the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. frank: i disagree with his statement on secretary paulson. but i was struck by the fact that the the gentlewoman from west virginia stood up opposing. she said her basis -- the gentleman from oregon said her opposition was incorrect. i think that's unfortunate and it's part of my problem, i didn't have a chance to talk about this rule, this is a terribly unfair rule. i asked the chairman of the rules committee yesterday if we could have more time to debate, not all the amendments, we have an important amendment by the gentlewoman from texas to talk about 2/3 majority, this is an important amendment about conflict of interest. we had an important amendment coming up about the powers.

it is outrageous that the rules committee said you only get five minutes on each side on each amendment and the chairman of the rules committee he is a mag namous fellow and he said get a unanimous consent to suspend it. i approached the other side and i was told not by the chairman who has been very gracious but the republican leadership. so we have fundamental issues not being adequately debated and this is one of them. i have some differences about what happened during the tarp, but only 10 minutes on this? . and to be so dismissive of a valid amendment to say, here's why i'm against it, because a staffer probably didn't read it when they wrote it and they gave him the wrong reason and she

said, i'm against it because i'm against it. that's an inappropriate way to deal with this serious issue. and it reinforces my view that what we have here is this, last year every single republican opposed the independent consumer agency. they now come forward with efforts that would substantially weaken it, that everybody who does support it opposes and they say, no, we're not opposed to it. we're just trying to change it. the gentleman from oregon has a per sfect -- perfectly reasonable point. i cannot understand other than simple partisanry jidity why with -- partisanry jitity why it would the -- partisan rigidity why it would the not be accepted. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. defazio: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of 1818, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-172. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-172 offered by mr. paulsen of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 358, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota for five minutes. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i rise to offer this amendment really to help ensure that we maintain prudent regulation of the financial services industry. mr. speaker, under current law there are five nonvoting members of the financial stability oversight council, including a state insurance regulator and a state bank regulator. this seeks to ensure and only clarify that these regulators on the financial stability oversight council who do not have voting rights still have the authority to challenge any regulations that are brought forward or put forth by the consumer financial protection bureau.

for example, while it's clear that the cfpb does not have the authority to regulate insurance, it could put forth a regulation that actually negatively impacts the industry and the economy. so it just makes sense that all the members on the council have the ability to consider the impact that these new rules may have. therefore by clarifying that any member of the financial stability oversight council may question any regulation and bring that up for clarification and clarify the rights of the nonvoting members, i am seeking to improve the oversight on the cfpb for adoption of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i'd like to yield for 5 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. green: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to mr. cummings and reserve the right to close. mr. cummings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in opposition to the amendment and i rise in strong opposition to this bill. this misguided legislation

speaks to -- seeks to destroy consumer financial protection bureau on its birthday. before it even has time to take its first breath. out of fear that the interest of consumers, our constituents, by the way, may finally have a voice here in washington. i note that the cfpb is the only federal agency that can have its regulations vetoed by other banking regulators serving on a financial stability oversight council that bill would make that veto process even easier. among other destructive provisions, h.r. 1315 would exclude the director of the cfpb from serving as a voting member of the fsoc which would make the director the only banking regulator without a seat on the council. the cfpb is one of the most important creations of dodd-frank because it is the very agency focused on ensuring

that the consumer protection products made available in the marketplace will not lead to families' destruction and economic ruin. rather than attacking this agency, which is intended to defend the rights of consumers and protect them from predatory practices, we should be standing with our consumers, with our constituents and protecting them from financial entities that would take advantage of them. last week i convened a forum to examine the abuse that service members are suffering at the hands of mortgage servicers. thousands of u.s. military service members and their families have lost their homes, been charged millions of dollars illegally and been subjected to other abuses in violation of federal law. the cfpb was created precisely to help americans such as these, our constituents. i urge the members of congress to stand on the side of their

constituents by supporting cfpb and i urge congress to vote for their constituents and vote against this bill. with that i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. green: i continue to reserve so that i may close. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, we have no more speakers and i know that the gentleman was speaking in opposition to the bill and perhaps there's no opposition to the amendment but i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment is indicative of why we are in opposition to much of what is being said today. this amendment assumes that there is some sort of onerous regulation or some sort of discrimination that has taken place within the cfpb when in fact the cfpb has not issued one

regulation, not one, and because it has not issued one regulation, one can only assume that much of what is happening today is onerous speculation and -- because there seems to be this notion that this agency is going to be harmful and it hasn't done one thing. there is this concept of throwing out the baby with the bath water. but there is no bath water. there is no bath water to throw out because the baby hasn't done anything. the cfpb has done absolutely nothing and we are now trying to overregulate it before it has an opportunity to pass a single regulation. it was not the cfpb that created the crisis. it did not create 327's and 228's, it did not create prepayment penalties that coincide with teaser rates, it did not create negative things, it did not create the yield spread premium which allows people to qualify for prime mortgages and be forced into

subprime mortgages. the cfpb has done nothing, it is an effort on our part to make sure that many of the onerous actions that took place, that cause us to be in the position that we're in, that these actions cannot happen again. i stand in opposition to this amendment, i also stand in opposition to the bill because the bill would weaken the cfpb to the extent that it can't do what it is intended to do and that is protect consumers. somebody, some agency ought to stand there for consumers. this agency is that agency. it's the watchdog. we do not need a watchdog without any bite. let's keep the bite in the cfpb, let's make sure that it can protect consumers and make sure that we don't get the products that we had on the market before back on the market. this amendment would allow persons who are on the board, who do not have a vote to petition and in a sense that they would become empowered by this ability to petition even if

it doesn't impact the industry that they happen to represent. i stand in opposition to it, i think the cfpb -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-172. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. miller: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 offer by mr. miller of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 358, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. miller, and a member opposed shall each control five minutes. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: thank you, mr. chair. it is simply not true that we all here want to protect consumers, we just have an honest agreement about the best way to do it.

this bill really cripples the ability of the cfpb to be an effective watchdog for consumers. and the way that it does it, probably the most harmful part of the bill, is the veto power, the greater veto power it yields the financial oversight council and the way that that council has to exercise that veto. here is what the cfpb has to do to pass a rule in the first place. first of all, they cannot require any financial institution to do anything, they can't say, you have to give people this mortgage or this credit card contract, they can just forbid. they can say, you can't use this contract, this mortgage, this credit card contract because this cheats people. they cannot require, they can only forbid. and before they forbid, before they pass a rule that says, you can't do that, because it cheats people and abuses people, they have got to consider all the benefits to the consumers that might come from that as well as to the financial institutions that offer it. they have to consider whether it really reduces the ability of

consumers to get credit and they've got to consider the effect on the financial institution and they've got to consult with all the other regulators whose business it is to make sure that the financial institutions don't go broke. and then they've got to publish it, they've got to let people comment, they have to build evidence and if they don't have support for the rule, it can be turned over by a court. even before it goes to a court it goes to the panel this financial stability oversight council, and it can be vetoed if they decide that it threatened the stability of the financial system, the system or the safety and soundness of the banking system. this bill changes it and says, not just that they can overturn it but they have to overturn it if it threatens the safety and soundness, in other words, of financial institutions. in other words if it would make specific banks go broke.

some banks -- agree with what the gentleman from wisconsin has said repeatedly, most small banks, most credit unions have had honest business practices but there are some sleazey ones out there. and we saw what they did in the last decade. under the bill as it is now -- as it is written, if one of those banks come forward and says, unless we can do this sleazey thing we're going to go out of business and the financial services -- a financial stability oversight council has to disallow it if it would put them out of business. mr. chairman, some of those banks, some of those sleazey, scuzzy banks need to be out of business. it's the only way they can stay in business is by -- if the only way they can stay in business is by cheating consumers, they should be out of business but this bill would not allow that to happen. a consumer protection rule could not go into effect if it put specific banks out of business. that's an enormous change and it cripples the ability of the cfpb to be an effective watchdog for consumers.

what this amendment does is if any one of those prudential regulators, those watch dogs who are supposed to make sure the banks don't go broke, is going to challenge any rule of the cfpb, they have got to say exactly how they think it would threaten the safety and soundness of the financial institutions, make a bank go broke and they've got to say who they are. who are they going to put -- who is this rule going to put out of business? because the american people are entitled to know if this agency, this fsoc, the financial stability oversight council, is acting on behalf of the american people and on behalf of consumers or if they are protecting sleazey banks that stay in business, whose hole business model is is cheating consumers -- is cheating consumers. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: yes, mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is

recognized for five minutes. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. chairman. and i think i understand the gentleman's amendment, the gentleman from north carolina's amendment. but i would like to just start in the five minutes that i have to remind everybody who is on the council that is going to be able to allow sleazey financial products to go forward to save the safety and soundness of an institution. that's what the gentleman said. so we've got the secretary of the treasury, we have the chairman of the federal reserve, the director of the cfpb who is the person who is making the regulations, chairman of the fdic, comptroller of the currency, chairman of the ncua, chairman of the s.e.c., chairman of the cftc, director of the fhsa and an insurance representative. that's 10 people. professional regulators that are working in certain areas of the financial markets and are overseeing our financial stability. . it's not tom, dick and

harry deciding whether a sleazy provision should go forward. and i think in order to convince these folks or to put your argument forward as to why the rule or regulation would harm the safety and soundness of an institution, i would imagine that these professionals would require much due diligence and proper background work probably touching on some of the things the gentleman talked about, who would be influenced and an analysis of the practices, the subject matter of the regulation or provision. i think that the standard is high and -- in any scenario. certainly it is impossible in the existing bill, mr. duffy's bill which brings the standard down more in line of protecting community banks and credit unions and other institutions on

main street and the consumers that so rely on them, that i think really this amendment just further complicates places in jeopardy, i think -- makes it more cumbersome, more impossible to meet a standard where the fsoc would be able to oversee a certain rule and regulation so i would oppose. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserve? mrs. capito: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. miller: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: one minute. mr. miller: one of the changes that does president sound like it does much but it does when you change the word from may to shall. it not only can this fsoc overturn a rule when they think it might affect the safety and soundness of the system, they

have to overturn it. they have to overturn it if they think it will put a specific bank out of business. that's not a small change or a high standard, but a very low standard and one that cripples the bill. i yield the balance of my time to mr. frank. mr. frank: if someone had put countrywide out of business we would have been in good shape. a later amendment will require the consumer bureau to submit this kind of information to the financial stability council. so it is not reciprocal. if the consumer bureau has a rule or regulation and has to give this information to the council, but no one else does. one more example how the consumer bureau is not their favorite. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. miller: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-172. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-172 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 358, the gentlewoman from texas, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: my friends are back again and i'm reminded of my colleague, congresswoman couplings who mentioned the -- cummings who mentioned the amount of for example that our constituents experienced. the consumer financial protection bureau, let me make

it clear, it makes prices clear, terms and conditions clear and ensures that mortgage disclosures are short and understandable by consumers, lenders and military families and helps consumers understand the true cause of a financial transaction. it acts like a cop on the beat for our consumers the financial stability oversight board has a role to review the action. let me tell you what this bill has just done. in the dodd-frank bill it has been a timed review to take place. if you are hanging with a bad foreclosure or some bad action, this oversight board can review quickly the decision that the consumer board did to protect you. you know what has happened now? they have given the oversight board an indefinite amount of dime. this is in the backdrop of

undergraduates carrying record high credit card balances. what my amendment does, it restores reality and restores a time certain that the oversight board can review the regulation that is giving you relief so that you can benefit from the consumer protection. is that not a simple premise? i ask my colleagues to accept this amendment. and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlewoman from west virginia. mrs. capito: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capito: what we have done in our bill as the gentlewoman said is to give the fsoc as much time as necessary to evaluate the effects of the cfpb rule. it's easy to imagine under any scenario that some of the effects, good effects or bad effects take more than three

months to really surface. i mean, we saw what happened with the subprime issue. it didn't bubble up in 90 days. it bubbled up over a period of time. should it have been stopped? absolutely. were people asleep at the switch? absolutely. and that's why we think that you should have not constraints on the time, but you should have an open-ended time period to find out any different pitfalls that may occur from a certain rule and regulation. and so that's why i would oppose the gentlelady's amendment going back to the 890 days. and i would -- 90 days and i would reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. ms. jackson lee: i have great respect to my friend from west virginia and i'm glad she said 90 days. that is three months. they want to take away 90 days

and put it forever, almost like dorothy. we are going to the wizard of oz, forever and ever and ever so individuals like michelle whose home was damaged during the hurricane, who got costly repairs but had wage cuts and found that the house might be in foreclosure they sent the company $1,400 and they said there was nothing they could do and they were foreclosed on. the bill to protect them from that has oversight on positive regulation to review it and it goes on while michelle and her husband walks the street. or jacob wanted to buy a cd and wanted to speak to a financial adviser. the man he talked to wasn't in the bank and only made $25,000, he wound up losing $12,000.

they want him to wait forever and ever and ever. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: i appreciate the gentlelady's passion for this and i would like to say that my opposition -- as the 90-day rule stands right now, it doesn't say that the rule can't go forward, it simply says that the ability to have a look back to what consumer rules or regulations are put forward, it widens the window there. so some of the effects of rule and regulation that may, as i said earlier, may not bubble up until a year or two. it may have a cumulative effect, it may be -- may have a regional effect. we have friends in georgia right now who had a lot of bank foreclosures that is more regionally placed.

i live in a place where we avoided a lot of the foreclosure problems but i understand my fellow members from california and florida and texas and michigan and ohio, they have regional issues. so i think it doesn't allow the rule -- it doesn't say you can't allow the rule to go forward, it simply says that it allows you to look back for a longer period than 90 days. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i'm asking my colleagues to support my amendment. there are people in america that don't know the interest rate on their credit cards. the consumer protection bureau will help that. we need oversight to be able to protect the consumer. with that, i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts. the chair: 1 1/2 minutes. mr. frank: once again we see this pattern and the gentleman

from new jersey who said i was imputing modus to them because they said they knew what they were doing last year when they opposed an independent agency. i don't know who is kidding who. they don't like the idea of an independent agency. so the tactic is to chip at it here and there and do a series of non-reciprocal requirements. it is the cinderella of the regulators and can be jofrlede. they say how can you have an individual entity, but members who have been here 20 years, comparable times, they never moved to make the control of the currency a commission and never moved to subject it to the appropriation. the consumer chief is just like

the comptroller of the agency. but that's the banking agency. and as he said in his statement today, they don't worry about the federal reserve and fdic with the terrible record that the federal reserve has had. he said, the chairman of the committee, he said it is the sole goal to protect the consumers. one more thing, when it comes to other agencies, my colleagues on the other side want to impose deadlines. but, no. it's treating it differently. the chair: 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 ayes have it. mrs. capito: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant toll clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed. in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report

112-172. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-172 offered by mr. quigley of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 358, the gentleman from illinois and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. quigley: the underlying bill requires that when a financial stability oversight council meets to deliberate on a cfpb ruling, those meetings would be open to the public. my amendment takes that one step further and will require that the meeting be live-streamed over the internet. if we are concerned about transparency and openness, it makes sense that the entire american public have access to these meetings, not just people in one city. this is important for both supporters and critics of the cfpb. if a cfpb ruling is challenged,

americans should be able to observe the proceedings. my amendment would do just that. it makes the proceedings more open, more transparent and accessible. transparency would help ensure all parties, banks and consumers get a fair hearing. it's important in terms of regaining the public trust, especially in these times. aaccording to a pew poll, 22% of americans truce trust the american to do the right thing. the real cost of corruption is the deficit of trust. it is almost impossible to lead without the public's trust. what we need to focus on is regaining that trust principally through transparency. therefore, i ask that this amendment be supported by both sides. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: i claim time in

opposition but i'm not opposed. it provides for sunshine and transparency. when we did the markup, we had another amendment along the same lines and i would support the gentleman's amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. . it is now in order to consider amendment number 8. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. chu: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to present my amendment to h.r. 1315. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-172 offered by mrs. chu of california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california, mrs. chu, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentlewoman from california. ms. chu: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment would give additional responsibility to the commissioner that is already in charge of oversight of the bureau's activities pertaining to the protection of older consumers, minorities, youth and veterans. it would require research on how language barriers can lead to unfair and abusive lending practices and to report to the full commission on ways to protect consumers from potentially unfair and deceptive practices. take the case of ms. wong who went to a car dealership and negotiated in chinese. when she went to sign the contract it was totally in demrish and she didn't understand it. when she got it translated later, she discovered that she bought a different carat an extremely high interest rate. she went back to the car dealership for redress but they refused. she was so upset that all she could think of to do was to go back to the dealership and wrap herself in a white sheet and hold a sign that said, cheaters, and walked up and down in front of the dealership in protest.

well, that gained attention. it turned out that many other immigrants had been cheated in this manner as well. so i sponsored a bill in the california state assembly to address these deceptive practices. but that's just one state and just one small fix. now, i know that the consumer financial protection safety and soundness act does not include oversight of auto loans but ms. wong's story highlights how persons with language barriers can be victims of deceptive practices. we need someone on a national level looking out for people like ms. wong and staying on top of ways people are being duped because of language barriers. and that's just what my amendment will do. i urge support of my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. chairman. i claim time in opposition but i'm not opposed to the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capito: thank you.

i'd like to thank the gentlewoman for her amendment. i would like to also highlight in the dodd-frank bill and i'm sure she's well aware of some of the provisions that are already being made for -- through the cfpb for multilingual outreach and understanding. during a conference call with a large bipartisan congressional staff, the senior officials at the cfpb indicated that the bureau would have the capacity to translate into 180 languages, that is a very broad reach, i think, and there are other disclosures, outreach by the secretary of the treasury to help people, persons facing language barriers. and other aspects of the same -- around the same issue that the gentlelady is speaking about. i am delighted that she wants to amend the commission and -- because as we know, and i've spoken more than a few times on just in the last several hours

about my ardent support for the commission, there's one commissioner that's charged with overseeing some special segments of our population and certainly ones who had language barriers would be included in this and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. ms. chu: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. frank: i appreciate the gentlewoman making a very important point, seriously, talking about the multilingual aspect. an important bipartisan part of our committee's work over the years and we've had some differences, the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, the gentleman from texas, mr. hinojosa, and a number of others have stressed an important thing of this agency's mission is literacy. we all agree that if people were better educated they could defend they wasselves better. this is an ongoing joint effort on our committee and obviously if you try to do financial

literacy, it's got to be in a language that people can understand. so i appreciate the gentleman highlighting that and it does help us do that. i would not that -- and i think the gentlewoman from california is quite correct in wanting to do this but you don't need a commission to do it. we could do it with various agency heads. for example, there's been some concern about making sure that veterans are taken care of. one of the things that -- and people in the military, one of the things that elizabeth warren did, she did a number of extraordinary things, was, i don't know if people were aware of the head of the military bureau that protects members of the services, a very experienced woman from the military named polly petraeus, the wife of general petraeus. and that's an example of how you can do these things. so the principle that the gentlewoman from california advocates is a very good one and i'm sure we will find a way to accommodate it and i thank her and i yield back to the

gentlewoman from california. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. chu: yes. i would like to say that this does not create any overly burdensome responsibility. instead it supports the goal of a legislation, protects those -- protect those persons who might be the victims of such unfair and deceptive practices. what this does is clarify that this especially designated commissioner would take into account how language barriers might be impacted by such abusive practices and it makes sure that that is done. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-172. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? mrs. maloney: i have an

amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. mrs. maloney: it's made in order. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-172 offered by mrs. maloney of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 358, the gentlewoman from new york, mr. maloney, and a member opposed shall each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: thank you. i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 1315 which will transfer all authority that the cfpb would receive to the secretary of the treasury if no commission chair is in place by july 21. until such time as the confirmation by the other body. there is no more plaint effort to derail -- blatant effort to derail the consumer protections than the section of this bill that delays the full transfer of authority that the cfpb would have to protect consumers until

a director is in place. under the republican bill, the bureau would not be able to do anything, starting today, even write rules under the existing consumer law as dodd-frank envisioned. and as we know there are 44 republican members of the other body that have indicated in writing to -- with a letter to the president that they will not vote to confirm anyone unless president obama bends to their demands that would weaken the cfpb. the republican bill is not about improvements, it's about preventing the cfpb from effectively operating. this week the president nominated former ohio attorney general richard cordray to be the cfpb's first director. and is he now the director of

enforcement there and will bring a voice for state a.g.'s to enforce consumer laws. i hope that the other body will act on his nomination as soon as possible. but we know that there are 44 who say they will not confirm anyone. and i do not believe that consumers should have to wait for this process to go forward, they should be protected today. my amendment says that if they are going to delay the ability of the agency to protect consumers, at least give that authority to the secretary of the treasury until a director is confirmed to head the bureau. now, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have indicated their concern that there's no one officially at the helm. then let treasury have that authority until a director has been confirmed so that it can begin to go forward with the protections that dodd-frank

envisioned. this includes the authority the bureau is set to receive today as well as the new supervisory authority for nonbank financial institutions and new rule making under unfair deceptive and abusive practices. consumers should not have to wait any longer. my amendment will ensure that work can begin to advance the important mission of the cfpb and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from west virginia. mrs. capito: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized forever five minutes. mrs. capito: and i am oppose to the gentlelady, my ranking member, we work really well together on the subcommittee and obviously have differences and this is one. the portion of the bill that she's talking about is actually the portion that i created and it was really a creation of a couple of months ago, probably in april i began to think to myself, the president hasn't

made an appointment to the marquis bureau to protect consumers and he's had almost an entire year to do this. the hand writing is going to be on the wall in terms of trying to get a senate confirmation, certainly you're not going to get one in four days, which is what he tried, you know, when he nominated somebody on monday finally. and so the thought for me is that we have enormous powers vested in one individual. the bill was written to have them -- and the minority leader was down here saying that the oversight that is provided by senate confirmation is congress' stamp of approval of the direction this individual wants to take this agency. and -- or bureau. and yet we have a situation where we have a president who has waited an entire, let's see,

361 days before making an appointment and we're in a position where we're going to have an acting or a recessed appointment, a very powerful position, without any input or oversight in the nominating process that moves forward and is vested in the united states senate. and i just think that's a problem. i think that the president had due time to accomplish this and we're going to say to the treasury secretary, we're going to give it to you, quite frankly i think the treasury secretary is pretty busy right now dealing with debt limit issues and solving -- and, you know, trying to solve other problems that we have in front of us, you know, financially and our economy, we have 9.2% unemployment, we've www.to get the wheels turning here and i'm sure that's where the secretary's putting his energy and appropriately so.

so i just think that this is an agency that's starting on a -- with one hand tied behind their back because of the fault of the chief executive who is not appointed -- who has not appointed a person who can seek and get senate confirmation and i think that without that person , with the oversight of a senate confirmation, taking the reins of this very powerful agency -- bureau that's just been created, i think we'd be getting it off on the wrong foot and so i would oppose the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: does the gentlelady yield back or reserve? mrs. capito: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: may i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the gentlelady has two minutes remaining. mrs. maloney: frau, -- first of all, the president has made an appointment answered confirms a threat by 44 members of the other body who says they won't confirm anyone unless the powers of the cfpb are diminished and

it's defanged and weakened. and consumers should not have to wait for a political confirmation process that the republicans in the other body have vowed that they're going to hold up. they should be able to move forward with these critical protections and go forward. i must tell you that the american public is fed up with the delays and the efforts by the other body to prevent consumer protections. if we'd had a cfpb in place we could have prevented the financial downturn in 2008 which caused the high unemployment that the gentlelady is concerned about. so the cfpb is carefully constructed, you are general -- urgently pleaded and should be allowed to go forth to protect consumers. my amendment will allow that to happen. i urge my colleagues to support it and i yield to the ranking member. mr. frank: being lectured by a member of the republican party on the importance of confirmation at the cfpb is like

being lectured about birth control by the octomom. 44 republican senators have out rageously announced that they will not do their constitutional duty and they will confirm nobody, nobody for no matter how good, until we agree to weaken the agency. so what we have is a perfect double play here between house and senate republicans. senate republicans say we will confirm nobody. house republicans say the agency won't function until you get a confirmation which the senate republicans have refused to do. i wish the president appointed someone earlier, i'm critical of him for doing that, but i don't want to punish the american people, the beneficiaries of this by that failure to appoint earlier and by the way, with the secretary of the treasury having the authority up until now, a lot's been done, a lot of people were there. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. .

the chair: in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mrs. capito: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york. mr. defazio: i ask that amendment number 3 be withdrawn. the chair: without objection. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in house report 112-172. the chair: without objection, request for vote is withdrawn. the voice vote. now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-172. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? . the clerk: amendment number 10

printed in house report 112-172 offered by mr. lankford of oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. lankford: this amendment is to provide transparency -- his amendment was to provide transparency at cfpb meetings. this brings is -- it to the agency. congress has the responsibilities for oversight and that responsibility is not possible without good operation. this new federal bureau is in the federal reserve and we must provide watchdog groups with the tools. the amendment will put in place a mechanism for bureau transparency. this amendment would require that the inspectors general of the board of governors of the

federal protection bureau to post online and submit a report i will lum naming a list of rules, guidelines regulations prescribed by the buyer oover with corresponding descriptions of each. a detailed list of all authority that it deems in conflict with other federal departments and agencies. an administrative expenses of the bureau including salaries, office supplies and office space and the current balance of the consumer financial protection fund itself. we have to have quality information at our disposal to conduct our duty of oversight. this report required by this amendment would provide congress and the public a broad look into the operations of the bureau. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition.

i could be persuaded, but i'm the only speaker and since i'm defending the committee's position, i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i yield to the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: i would like to tell the gentleman i support his amendment and i think it lends itself to the transparency and full accountability and i thank him for bringing it forward. good work to the gentleman from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: has the other side yielded? i won't speak, i'm the only speaker and i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts.

mr. frank: mr. chairman, i appreciate the amendment and i had a chance to think about it and i am persuaded by its merits. this is a genuinely helpful amendment. but i do want to take this opportunity to talk about broader issues and i do so, i will say, i would not ordinarily have done this to take the five minutes in this way but the rule was so outrageously stingy in allowing debate time on central issues but we have no option but to use this perfectly reasonable amendment as an opportunity to say by what we were prevented by the rules committee. there is one part of the rule, the regular order that my republican colleagues promised has been beat up pretty good recently, certainly by this rule. the congressional budget office says that their effort to expand

the head of the consumer agency to a five-member commission will cost $71 million over the five-year period. that violates their cut-go rule. but they don't care about violating the rule. they found an offset? what's an offset? it's a bill that the house already passed to save money from the f.h.a. here's what they are doing. they are reaching back, and the rule retroactively merges the two bills. how's that for the regular order? it takes a bill that saves money and instead of using that for iter for deficit reduction or for easing ability for people to get housing they use it for bureaucracy here in this bill. i want to talk about the fundamental issues.

some on the republican side have apparently undergone a conversion. i don't want to take yes for anance. apparently they are now in favor of an agency that they vigorously opposed last year and the year before. the gentleman from alabama said incorrectly he voted against this. someone claiming to be the gentleman from alabama attended a markup and voted against the markup and the gentlelady from west virginia. instead they supported a substitute from the gentlewoman from from illinois which did nothing -- well, i take it back. it said all the regulators, secretary of defense, secretary of the treasury and i don't know who else and they could set up a hotline for consumers and have a web site. but any information taken in would go back to those same regulators. they have consistently opposed it and that's why they are so wounded.

they tried to kill it. we were there when they voted against it and we understand they don't want to see it go forward. they are prudent, however and they understand it would not be a good idea to attack it head on. so they are trying a sideways attack, most importantly by saying that the bank regulators, they wanted to leave consumer protection with the bank regulators. the federal reserve more than anybody else because they are the key bank regulator on consumer fairs -- i don't know who came up with that -- they would put the bank regulators by letting them overturn by majority vote anything that the agency does and they say we are going back to where you were. we were totally reversing and now we have the amendment by the gentlewoman from new york. you know there is a children's book where somebody says i can believe 10 impossible things before breakfast.

i'll give the gentlewoman credit. she said only one impossible thing before dinner. she said we must have a confirmation. confirmation is important. she should tell that to her senate colleagues. 44 republican senators, not the senator from massachusetts, mr. brown, the senators from maine, 44 have said we won't confirm anybody. how can the manager of the bill get up and say, confirmation is important. we can't allow this to go forward unless there is confirmation and won't allow the powers to go forward, knowing there can't be confirmation not because the president was late and he was and i was critical of him for doing that but the republican majority said they won't confirm and they complain. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-172. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. rigell: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-172 offered by mr. rigell of virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. rigell: americans are hurting. families are being hurt by excessively high unemployment. it's right now at 9.2%. in the second district, it's high and my wife and i have dear friends who have lost their family businesses because of i

think policies that have come out of this very institution, hyper active federal government. so i rise today to offer an amendment that would directly address one of the principal reasons that i believe our small businesses are having such a difficult time. and i know this firsthand because i am a small business owner and that's the lack of credit. my amendment would require the consumer financial protection bureau to submit a financial impact analysis on each proposed rule or regulation that it intends to layer upon our nation's lenders. it would expand the cost analysis to include financial institutions of all sizes, not just the smaller ones that are currently being under the cost analysis portion of the bill. and most importantly, though, the amendment would require the bureau to submit an analysis on how the proposed regulation would impair the ability of individuals and our small businesses to access credit. i have spent a lot of time, mr.

chairman, listening to small business owners and our local community bankers, not the big banks up in new york, but the local banks, and they have given me a clear indication of the struggle that our small business owners are having when it comes to acquiring credit. they are saying, we are not hiring account executives to go out and meet our small business owners but regulatory analysts to sort through dodd-frank. they are really struggling. mr. chairman what i have done in this amendment is to offer a reasonable solution that would require that bureau to pause and to calculate and to distribute to the public a clear indication of the impact the regulation would have both on the lending institution and on credit for our small business owners and

individuals. i believe this is a very prudent bill, given the hyperactive nature of our federal government. it continues to grow, it continues to reach out and choke out the life of the small business entrepreneur. i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. it really is about confidence. i think that the hard-working folks that i know in the district, they want to know that we really are going to start in a reasonable and responsible way and contain this ever expanding government. i will close with this. i'm not an advocate for no regulation but smarter and lighter regulation and i think this amendment meets that test. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? >> to claim time in opposition. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i come to the floor to argue

in opposition to this amendment and in opposition to the underlying legislation. i was moved because the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma and the eafment offered by the gentleman from virginia are both about reports and analysis that this new agency will be required to produce. and it's odd to give my friends credit, they usually stand for more streamlined government. they are about efficiency and streamlining and we are hearing about more reports and more analysis for the simple reason that this is part of a larger strategy to weigh down and underfund an agency they have no interest in seeing survive, an agency that would protect consumers and protect that group that was badly and most severely harmed in the disaster that we just went through. why? one can speculate. perhaps it's to stand for the industry, for the financial

concerns. but why, why do that? why do that when it has been proven time and time again not in the last three years but over 100 years that financial services is a very volatile and risky pursuit that if not adequately regulated will do what it has done in the last three years, the late 1920's and what it has done hundreds of years prior collapsing upon itself. this is regulation that is smart, common sense and will protect the american family from products that could destroy that family. let's not weigh down this industry or decap tate it or underfund it but let it survive to protect american families and with that, i reserve. . >> sometimes it is helpful to read the law. this amendment is almost completely redundant in where it it is not redundant it is

annoyingly pointless. this is what the law already requires, before the cfpb can adopt a rule. it has to consider the potential benefits and calls to consume -- cost to consumers and to the financial industry. it has to consider the impact of the rules, it has to consider whether it constricts credit, whether it makes it harder for small businesses or individuals, households to get credit, all of what this amendment would require is already in the bill. mr. miller: and the cfpb, their rule making requires that they give notice that they're going to consider a rule and then they've got to take comment and then they've got to propose a rule, then they've got to take comment again and they know that if anybody's against it they've got to be prepared to defend it in court. and they've got to show that they developed the evidence that supports the rule and supports all the considerations that it actually -- what benefits are, what the costs are and whether it keeps people from getting credit.

what this amendment would also do, though, is to make the cfpb prepare a report when nobody's against it. when everybody's perfectly fine with it. when it doesn't hurt anybody. it doesn't bother anybody. it's procedural. it would still require this silly, pointless report for a rule that nobody is against. i understand that some of the members, most members, do not want to make government unwieldy and filled with red tape. this amendment would just make government more unwieldy and more filled with red tape. i oppose the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. miller: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. -- virginia will be postponed.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-172 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment number 5 by mr. miller from north carolina. amendment number 6 by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment number 9 by mrs. maloney of new york. amendment number 11 by mr. rigell from virginia. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic votes after the first series of votes. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-172 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-172 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a record vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: e the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 170, the nays are 239, the motion is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-172 offered by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. miller, on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-172 offered by mr. miller of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 175, the nays are 238. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-172 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-172 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 1 5 -- 175rk the nays are 240, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-172 by the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will report redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-172 offered by mrs. maloney of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. once again, this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 168, the nays are 244, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-172 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell, on which further proceedings were postponed and

on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-172 offered by mr. rigell of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. once again, this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 246, the nays are 167, the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1315 and reports back to the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill, h.r. 1315, and pursuant to house resolution 358, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the chair will receive a message. >> mr. speaker, a message from

the senate. >> i have been informed to the house the senate has passed s. 1103 in which the concurrence of the house i is requested. the speaker pro tempore: is a separate vote requested? if not the he question is on adoption of the amendment in the senate. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. , the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the dodd-frank to strengthen review authority of the financial stability of the oversight council of regulations issued by the bureau of consumer financial protection. the speaker pro tempore: the

house will be in order. would members please take their seats and remove conversations from the floor. clear the aisle. the house will be in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maine rise? mr. michaud: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. michaud: i am opposed.

the chair: the clerk will report the commission. the clerk: mr. michaud hasst instructions to report. page 1 after line 4, insert the following new section and designate preceding sections accordingly, section 2, protecting seniors from abusive predatory, unfair and deceptive practices. a, nothing in thling act or the amendments made by this act shall limit the bureau of financial protection with respect to a rule or regulation issued by the bureau with the primary purpose of such rule or regulation is abusive of predatory or unfair practices that prey on the financial practices of seniors including fraud relating to their social security and medicare benefits, foreclosure and reserve mortgages -- reverse mortgages and pensions and other retirement savings. b, seniors defined.

for purposes of this act -- mr. michaud: dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there an objection? objection is heard. clerk will read. the clerk: b, senior defined, for the purposes of this act in section 1023 c3a, the term seniors shall have the meaning given the term older individual under section 10240 of the older americans act of 1965, 42 u.s.c. 3,240. insert the following before the quotation marks, except that the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the members of council then serving shall be required that the primary purpose of the regulation is predatory, unfair or deceptive acts that prey on the financial security of seniors including fraud relating

to their social security benefits, robo signing, reverse mortgages and pensions and other retirement savings. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members are advised to remove their conversations from the floor and clear the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. duffy: point of order reserved. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine is recognized for five minutes. mr. michaud: i offer this final amendment today for two reasons. first, to improve the bill one last time before we vote on final passage. and second, to provide congress an opportunity to come together on an issue that all of us can agree on, protecting our

seniors. in the last eight years that i have been a member of congress, i have had the opportunity to work with the republicans and democrats alike to ensure that older americans have the security and the quality of life that they deserve. and i'm hopeful my amendment today will present another chance for my friends on both sides of the aisle to vote for something -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the chair would be pleased if members would remove their conversations from the floor, clear the aisles or take your seats. the gentleman may proceed. mr. michaud: i'm hopeful my amendment today will present another chance for my friends on both sides of the aisle to vote for something because it's good policy regardless of our difference in politics.

this final amendment would ensure that nothing will prevent the consumer financial protection burro from shoing rules and regulations that protect our seniors. it ensures that the bureau is able to protect senior citizens, social security, medicare, pensions and other retirement savings from fraud. in my state of maine, seniors are frequent targets of predatory practices intended to cheat them out of our money. our republican governor recognized this disturbing reality when he announced new efforts to guard seniors last month on elder abuse awareness day. the governor's efforts and my amendment are badly needed to protect our seniors. a 2010 survey of 7.3 million older americans found that one out of every five citizens over the age of 65 has been a victim of fraudulent schemes.

even more at risk are becoming victims. 37% of seniors are currently being contacted by people calling them asking them for money, lotteries and other scams. we can agree that congress needs to act now to stop people from preying on people's finances and protect their -- them. i want to highlight two stories of fraud targeted at older americans in my state of maine. these heartbreaking examples shows why it is so important for the consumer financial protection bureau to be able to protect our seniors. carolyn thompson lives in maine and are big advocates of green energy and like a good opportunity when they see one. when they heard from their friends about a man who owned a patent for a new form of

windmill technology and looking for investors, they were excited about the possibility of investing in the windmill projects and did invest to the tune of $30,000 thinking they were putting their money in an investment that would provide a secure future for their children. on a trip to view the technology, they were not impressed by what they saw and became suspicious. their suspicions were justified and the opportunity proved to be a scam that took tens of thousands of dollars of their savings. thankfully the scammer was quct convicted of fraud earlier this month but the thompsons are unlikely to get their money back. the second story is about a retired teacher from caribou, maine, who passed away from breast cancer. three years before she died, she met an insurance agent from maine who took advantage of her

age and gave her bad financial advice to his financial gain. he convinced her to buy a snow mobile for his use. he got her to buy long-term insurance policies that she couldn't afford and advised her to put cash in her stock portfolio to make financial expenditures that were actually bad, that really caused her medicare premiums to skyrocket. she passed away in november and did not live to see the agent lose his license. but her story lives on today as compelling evidence that congress needs to protect our seniors from fraud. i ask my colleagues to join me today to support my amendment. we all have constituents like lucy anne and mr. and mrs. thompson. this final amendment will not prevent this bill from moving

forward. if it is adopted, it will simply be incoorpted into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted on. i offer this final amendment today to protect our seniors and i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting it. i urge everyone to vote yes on this final amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. duffy: mr. speaker, i withdraw my point of order and rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is withdrawn and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. duffy: first off, this motion on the floor today is just a political stunt that's going to undo the goodwill of my bill. now, let's be clear. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

let the house be in order. all members, take your seats. cease the conversation. the gentleman may proceed. mr. duffy: let's be clear. after nearly 20 hours of hearings and debates in our subcommittee and in our committee, this issue specifically has not been risen by my friends across the aisle. and then today, we spent nearly three hours on the floor and not once was in specific issue raised. this is not no more than political theater. but i have good news to my friends across the aisle, because -- order.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. duffy: i have good news for my friends on across the aisle. because in our committee, we dealt with a similar issue, one where i made a motion to designate one of five commissioners to specifically deal with the protection of our seniors. the bad news is is that every democrat voted against that amendment. now let's be clear. everybody in this house wants to make sure that our friends, our family members, our neighbors, our constituents, when they deal with banks, there are transactions that are fair and

transparent. we want to make sure of that. i want to talk about one very important issue that is raised in my bill that fixes the underlying law, because when you look at the cfpb as currently written, there is the ability to have rules reviewed, but the only way a rule can get reviewed is if you are a big bank on wall street. if you are one of those banks that participated in the financial crisis, if you are a big bank that is too big to fail, the way you have written this rule -- the underlying law, the way it has been written, you have a voice with the way the way the current law is written with the cfpb. what my bill does is actually gives a voice to small community banks and credit unions to deal with families all across america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house shall be in order.

the gentleman may proceed. mr. duffy: mr. speaker, my bill just does president give a voice to wall street banks, big banks, what my bill does is it gives a voice to small community banks. gives a voice to credit unions. so if a rule comes out that affects negatively the small community bank and the credit union, they have a voice to ask that it be overturned. and if those very small banks and credit unions that our families across this country look to when they want to get a loan for a car or mortgage for their home, but not only that, it's those small banks and credit unions that give capital to small businesses that expand and grow and create jobs for hard-working families right here in america. .

ladies and gentlemen, this is commonsense reform, this is reform that will do justice to the cfpb. i ask you to join with me and main street america and vote against this motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. me show: i ask for a -- mr. michaud: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the ayes are 183, the nays are 232. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit mr. frank: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. 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 241rk the nays are 173. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia rise? mrs. capito: i ask unanimous

consent that the engrossment of h.r. 1315 the clerkle with be authorized to collect cross references and punctuation and such changes as necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> i send to the desk a privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: resolution 363, providing for consideration of the bill h r. 2584, making appropriationers in department of the interior, veerment and realed agencies for fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speakering ski unanimous consent that during consideration of h.r. 2551, pursuant to house resolution

395, the -- 359, the following amendments be allowed to be offered i out of the specified order, amendment number 9 by mo moran and amendment number 10 by mr. holt. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 2551 and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 359 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. 359. the chair appoints mr. woodall to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2551 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriationers in lennell slailtive branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw and the gentleman from california, mr. honda, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. crenshaw: thank you. this is the funding bill for the subcommittee on legislative branch of the appropriations committee. for 2012. everybody knows that we are in the midst of some very difficult economic times. i don't need to tell the members we have had deficits of over $1 trillion for the last

couple of years, don't immediate to tell people that we've got about $4 trillion added to our national debt in the last two and a half years. we all know that we have $14 trillion of national debt and that equals our entire economy. and the one thing that everyone would agree on is that we just can't keep spending like that. that's just not sustainable. everyone says that. and so, we bring this bill in the midst of that kind of discussion and we want to try to do our part in getting a handle on the way we spend money around this mace. we want to try to stop this culture of spending and turn it into a culture of savings. so when we bring this bill this legislative branch appropriations bill, it will spend 6.4% less than last year, $227 million, and it will spend 14.2% less than was requested, that's $474 million. .

it's our best effort to keep the commitment that we are going to try to do things more efficiently and effectively than before. how do we do that? well, we listen to the facts. we had eight formal hearings. we had numerous informal hearings. we listened. we set priorities. we made some tough choices, and we have the bill before us. and i certainly want to thank the members of this subcommittee for their involvement, for their participation, for their hard work, for their input, and a special word of thanks to mike honda from california, the ranking member, who was involved in the process all along the way and knows the difficult, difficult choice that is we had to make. i certainly want to thank our staff both the minority and majority staff. a lot of times we go home at night and they stay and keep on working and they helped us get to where we are today to have that final product. now, let me just give you some

of the highlights of this bill. if you look at the legislative branch, about 36% of the spending goes to the house of representatives. that's where we are tonight. and half of the money that goes to the house goes to what we call members representational accounts, the so-called m.r.a.'s. and so we thought that since we have asked every agency in federal government to rein in spending, we have asked them all to tighten their belt, to do more with less, to be more efficient than they ever have been before, we have subjected them to this kind of scrutiny. we thought it would only be fair to apply that same process to us. and that's why the m.r.a.'s in this house are reduced by 6.4%. all the committee staff, budgets, they are reduced by 6.4%. the leadership budgets are reduced by 6.4%. now, those m.r.a.'s, that's

money that taxpayers money, we have it available to us to run our offices. we can hire staff, lease space, buy equipment. we can do a lot of things. we have a lot of discretion. now, some people will say, we shouldn't cut the m.r.a.'s. some people say we have cut them too much. that we can't continue to do our job. but it seems to me that if we are going to ask every other agency of the federal government to do more with less, then we've got to look at our ownselves. that's what we have done here. we have said we want to lead by example. we want to share in the sacrifice that everyone is sharing throughout the federal government. and that's why we did what we did. some people will say that, well, we might have to fire somebody. again, members have the money available to them. they can decide how they want to spend it. they want to have lots of staff, they can have lots of staff. if they want to send lots of mail out, they can do that. the m.r.a.'s even allow members to lease a car.

there will be an amendment later on to say you can't lease a car if it costs more than $1,000 a month. so when you hear people say this is going to make it very difficult for us to do our job, i think what it's going to do is make us as members be more responsible, be more efficient, set the right priorities and continue to do our job. some people say we ought to cut even more. i would say that if you look at the facts, we have cut this legislative branch funding by 9% over the last two years. we have got the m.r.a.'s. again, last year we cut them 5%. the appropriations committee was cut by 9% last year. i think we struck a balance between doing more with less, being more efficient, and yet being able to do the things that we need to do in a very efficient and very safe manner. now, there are other agencies that we oversee, and some are extensions of the house, so to speak. the congressional budget office , the government accountability office. these are agencies that provide

service to the members of this body. and as extensions of the house, we felt like they should be subject to the same scrutiny that we were. their budgets are going to be reduced by 6.4% as well. that means they are going to have to be a little smarter, set priorities, work more efficiently, and actually as members, mr. speaker, we are going to have to be more judicious in the things we ask for these agencies. sometimes we just willy-nilly say i want a report here, or report there. we need to decide what we really need and what we don't necessarily need. and i think they'll be able to continue to do the job that they have been doing all along. supply us with the information we need to be effective members of this body. we also oversee the library of congress. wonderful historic building you can see from this house of representatives. very important to us. their budget has been reduced. they are working with us to

make sure that they can continue to provide the service that is we need. we oversee the architect of the capitol. he's charged with overseeing over a million square feet of offices all across this capitol hill. his budget is being cut. he's got a list of the projects he needs to do. he's set a priority there. and he will do what needs to be done, but he'll make sure he doesn't impair the health and safety of any members of this house, any staff, or the people that work on the hill. we reduce the budget of the government printing office. foonlly, we oversee the capitol police. a lot has been said about our ability to make sure that we are safe in this area. we didn't reduce the spending for the capitol police. we recognize that security is not a luxury. it's something that we need. but we also realize members can be more diligent.

we can be more aware what we learn from this situation in arizona with our fellow congresswoman, is that our service is not without risk. but many of the things that we need to do from a security standpoint have to do with our own common sense. our own awareness, our own diligence. so we provide the capitol police with the money that they need to not only make sure that we are safe in this house, our staff, and those that work in the capitol complex are safe, but also the millions of americans that come here to make sure they are safe as well. and so i think, mr. speaker, we have a bill that strikes the right balance. we recognize the difficult times we are in. we have taken the money we have available. we have set priorities. we made some tough choices. and i think this bill represents some responsible, fiscally responsible savings that will allow us to continue to do our job, to do it in a safe, safe and efficient manner.

and as we have put all these agencies around the federal government under this scrutiny to see if they can do things more efficiently, we have not exempted ourselves. so with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. honda: i would like to begin by thanking chairman crenshaw, the appropriations majority staff, and his personal staff for the professionalism shown during this process. while it is not the bill i would have written, it is the process that i would have followed. the legislative branch minus the senate is being cut by 6.4% from f.y. 2011 and 9% from f.y. 2010. these cuts are being done while we had to fix a $1 million hole for the capitol police because of their accounting mistake in fear 2010. i believe these cuts are

harmful to our members' ability to serve their constituents and to the house's responsibility to provide effective oversight. the budget allocations one could expect given the majority is also cutting women and children's nutrition programs, consumer protection, and other important programs in other bills. the only thing this bill has succeeded in doing however is joining the other flawed bills by cutting at the expense of jobs, strong oversight, and common sense efficiencies. maybe what this bill, the one that funds the members' operation, the majority will see the real life impacts of these cuts, one of which is not real deficit reduction. this bill will cut the library of congress by 8.5%, including a reduction of over 300 employees, 50 of whom will be cut from our much relied upon congressional research service. members should ask their staff

how often they use c.r.s. staff for research, particularly in responding to questions and concerns from their constituents. this bell would cut the government printing office by 16%, an agency already planning to let go of 330 employees. there is language in the privatization of g.p.o.'s activities which could make it more expensive for congress to operate. the government accountability office or g.a.o. is cut by 6.4%. every dollar spent at g.a.o. results in $4 in taxpayer savings. this begs the question, is it the majority's priority to not save taxpayers' money? those who claim to want increase oversight of government programs should reject cuts to g.a.o. they are known as congress' watchdog and that watchdog should have teeth. we have heard that some members' offices are furloughing staff to meet the

5% cut to the members representational allowance, or m.r.a., in 2011. now this bill will further cut m.r.a.'s by 6.4%. cuts to m.r.a. means cuts to members' day-to-day abilities to effectively represent our and their constituents from the staff assistant answering calls from our constituents to the caseworkers, helping grandma recover her lost social security check. all of these services are funded through m.r.a. each office would lose on the average of $88,000, which would mean, it two to three staffers per office. in what world does laying people off recover economy? the cut and grow mantra does not work in the economy as a whole. it is certainly -- it certainly will not work in the corridors of congress. i hope the members of this body understand that agencies we rely on will have to deny or limit services provided to members' office because there are fewer people to handle requests.

i would say to my colleagues, remember these cuts the next time you have requests of g.a.o. the architect of the capitol, congressional research service, and congressional budget office. beyond that, after the tragic shooting of our friend and colleague gabby giffords in two sop, we were told to increase security in our district office,, but how are we supposed to pay for all of it? certainly not out of our office budgets that are being whacked. not from the capitol police who are flat funded and not from the sergeant at arms whose budget is cut 10%. i have a great deal of respect for my chairman crenshaw. there are a lot of -- there are not many things that he could have done differently with the allocation he had to work with. i hope we rethink trying to balance the budget by cutting services for people who sent us here. our constituents and we can and must do better, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i yield such time

as he may consume to the chairman of the full appropriations committee, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i thank the chairman for yielding the time. mr. chairman, i rise today to commend the h.r. 285851, the fiscal year 2012 appropriations act for the legislative branch. mr. chairman, this is the 6th appropriations bill that we will have passed through the house out of 12 bills that will be considered. three more of the 12 bills are waiting, cued up to come before the house. but this is the sixth. this will make us halfway through the appropriations bills for 2012. i want to commend chairman crenshaw and mr. honda for hard work, blood curdling decisions

they had to make. because this bill deals with our colleagues and us and the operation of this body that we all love. this bill will help stop government overspending. starting in our own backyard. if we are trying to get back on a more sustainable course, we've got to cut spending wherever we can. and we've got to make do with less. our constituents ask us to get our own fiscal house in order. and we are leading by example. with this legislation. this legislation prioritizes the safety of the thousands of people who work in and visit the capitol complex every day. providing essential funding for the capitol police, services for our visitors, and necessary maintenance.

but we are keeping to our commitment to reduce spending and so we cut back in other areas. we have trimmed the house leadership. and the member and committee budgets by over 6%. this legislation provides smaller budgets for our own offices. and continues our goal of reducing spending across the entire federal government. . to demonstrate my commitment to savings and the feasibility of reduced budgets, earlier this year, we directed that my own committee, the appropriations committee, cut its budget not by the 5% that all other committees cut, we said we'll see you that and ask for four more and we cut our budget by

9%. and this bill continues that reduction, trimming another 6.4%. so since january of this year, the appropriations committee, when this bill is finished, will have cut its own budget by some 15.4%. just as american families ares fored to live within their mean, their representatives in washington should do the same. i understand that many of my colleagues are concerned about what these cuts might mean for their own offices. i know making these hard decisions will not be easy for them. just as they were not easy for us to make in the first place. but these cuts are necessary. we can't ask everyone else to make cuts to their budgets and not do the same to ourselves.

we all have to share in the sacrifice during this financial crisis and i'm proud that we're doing our part to help our nation dig itself out of dangerous job-killing debt so that we can get our economy back on track. again, i want to commend chairman crenshaw and ranking member honda and their staffs on a strong bill that makes these responsible reductions and i urge our colleagues to support the legislation. i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from the beautiful state of washington, mr. dicks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. dicks: i thank the ranking member, mr. honda, for yielding me and i'd like to thank chairman crenshaw, chairman rogers and the staff on both sides for what they've been table do to accommodate the

priorities of democratic members as they assembled the bill this bill would fund the legislative branch, minus the senate, at $3 ppt 3 billion, a 4% reduction from 2011 and a 9% reduction from fiscal year 2010. i appreciate the overview that congressman honda has provided and would like to join him in expressing serious concern on behalf of our colleagues regarding security for our district offices and for official events involving members as well as the general public. after the tragic shooting in tucson, congress was left to re-evaluate security in members' districts. while it is one of the most -- of the utmost importance to ensure that members have -- that constituents have access to members of congress, the tucson event is a reminder that we must be vigilant in

providing security to staff and have itors who attend our events. the effort by the house to improve district security after the shooting put much of the burden on the members' offices, including the pame for that security. as members' office budgets are being cut for the second time in a rear, there has to be reconsideration of that policy. perhaps with an eye toward a more centralized approach to security. while we have not been seeing specific estimates of the cost involved here, it would clearly represent a substantial expense, especially the budget of the secret service is used as a guide. the capitol police appropriation recommended in this bill -- appropriations recommended in this bill is $340 million, equal to the fiscal year 2011 level. the capitol police protect the entire capitol complex with primary responsibility for 541 members of congress, resident

commissioners, and delegates. by comparison, the house-passed secret service appropriation bill included over $1 billion for the protection of 50 to 70 individuals, including the president nefment capitol police are going to be required to assess more threats against members and take a more active role in district security, the capitol police budget should reflect these increased demands. conversely, if members' individual office budgets are going to continue to assume these additional security costs, their budget should somehow reflect this responsibility. again, i thank the ranking member for his work on the bill and the chairman and mr. rogers and our staff, we have a great staff and they do great work for this institution. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from

california is recognized. mr. honda: i yield three minutes to the ranking member of the homeland security subcommittee, mr. price. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. price: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i commend both the chairman and ranking member for their hard work on this bill, although with an inadequate allocation, there are decisions that have been made that i believe will adversely affect our work and that i hope can be rehave ited down the line. that's not what i want to talk about at this moment, though. i want to talk about an unusual feature of the legislative branch bill that i hope also can be rehave ited down the line. i want to call attention of my colleagues to the elimination of a program that's served this body and our nation's interest well. the open world leadership center. a unique enterprise, sponsored by the lennell slative branch of our government, something that i think should make us proud of this institution.

and its international outreach. the bill before us today provides only shutdown expenses for this program. now, mr. chairman, i'm not going to offer an amendment to restore the program's funding because of the extremely low subcommitteall case and the absence of acceptable -- low subcommittee allocations and the absence of acceptable offsets, there isn't money around to apply to this purpose. but i cannot let this body's commitment to the open world program end without voicing my disappointment and my hope that this matter will be reconsidered and can be reconsidered in the context of the senate bill. the open rule leadership program is a unique program administered by the library congress that's earned bipartisan and bicameral support. since 1999, it's bought eerging leaders from former soviet states to all 50 states of our

country, providing them a firsthand look at the u.s. democratic process, enabling them to exchange ideas with their american counterparts, and encouraging them to relate what they learn to their home environments. the participants in open world are not the people that typically participate in international exchange programs. they're not just the political and business leaers in the capital who venture to other places frequently. they're teachers, judges, health workers, young activists, all sorts of people who live often in rural areas and smaller cities. the program penetrates deeply. in my experience, uniquely so. the -- rather than just being another run of the mill exchange program. i know about this and many other members in this body do as well. i participated personally with these leaders as they've come to my district.

this is a well designed program. it's a program that has made and can make a difference. it doesn't just merely scratch the surface. it involves russia, ukraine, georgia, aser buy zann, -- azerbaijan, tajikistan and serbia and others. these countries remain strategically linked to u.s. interests because of their history and their location in central europe and eastern asia. the open world program is an effective dip will mattick tool. may i have an additional two minutes? mr. honda: i yield the gentleman two more minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: the open world program is an important diplomatic tool. open world is not about us. it's not about us.

it's not about our institution. it's an instrument of outreach a unique one. we should be proud of this. a unique instrument of outreach to a critical part of the world. its loss would be deeply felt. in previous congresses, there's been question of whether the open world program should be placed, where it is administratively or in the legislative branch appropriations bill. i've looked at this, and i've concluded that the program's placement in the legislative branch is an asset, making cheer the program is not tied to a specific administration with its foreign policy goals and priorities and politics. this in fact we're told has sometimes redeuced obstacles to participation. and has made the program more accessible. mr. chairman, congress' sponsorship of the open world has made me proud of this institution.

we've assume responsibility very directly for projecting our democratic principles and values to countries with histories of oppressive rule. we need to reflect further. we need to think long and hard on what it would mean to drop this program. what does that say about us? what kind of opportunities would we for go? if we do think -- we forgo? if we do think long and hard, i have some confidence that we would reconsider what the subcommittee has recommended. i very much hope we will have that opportunity. i thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. honda: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. crenshaw: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired.

pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read for amendment under the five-minute rule. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-173, each may be offered only in the order presented except amendment number 9 and amendment number 12 may be offered out of the specified order. each such amendment may be offered only by a member designated in the report, debated for the time speesfied in the report, equally divided and controlled by an -- by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-173. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. honda: i rise as the designee of the gentleman from

fwea, mr. bishop, and offer the amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 pribted in house report 112-173, offered by mr. honda of california. the chair: the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. honda: the amendment i'm introducing on behalf of my colleague, sanford bishop, would increase the capitol police by a modest $1 million for curt. after the shooting of representative giffords, the sernlt at arms provided members with security reviews this provided members with a litany of equipment and capital improvements needed to improve district office security. even though the recommendations came from security agencies, members were left to fund the upgrades through their office budget. but members' offices are being cut by more than 10% in a year.

i'm afraid the strain to continue constituent services will impede the any member's ability to pay for these upgrades. i'm hoping it will be a small step to provide a centralized fund so these upgrades are not ignored. the offset is from a lower priority health account that funds transition costs in 2012. it is not a transition year. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? >> mr. honda: i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. crenshaw: i want to say to the gentleman we're all concerned about security upgrades and accept the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman claim time in opposition. mr. crenshaw: no, i accept the amendment that means i'm in favor of it. so i just accepted the amendment. the chair: the amendment is accepted.