegreesal check of having the regulators who did such an abysmal job in the last decade having a veto over everything they do. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capito: i'm sort of amazed at this amendment and that my ranking member is in favor of this amendment considering that she voted for the bill and she's voting to strike the section of the oversight of the fsoc that she and others who wrote the bill put in there, because that's basically what this amendment does. i'd like to yield the remainder of my time to mr. toughy of wisconsin. -- mr. duffy of wisconsin.

mr. duffy: i think it's important to note that the real reason why oversight was included in the legislation, that is the cfpb doesn't have to consider safety and soundness when making rules. safety and soundness is the gold standard when we look at the banking industry and how it effectively works within our society. and because that is not included, we just let that consumer protection, i think the rationale was that, well, we should have an outside group review each rule that comes out to make sure it will not undermine our financial sector. i have to tell you, i'm quite amazed, though. my friend across the aisle, they draft a bill that includes a review process, a review process that only gives a voice to big banks on wall street. only gives a voice to those banks that are too big to fail.

and so i come out with a mns reform and say, listen, let's wrust not give a voice to your friends on wall street. let's give a voice to the small, community banks in rural wisconsin. small credit unions in rural wisconsin. let's give them a voice too. and when we do that, when we make that proposal, mr. chairman, it seems like they want to take the vote and go home. they say, if you want to give a voice to small communitybacks, then no one should have a voice. when you look at small communitybacks that are already overregulated, small communitybacks an credit unions who have nothing to do with the financial crisis but are going to be stuck dealing with over 2,000 pages of rules from dodd-frank, let's give them a voice to come here and say, this is how these rules will

impact and affect us. and so, i would say to my friends across the aisle, don't take your ball and go home, let's work together an find a way where we can give a voice to those banks and credit unions who don't currentry have -- currently have one. with that, i yield back to my chairwoman. mrs. capito: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the chair: it is in order to consider amendment number 2. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 110-172. offered by ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed will each control

five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman and i thank mr. frank and the ranking member and the managers of this legislation as well. and i have become friends with my two poster pictures here, because i do think they symbolize the composite of america. and my amendment, i think, focuses on making sure that the consumer financial protection bureau, something that consumers ask for -- you know sometimes under the christmas tree or during the gift-giving season, you get a gift you may not have asked for but you know you want something and all of a sudden that gift shows up. that's what the dodd-frank bill did with the consumer protection bureau and now they want to derail and delay this very important legislation. the bureau was created and one of the strongest provisions of

the dodd-frank bill and was to consolidate the authorities for consumer protection. it is an important bill because american consumers, you need to have strong protection, credit cards, buying a car, student loans. we're not trying to undermine businesses. we are simply create an even playing field. my amendment empowers the consumer board and ensures that it will be able issue the rules that preekts the average american consumer. the empowers the oversight council to overrule so you get a victory. this will turn it around. my bill restores the 2/3 responsibility or the vote that is needed to overrule a good vote for the consumers, a good vote for this nurse who may be buying a car, a good vote for this little one whose parents may be overburdened with credit

card debt because they signed on to credit cards with enormous interest rates which they are unaware of. or it may be able to help these military families, many of them suffering because of the sons and daughters, husbands and wives who are overseas and to be able to say to these families, you can get a home without being defrauded. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capito: i oppose the amendment because i'm in support

of the bill, mr. did you have if i's bill which puts a workable and a reasonable standard that could look at consumer rules and regulations that as he has said and takes into consideration main street, the community bankers, the credit unions. i would like to remind the gentlewoman from texas as we were reminded by the gentleman from massachusetts, car loans are exempted and don't have to worry it being part of the regulation. it is part of the dodd-frank bill. i think a simple majority makes a lot of sense and i would just yield two minutes to the the gentleman from wisconsin. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. duffy: one of the reasons why we modified the rule because right now with the 2/3 majority, you basically need seven out of

10 votes to overturn what would be a harmful rule. and the way the law is currently written, one of the voting members is a director of the cfpb making the standard much more difficult. if we are talking about harmful rules, harmful rules to our community banks and credit unions, let's make sure we have a simple majority that can step in and overturn those rules. why do we want a standard so high that it can't be overturned? it's nearly impossible to overturn it. and i would commend my friends on the other side of the aisle to make sure there is a review process in the cfpb. but with that, no laws are ever perfect and with that we should come forward and say how can we better perfect this rule to work for our consumers and having a simple majority to overturn a

rule that could be harmful coming from the cfpb. and i would yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: as i yield to the ranking member, chairman at the time of passage of the bill. i'm glad we have this board and looking to restore the 2/3 oversight to protect these individuals. i yield the balance of my time to mr. frank. mr. frank: first of all, let's resolve one contradiction in the republican amendment, some have said, why are you opposing what you originally supported? we never supported anything like this. we always thought it had to be 2/3 and here's what happened. there is no comfortable banking agency which can be overruled by the other agencies, but the republicans got very nervous about this and their banker friends were in a bit of twitter

and they said save us from this horrible notion of consumer protection. it undermines safety and soundness and we said here's what we'll do, to reassure these fears, we say if it does threaten the whole system, 2/3 can overturn it. we didn't think it would be likely and try to calm people down. they transform it with this amendment into saying that five regulators, because the consumer bureau couldn't vote, five regulators who have overlapping terms and may have been appointed by previous presidents, regulators who represent the regulatory agency who have not been good to consumers can overturn the consumer bureau. this amendment cancels the fundamental reason. the one thing it is to keep your banking friends and they can do it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from west virginia has three minutes remaining. mrs. capito: i yield to the

gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy: this is remarkable. my friends across the aisle actually include and vote for a review process of the cfpb and now they say listen, we want to do away with that review process. how last year we came into this house and say we are going to vote for a review process of harmful rules coming from the cfpb because it doesn't include the standard for safety and soundness. today with my bill, they say, we don't want any review process. that to me doesn't make sense and doesn't work for the american people or small community banks and credit unions who support a review process. not only that, but they support a voice in that review process and that's what my bill does. and i will not yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from

texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: i ask for the yeas and nays. mr. frank: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentlelady from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-172. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report number 112-172 offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 358, the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio and a member opposed shall each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, five

minutes. mr. defazio: hopefully this will be an amendment which can be accepted. it's quite simple. and what i'm addressing what the "washington post" has called the resolving door that spins at a dizzying pace here in washington, d.c.,. the "new york times" has said that goldman sachs is government sachs for all the employees who bounce back and forth between the nation's capital, regulatory bodies and administrative branch and its manhattan office tower. and all my amendment simply does is prevent potential conflict of interests. remember, a board here has been created here in the original bill, which can overturn any regulation. fairly unique among independent agencies. if there is a board which can overturn their -- the

administrative procedures or rules that they adopt on the financial services industry. but in any case, that was in the original bill. this bill would reduce from a 2/3 majority to a 50% majority of this 10-member board. and my amendment just says, look, if there are 10 people sitting on the board and potentially a close vote and this is something that's going to affect say not to pick on goldman sachs, but say goldman sachs and a member of the board is a former employee of goldman sachs within the last 24 months, that member would have to sit out the vote, plain and simple. it's a conflict of interest rule. i would hope that this would prove to be noncontroversial. and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: i claim time in opposition. i would like to tell the

gentleman that i really see what he's getting at here. and i do think some of his ideas have merit because of the revolving door appearance and in reality and probably in some cases preconceived opinions, but i'm afraid -- and i'm not afraid, i think that if a person is qualified to lead an agency and person qualified to be the secretary of the treasury, chairman of the federal reserve, director of the cfpb, comptroller of the currency, chairman of the s.e.c., that we really might be, we might be narrowing the scope of really talented and qualified people. i think all these folks have to be nominated and confirmed by the senate and any conflicts of interests could be vetted

through the confirmation process and i think by disqualifying some folks, i think that as i said, i think we might miss some good talent and chase away folks that have good ideas and vibrant ideas in the area of finance. i would oppose the gentleman's amendment. mr. defazio: i think there is a misunderstanding. they can serve on the board. it's just that if a proposal comes up that directly affects their previous employer and they have been on the board less than two years, they would have to sit out that particular vote. they can serve and vote on any and every other procedure, but just not on that particular thing. it's a very restrictive conflict of interest rule. mrs. capito: i thank the gentleman's clarification and i didn't address that in my statement and i'm absolutely

right. but i continue to oppose the gentleman's amendment. the chair: reserve or yield back? mrs. capito: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: mr. speaker, we have straightened out that misunderstanding that the folks could serve. let me go back to what many of my republicans agreed with me. i voted against the tarp bailout. hank paulson, a goldman sachs executive standing in as secretary of the treasury and metting out customers. i think there would be agreement on that side for future conflicts of access that people be on that one vote and i yield the balance of my time to mr. the balance of my time to mr. frank.