protecting consumers. the reason congress did this was because prior to the financial crisis, consumers were an afterthought, a secondary thought, a third thought or usually not thought about at all, so it's a huge step forward to have a department that's focused on protecting consumers from new products that were harmful and innovations that were not tested, that were harmful to the consumers and the economy as a whole, which led to the financial crisis. this was a huge step forward for consumers when we created it. unfortunately, this bill before us today is a huge step backwards because it would give the safety and soundness regulators more authority to veto the cfpb's consumer protections in the name of bank profits, just like in the old days. let's remember that in just its first 2 1/2 years, the cfpb has already made huge strides on a

number of important consumer protections, from new mortgage protections to credit cards to payday lending. an independent source said the credit card bill of rights that was supported by the cfpb saves consumers $20 billion a year. that is a huge step forward for onsumers. and the bureau has been willing to make sensible changes when it needed to. last year they adopted amendments to the card act that would allow stay-at-home spouses to take out credit cards in their own names. that was commonsense fix for an unintended problem for stay-at-home spouses that were credit worthy and they made the decision to make them able to get these credit cards. that's a huge step forward, i worked with it on -- worked with mrs. capito across the aisle. and they continue to develop

safeguards in rapidly growing areas, such as prepaid cards and other areas. in short the cfpb's work has made the lives of american consumers and our constituents better on a day-to-day basis. this bill would understood mine these results and would weaken the consumer financial protection board and i strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. i ask permission please to place in the record independent organizations, literally well over 100, in support of the cfpb and in opposition to this bill. good government groups, credit groups, individual legislators and local and state partners, all of whom support the bill for undermining the work of the cfpb that is there to protect our

consumers. i reserve the plans of my time. i yield back to the ranking member. the chair: the gentlelady may not reserve. the request will be goifered general leave. the gentleman from texas is ecognized. mr. hensarling: it is my honor to yield one minute to the distinguished minority leader a tireless advocate for consumer choice and freedom throughout this debate on this unaccountable bureau and has led our congress' effort to bring bills to the floor to stop government abuse. again, i yield one minute to the distinguished republican leader the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman from texas, both gentlemen from texas, for their leadership on this issue. i rise today in support of the consumer financial freedom and washington accountability act. mr. chairman, our constituents

deserve an open government that can easily be held accountable. we in the house got to be focused on reforming this government so we can create an america that works again. the founders of our country created the democratic system to include a veer ose of checks and balances to prevent any institution from becoming too powerful and today it is as important as ever to keep those checks and balances strong. but right now, the consumer financial protection bureau is an independent agency within the federal reserve system full of unelected bureaucrats who enjoy an unprecedented amount of power with a serious lack of accountability to any of the three branches of government. american consumers should not have to fear federal bureaucrats who can eliminate access to their credit options, collect information on their personal

finances, without their knowledge or consent, or limit the availability of a mortgage due to the onerous qualified mortgage rule that the cfpb but in place last month. working families, who are struggle to make ends meet during these hard economic times should also not have to worry about their hard-earned tax dollars being spent so recklessly and irresponsibly by government agencies. we've recreptly learned that the federal reserve's inspector general opened up an investigation to fipe out why a rep veags to the cfpb's headquarters sty rocketed from $55 million to $145 million in under two years. this reckless waste is one of the most dangerous kinds of government abuse. the american workers' pocketbooks are not washington's a.t.m. machine. the bill before us today

provides solutions to these problems with important structural change this is a will place the levers of pow for the a bipartisan panel as opposed to a single director, while subjecting the cfpb to the regular appropriations and oversight processes guaranteeing more accountability. this is an opportunity for us to show the american people that we are committed to restoring the trust in government. by passing these commonsense reforms in a bipartisan fashion we can hold washington more accountable to the people we are supposed to protect. so let's pass this bill and take one step closer to stopping government abuse. again i'd like to thank chairman hensarling, chairman neugebauer, epresentative duffy, bachus,

westmoreland, fimplinger and the rest for their hard work on this issue and i urge my colleagues in the house to support this legislation so we can begin to make america work again for everybody. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, representative limple, member of the financial services committee, ranking member on the subcommittee on federal work force, u.s. postal service, and the census. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lynch: thank you for yielding. i rise in opposition to h.r. 3193, the so-called consumer financial protection and soundness improvement act. let's be clear about what my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to do here today. they would really like to completely repeal the consumer financial protection bureau.

many of the sponsors of the act, the ones who tried to defeat the creation and empowerment of the cfpb to begin with and we -- to be mindful that this is the only financial regulator solely responsible with protecting american consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive financial products. my friends on the other side of the aisle would like to destroy it system of they're trying to pass off this death by 1,000 cuts approach as improvements to the bureau's structure. this bill will bog down the consumer bureau in bureaucratic and congressional red tape, it will make it more difficult for the bureau to seek out and reteen qualified employees and it will allow the companies that the consumer financial protection bureau is supposed to be regulating to have more information, better information, more accurate information, more

extensive information about consumers than the cfpb that is responsible for protecting them will have. in some it will make the consume brother text pew row a second class and ineffective regulator, sending the message to bad actors in our financial markets that we are not really serious about consumer protections. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on h.r. 319 3rk i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, the chairman of tissue chairman of the housing an subcommittee chairman. he's a key co-author of this ill, ensuring that the cfpb is accountable, through the appropriations process, and a real champion of preserving

housing opportunities from washington bureaucrats. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. neugebauer: i think it's interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to want tooff this spending gone wild agency. an agency that last year alone had a budget overreach of nearly $100 million. that's the reason i introduced title 2 of this bill which says two things, one that we take this agency out of the bed and make it a stand-alone entity, and that we put it on budget a normal appropriation process where members of congress can begin to sit down and look at the budget that's presented to them by the agency, how you're going to spend their money, and maybe prevented some of these overages that happened. i don't think that anybody think this is a government should have an unlimited purse and this is what this agency basically has. if they run out of money, spend too much mup, they reach over

into the fed and take that money out. no other agency that i know of in the government has that. and i think the american people that the hardworking american people, the hard working people of the 19th district, feel hike that agencies ought to come, bring their budget, like other areas of government and improve and display to them why they need that money. it's interesting enough, the cfpb has 1,500 employees. 60% of them making over $100,000. 5% of those make more than cabinet secretaries. mr. speaker, mr. chairman, again, we think there needs to be more accountability here. this agencies can draw up to $500 million each year without -- in fact, some of the requests for transfer was done on a small piece of paper. i request an adecisional po seconds. mr. hensarling: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

mr. neugebauer: mr. chairman this bill, 3193, begins to bring accountability that the american taxpayers deserve but desire. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized -- the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. i yield to the gentleman from washington four minutes, who is a member of the financial services committee who has paid a lot of attention to this issue, representative heck. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the ranking member very much. i am from washington state. i am about to commit a sackry lemming. we could have saved a lot of trees -- -- a sacrilege. we could have saved a lot of trees and a lot of time if we had had a one-nns ill -- sentence bill that said, end the consumer financial protection bureau. we could have had an honest

debate then about whether we should have a government agency with a mandate to protect consumers from deceptive financial marketing. we could have had a discussion about what the cfpb has accomplished thus far and whether it's access to believe americans, whether it's proposed, streamlined forms are more effective at educating americans, whether its rules are thoroughly researched and revised after comments from all sides. instead, we'll have a debate and are having a debate over reorganizing and defunding and subordinating and other matters of process and organization that are all, frankly, designed to kill cfpb by a thousand cuts. i think the proposition here is fairly straightforward and remains a history -- mystery to me. if one desires to do away with the cfpb, why not have the courage to introduce that bill,

straightforwardly. ordinarily i don't assign motives or characterize intent on the part of people who advanced legislation but the fact of the matter is, many of those who are advocating for this bill's passage oppose the creation of the agency, flat out. the fact of the matter is that a companion bill, granted, one not in this, even retitled the agency and took the words consumer protection out. the fact of the matter is, if there were more credible arguments in support of this legislation, i think we would be a little more careful with the facts. here's a fact. there isn't a penny of taxpayer $s to support cfpb. it's fee-based. here's a fact omitted, more than 60% of the cost associated with whichleged remodel budget

is an estimate a fact omitted, more than 60% is associated with upgrading to code. now i know for another fact that the people who are making that argument do not want civil servants to occupy unsafe and unhealthy buildings. but most importantly, this is the part that really gets me, year going to spend a lot of time on this today and in committee an we're going to pass it to the senate and we all know what its fate is going to be. right down into the round file. well that's fine. people have a right to make their point. but what is the opportunity cost of making that point in committee and on the floor? at least one of the opportunity costs is getting to work on actual regulatory relief. we have several bills, bipartisan bills, for regulatory relief, some form of the clear act, not all the members on my side support it but some do. we could actually get to work on regulatory relief if we would

set aside our efforts for this messaging and exercise. as for me, no matter what the form, i'm going to vote no on any bill that kills the cfpb. any bill. i will vote no because of the work that cfpb does on bhf of my constituents. will vote to preserve the office of service affairs. they protect the men and women in uniform. i represent joint base lewis mccore. thousands of military personnel. if you ever talked to anybody -- i don't see how anybody that near military base even their -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. waters: i yield an additional minute to the gentleman. mr. heck: thank you. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. heck: i don't see how anybody has a military base

anywhere near their district can support this legislation. i will vote to protect the experts who are laying the ground work for the first national consumer protection rules on paycals day loans and other short-term high interest loans. i'll vote to defend the bureau's work protecting students from high interest rate loans and creating a uniformed set of borrower rights and protections for all student loans, public or private. if we really want a stable, predictable business environment, we wouldn't be going down this path. at the end of the day, again, the proposition is very straightforward. if you support consumer protection, you will vote no on this legislation. if you oppose consumer protection, you will vote yes. but i plead with you to please vote no. hank you, mr. chair. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized.

mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i yield myself five seconds to encourage the gentleman from washington to read section 1017 of the dodd-frank fact and would discover that the cfpb is funded by the federal reserve which happens to be taxpayer money. at this time, mr. chairman, i'm happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, the vice chairman of our housing subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. chairman. my colleagues have done a good job listing problems of the cfpb. i want to tell you about the overreach of this already. one business purchased a small lending company and it comes with a lease for the building you're operating out of. the rent is $300 over what the rate should be for that area. they go in and tell the bank they'll fine them $107,000 for this lease which doesn't -- nothing the bank made. it doesn't impact consumers,

yet they're fined $107,000. the bank eventually settles $80,000 plus $30,000 in attorneys' fees. mr. speaker, mr. chairman, this is an example of this bureau's overreach. it's got to stop. h.r. 3193 does that. i urge support for that bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: we're awaiting for additional speakers. we reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i am now pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, the chairman of our capital markets and g.s.e. subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. garrett: mr. speaker, the bureau of financial protection claims unlimited power to define and regulate every conceivable financial transaction in the country, and yet it claims to be unaccountable to no one. so i find it disservinghat

they collect private credit card data on americans and does so without the knowledge of those americans. it's so bad that the bureau collects information on nine -- over 990 million credit card accounts. according to the professor of economics at george mason, he said, quote, there are costs and potential harms to collecting and maintaining massive databases, including the potential for abuse, violation of consumer privacy and security concerns in the event of its data breach. mr. speaker, the bureau believes its actions must go unquestioned and now it wants your credit card information too. this legislation before us protects citizens by protecting and prohibiting the bureau from collecting americans' nonpublic personal and financial information without first receiving the expressed permission of the consumer. so i urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to respect the financial privacy of all americans and support

this legislation. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i continue to reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i am pleased now to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, the chairman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee of the financial services committee. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate my colleagues for their leadership on this important legislation. i rise in support of it, to bring some balance to an otherwise unaccountable bureaucratic agency. perhaps the most powerful agency in government with the least amount of public accountable. it has no accountability to the administration, very little to congress and even less to the american people. and as a result, it should come to no surprise that this bureau

has operated with less transparency and less concern for fiscal discipline than even low bar and low standard we hold for our federal tax dollars. certain expenditures have been called into question. in fact, their building expenditures, which is a beautiful release of $150 million plan to renovate a building that they are leasing. now, it's a very rare thing and pretty silly in real estate to an enormous redo of a building to put $150 million at $461 a square foot into that building. it makes no sense unless you understand that these are your tax dollars at work to build luxury a couple blocks from the white house. these buildings are just another example of why this agency needs to be held accountable to not just the american people and the

taxpayers but to the tax paying public and those of us who care about having access to good financial products while protecting -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mchenry: so that's why i support this legislation. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i am now happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, the vice chairman of our capital market and g.s.e. subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. hurt: i thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue. i thank him for yielding. mr. chairman, today i rise in support of the consumer financial protection in washington accountability act. as i travel across virginia, i hear about the impact of the cfpb. i heard from consumers,

community banks and credit unions about how the unchecked authority of the cfpb is prestricting consumer choice, creating an atmosphere of economic uncertainty and increasing costs. real consumer protection requires that we shift power from washington bureaucrats to american consumers by providing access to competitive markets with choice, information and accountability. this bill would help achieve that goal by adding much-needed oversight and transparency to this far-reaching new government agency without weakening consumer protection. these bipartisan checks and balances will promote our community banks and credit unions that play a critical role in providing capital to our small businesses and working families. at a time when too many americans remain out of work, it is critical that we continue to support policies that will help restore certainty to the marketplace, create jobs and protect our consumers. i urge support of this good bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you. i'm very pleased to yield to

the gentleman from minnesota, e chief deputy whip who also serves on the financial services committee and is co-chair of the progressive caucus, mr. ellison, for four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for four minutes. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. speaker. let me also thank our ranking member for the time. i urge a no vote on h.r. 1393 today. it's a bad bill and it's bad for consumers, bad for americans. and as i listen to my colleagues, one of them mentioned this offers -- this is uncertainty, that cfpb offers uncertainty. well, here's some certainty for you. you cannot cheat consumers. that's certain enough for me. another one said, well, you know, cfpb doesn't offer choice. here's a choice. you can offer any product that is fair and transparent to consumers. and that is exactly what my

friends on the other side of the aisle object to. they tonight -- they don't want average americans to be able to get a product, a financial services product that is fair, that is balanced and that makes sense in the marketplace. you have nothing to fear from the cfpb if you do not have a product that's designed to help consumers. if you do i can see why you'd be quite upset of the activity of the cfpb. the bottom line is this is a bad bill that will set our country back. and in fact, i believe consumer protection is at the very heart of the recession that we just went through. now, of course, we heard ad nauseam that it was housing goals and it was the other sort of measures that caused the recession, but the fact is the recession was caused because large numbers of homebuyers were built into mortgages that

they couldn't afford, that were difficulty to understand with high pressure tactics and were incentivized even to be guided and steered to product that were more high cost than the ones they qualified for. then, we pack and these things into mortgage-backed securities that were unsound to begin with. rating agencies said they were fine. took out a form of insurance on them, and then when the house of cards fell, the whole economy went with it. consumer protections at the heart of this problem, the consumer protection is at the solution of this problem, so this effort to undermine the cfpb today in -- under the guise of h.r. 1393 is wrong. mr. speaker, we are at a who side are you on moment. are you on the side of mom and pop of the small business owner of the consumer trying to get a house loan or other form of credit, or are you on someone

else's side who's not in favor of a good product? i said to my small community bankers. look, before the crash they didn't have a regulator. now, everyone has one. the cfpb offers a level playing field for all. now everybody offering mortgage products has a degree of accountability. this is good for the financial services sector, not bad. since the cfpb was created, following the financial crisis, it has received, mr. speaker, more than 250,000 consumer complaints. mr. speaker, who are these 250,000 complaints supposed to be directed to but for an agency that is responsive to them? who, my friends on the other side of the aisle, have these people go to to try to get their problems solved? we know that they weren't being listened to before the cfpb. now that they have, the cfpb

exists, quarter of a million complaints and untold number of complaintants have come forward -- complainants have come forward to say, please help me. most of them have been in the mortgage -- half of them have been in the mortgage servicing alone. of the 3,000 complaints from my own state of minnesota, 1,320 have been related to mortgage issues. this bill threatens to turn off access to these consumers, and i will not stand silently by while they do this. this is a bad bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. waters: i yield an additional minute to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman may proceed for an additional minute. mr. ellison: this is a bad bill. among the cfpb's many accomplishments, they have refunded more than $3 billion -- billion with a b -- to more than nine million consumers. that's good fiscal stewardship. now, the cfpb oversees

industries that previously were not regulated by the federal government, including credit reporting agencies, nonbank mortgage providers, debt collection agencies and payday lenders, all of that consumer protection was in. if this bad piece of legislation were to pass. resoundingly say no on this bill. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i'm now pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one inute. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the consumer financial protection and act. the cfpb is disgracefully unaccountable to the american people. richard cord ray and future direct dwhroferse bureau are virtually unchecked by congress and the president. we've seen what happens when

bureaucrats so powerful are left kuhn account -- unaccountable. in three short years, cfpb has burned through its budget and rifled the private data of americans. hoosiers deserve consumer protections but also deserve integrity and accountabilityful. after talking with families, small businesses and credit unions back home, i'm proud to support the commonsense reforms before the house today. let's replace the cfpb's director with a five-member commission to ensure healthy discussion and bring more seats to the table. let's rein in the cfpb's budget so members of congress from both parties can protect their constituents. let's prohibit government bureaucrats from using private, personal information without the consumer's extent. mr. speaker, let's protect and empower american consumers, not washington bureaucrats. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i continue to restemb the -- the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: can i inquire whether the gentlelady has any more speakers? ms. waters: we have one speaker on the way. mr. hensarling: we have plenty of speakers here, i'd be glad to lend the gentlelady is few if she needs some people to speak. at this time i'm happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mulvaney: i'm freeze pleased o rise in support of h.r. 3193 which replaces the single person with a five-member commission. it had originally a five-member commission, we're trying to get back to that intention. further in discussions in committee we focused on the membership of that commission and how it wouldn't -- would be a decent idea to have a people

-- to have people on the commission who knew something about the industry this is a they were regulating. for example, the cfpb regulates insured banks, credit unions, all of which are very unique. wouldn't it be nice to have folks regulating those industries who knew something about them? this is not rare in the world of regulation. he fdic which overseas state banks has had -- been required to have someone on its commission for years who has experience regulating state banks. it's not been a problem for the fdic. would not be a problem for the cfpb. we need to pass this bill far variety of reasons but first and foremost we need to emr. is -- replace the single director with a five-man commission. with that i hope we pass the bill. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from -- gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i yield an additional two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes.

mr. ellison: i rise to address one point, the claim that cfbb engames in mass i have data collection. it's not true. the cfpb does not monitor accounts of particular consumers and does not track the financial behavior or activity os inform -- of any individual customer. the cfpb is pointed -- prohibited by law from collecting personally identifiable information in the course of its market monotroringsponsability. although the bureau does collect certain information as part of its responsibility to identify and monitor market trends and proactively address emerging consumer credit issues this information is deliberately depersonalized anding a gated to ensure consumers' sensitive information is protected.

this is critically important because speaker after speaker is trying to scare consumers into believing somebody is looking at their personal data. it's not true. it's not true. and i think it's important for people listening to this debate to know that. requiring the bureau to seek consent on an individual level in order for it to accessing a gated or anonymous data is not only a hindrance to the cfpb's core mission, regulating the entity this is a offer financial products and service, it's a burdensome requirement and intended simply to slow down, gum up, undermine and break down the institution itself. it's not true. people's data is safe. but looking for aggregate trends and proactively addressing emerging problems as would have been very helpful as we got closer to the financial foreclosure pry crisis a few years ago is what the cfpb is

doing, it's doing what it's supposed to do, it's doing it well, and i don't know why any fair-minded person would be against that the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i yield myself 30 seconds to say that the cfpb is building a database containing full credit report data on 53 million borrowers who took out mortgages since 199 , the project manager said, quote, it is easy to reverse engineer and identify the people in our database. cfpb has a credit card database of at least 991 million credit cards and approximately 136 million americans, the bureau is collecting a database of credit reports on 8.6 million americans, they continue to collect personalized data from americans without their permission, it is unacceptable. at this time, mr. chairman, i'm happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ross: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. the consumer financial protection bureau is one of the largest federal undertakings in recent history, created by congress but not account to believe congress. one person is tasked with the responsibility. no single individual can have sufficient expertise to make derlings this is a impact low income fam is will, consumer banks, credit card users and students. a real estate lawyer in my istrict who represents clients who lend to low-income people commented the only way these folks can own a home is to finance the purchase from an unconventional source. they get financial information relating to the ability to pay but does not meet the thresholds as a qualified mortgage he told his compliants to discontinue lending. these are the results of an

unaccountable agency with insular focus. h.r. 4193 would bring much-needed accountability and ensure that american families are actually proteched by federal regulations not harmed by unintended consequences, a situation we have seen all too often. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mr. watt -- ms. waters: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i'd like to inquire how much time is remaining on each side. the chair: the gentleman has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from california has 4 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: at this time i'm happy to yield one minute to the gentlelady from missouri, ms. wagner. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. wagner: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the harem for yielding me time. i particularly want to thank the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy , for his leadership on this important issue and for standing up on behalf of

hardworking american families. i rise in support of h.r. 3193 and urge its passage by this house. the financial service committees has on multiple occasions asked the question, who protects consumers? consumers -- who protects consumers from the bureau for consumer protection? up fortunately the answer has been nobody. today the house has an opportunity to change that. the underlying bill includes a number of provisions to ensure that the principles of good government apply to the bureau and it puts an end to the special freement granted to the bureau under dodd-frank. these are commonsense, pro-consumer provisions to help protect hardworking american families and taxpayers from yet another washington bureaucracy that thinks it know noes what's in their best interest. i urge passage of this bill and yelled back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i continue to reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: this egentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barr: thank you. this legislation is about holding washington accountable. the bureau of consumer financial protection is one of the most powerful and unaccountable agencies in the entire federal government. unfortunately, the bureau reaches deeply into the everyday lives of kentuckians. in following its partisan ageneral dark the bureau makes it harder for small business osen -- businesses on main street to get a loan and grow their businesses. it makes it hard for families in kentucky to purchase a home. it makes it harder to get financing discounts to help kentuckians purchase a car or truck. the bureau is so out of touch it even regulates bath county in my district, one of the most rural counties in america, as, quote, nonrural. these concerns are not only

voiced inside of washington. -- a small was business owner talked about how the rules are hrming his ability to do business in his community this avalanche of red tape is making life harder for millions of american which is is why we need to pass this legislation that will reform the bureau in a way that reins in the misguided rule this is a stem from its partisan excess and accountable culture. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the ranking member of the oversight and government reform subcommittee on government operations, representative connolly. the chair: how much time is the gentlelady yielding? ms. waters: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my distinguished ranking member and my friend from california. mr. chairman, i rise to oppose

this latest republican assault on the cfpb. it's truly baffling to see my colleagues continue to attempt to undermine the only federal regulated -- regulation created to protect american consumers. contrary to the talking points of the other side this mashup of bills will only burden the cfpb with more bureaucracy, not less. for example, the bill would replace the director who has been on the job for just six months after the senate republicans held up his confirmation for two years with a cumbersome five-person committee. it also seeks to take it out of the federal reserve and make it subject to annual appropriations. they say it's to provide tougher oversight but that's a ruse. they stated they would defund cfpb altogether as they could. as ranking member of the subcommittee on house oversight, i would note that director

cordray has been before this congress 46 times since cfpb was created, and i call that effective oversight. safeguarding our financial system ought to be a primary concern but this bill would once again place the interests of banks over those of consumers. e had a wave of untested financial products. dodd-frank remains congress' sole substantive response to the greatest financial metdown since the great depression. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle found it necessary not only to fight against any attempt to regulate wall street but wamed much of the battle against cfpb itself. the republicans in the senate waged a battle to prevent the confirmation of the cfpb's director.

700 days. in just that short amount of time since his confirmation, cfpb has become a protect quor of all americans. i ask for 10 more second. ms. waters: i yield the gentleman 10 seconds. the chair: the gentleman may proceed. mr. connolly: this is a bad bill, it's anti-consumer, i urge my colleagues to vote against it. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rothfus: much more accountability and transparency is needed in washington especially at the consumer financial protection bureau. the bureau yields broad and unchecked power over our economy from banks to businesses to anyone who uses credit or payment plans. abuses of that power enabled by a lack of accountability and transparency harms families and businesses up and down main

streets in pennsylvania and across the nation. that is why i rise today in strong support of the consumer financial freedom and washington accountability act. importantly, this commonsense legislation better protects consumers by prohibiting the bureau from using personal and private financial information without their knowledge and consent. it also makes the bureau subject to the regular authorization and appropriations process. this increases the american people's ability to demand accountability through their elected representatives. the legislation would also replace a single and unaccountable director with a bipartisan five-member commission and establish more reasonable thresholds for revealing -- reviewing regulations. these changes will help bring the regulatory reach from washington elite, ensure a diversity of viewpoints, and will direct decisions to the taxpayers. the chair: the gentlelady from

california. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time, i am prepared to close. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves, the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i am now especially pleased to yield to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, vice chairman of our financial institutions and consumer credit subcommittee and the chief author of the legislation of which we debate today. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, is recognized for three minutes. duff duff thank you, mr. chairman. -- mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the work you've put in on this consumer protection bill. this bill is about accountability and transparency. as have been discussed today, the cfpb is collecting information on a -- almost a billion credit cards, a billion credit cards, which means if you're an american and you have a credit card, the cfpb is collecting and monitoring your

transactions. so what we've done is said, listen, if you are here to protect the consumer, why don't you ask the consumer for permission and consent to take their information? if we care about the american citizenry, if we care about consumers and don't care about big government and the information they have on us, let's give them the power. let's ask them. that's all we do. empower the american citizenry. again, let's empower congress and the american people as well. when we don't fund agencies through this institution, we lose authority. we lose oversight. let's take that power and control back into congress and let's actually put the power back in the hands of the people. but if you empower the fed to fund this agency, you've taken the control away from this institution. that's wrong. one of the most important reform parts of this bill is

meaningful to me because i come from rural america. and the way the rule -- the way the law is structured is that if a bad rule comes from the cfpb, it can be overturned. you can go and say, listen, this rule is going to create systemic risk, meaning it will have a negative impact on our economy. it should be overturned. now, think about what kind of financial institutions can go to esoc and say this rule is bad, overturn it? is it the small community bank? is it the credit union in rural america? heck no. but if you're a big wall street bank, you've been given a voice. in the way my friends across the aisle have structured this law. big banks on wall street who created the crisis are given a voice to have rules from the cfpb overturned but you've left the small banks and credit unions in my district voiceless, to say this rule is going to hurt us, that's wrong. listen, we want to talk about

protecting consumers. giving a voice to consumers, making sure big government isn't breathing down their backs. hy don't we -- who doesn't protect them? guess what, they've said, the credit union national association, they endorse and support our bill. the national association of federal credit unions endorse and support this bill. the independent community bankers endorse and support this bill. this is the right thing to do. let's empower congress and empower the american people. let's reform the cfpb and actually make it work. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i am now pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittinger. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. pittinger: thank you, mr. chairman, chairman hensarling,

congressman duffy, for your leadership and for letting me speaking on this issue. this legislation is absolutely necessary to bring transparency to the cfpb. it needs accountability. it needs privacy reforms. the first main goal of this legislation is to replace the single all-powerful director with a five-person independent commission. this will allow for healthy debate, and to bring rules and regulations proposed at this agency. it will put cfpb on a regular budget cycle with annual appropriations. this will shield the american taxpayer from wasteful spending and allow proper oversight that this agency absolutely needs. one of the key provisions of this bill prohibits cfpb from accessing, collecting and analyzing the american people's personal financial data without their expressed permission. in the wake of the regulation tsunami coming from d.c., it's

time that congress exercises their authority to help rein in government bureaucrats and help provide the clarity to business owners all across this country. i ask my colleagues to support this bill. thank you. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. kelly: i rise in strong support of h.r. 3193. my family has been in the automobile business for 63 years. cfpb is kind of interesting because what we've done now, we've absolutely abandon the rulemaking process and have gone to influencing people. the relationship that car dealers have with their customers is sometimes they navigate a very hard financial system to get their loans arranged. we want to do it with guidance. it's like the policeman walking his beat and pulling out his billy club and tapping on his hands and say, i strongly suggest you follow my guidance.

there's no oversight on this. these group of people are going to make decisions without even consulting us, the people. we do represent the people. i'd like to think we can come together once in a while that's in the best interest of the people we represent. it's not a republican issue . not a democratic issue but an american issue. we have to do these things. again, strong suggestions that you follow my guidance as opposed to letting people sit down and negotiate themselves, that's not the way the american people -- american system works. never happened, never will. i thank you and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close. i believe i have the right to close last. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you. i'll yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes.

ms. waters: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to once again reiterate my strong opposition to this harmful legislation which will weaken the consumer financial protection bureau, an agency created to protect consume erls and defend them against bad actors and practices throughout our financial system. just in case we're losing sight on what this bauero is all about, we have many citizens out there who are the victims of false advertising, people advertise something, they advertise a price, they advertise a product, they go to buy the product, it's not there, it costs more money. debt collectors -- how many of our citizens have been harassed by debt collectors, calling them in the middle of the night asking for information and charging them with things they have never been involved in? and don't forget those payday loans. poor people who've run out of money go to a payday lender, get charged 500% for a payday

loan. what about those private postsecondary schools where all of those students trying to get an education are forced into getting loans, encouraged to get loans, get ripped off, don't learn anything, can't get a job? what about those mortgage lenders who tricked all of those people into mortgage loans and end up losing their homes? what about discrimination against the agent? what about what they did to our good men and women who served the army for all of us, served in different branches of the service for all of us got ripped off by payday lenders? that's what the consumer financial protection bureau is all about. i don't know how anyone could think that we shouldn't have protection for our consumers. our consumers are finding out that finally we have something. they're calling our telephone 855-411-2372 to get some help. they are going to our website,

consumerfinance.gov. over 289,000 citizens have gone to this consumerfinance.gov website. they've called this telephone umber, 855-411-2372, because finally they have a bureau that's paying attention to all of the ripoffs, all of the fraudulent advertising, all of the overcharging of fees, all of what they did not have protection from in the past. and we realize at some point in time that all of our regulatory agencies that was supposed to be paying attention were not. now we have protection, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. to protect consumers you first need to make sure they have the

power to consume. and under the obama administration economic policy, tens of millions of our fellow citizens are either unemployed or underemployed. they don't have the income to consume. that's not consumer protection. part of the problem is the cfpb, because true consumer protection, mr. chairman, empowers consumers in innovative, transparent, competitive market and it respects the intelligence and the dignity of the american citizen, and it preserves their economic liberty to choose the mortgages, the credit cards and, yes, even the payday loans that they choose to consume. but instead, mr. chairman, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle would love to take away in god we trust and put up

there in government we trust. the american people are tired of unaccountable, arrogant washington bureaucrats, the unaccountable, the unelected who are taking away their homeownership opportunities, taking away their credit cards and insulting them by saying, i'm from washington, i'm smarter than you, i'm better than you, i know what's best. it's time for us to pass the consumer financial freedom in washington accountability act, and i particularly want to thank mr. duffy, mr. bauks and mr. neugebauer for -- mr. bachus, mr. neugebauer for authoring this key piece of legislation. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-36 modified

by the amendment printed in part a of house report 113-350. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 113-350. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for he division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in . rt b of house report 113-350 for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek rick anything? -- seek recognition? mr. rigell: i have an amendment

at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113-350 offered by mr. rigell of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 475, the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. rigell: i thank the chairman, and i want to thank my friend and colleague, chairman hensarling, and all of those who worked on this underlying legislation, h.r. 3193. my amendment strengthens that legislation, and i really respect how it was crafted, the legislation that underlies my amendment. it really is much needed. my amendment is focused on one of the most critical ingredients that's necessary for those who are trying to start a new business or to grow an existing business and that is access to credit. now, i offer my amendment based on my own real-world experience. it was about 22 years ago that

i started my business and i was able to start it and to grow it and to say these wonderful words to so many fellow americans in virginia's second district, you're hired. i was able to say those words because one of the ingredients i had available was access to credit. i offer my amendment today based as well on the clear, united, and truly rational voice that's being articulated by virginia's second congressional district, and that is that the consumer protections bureau is truly ander refutably in their view and in mine damaging and harming their ability to have access to credit. common ground is something that i've come to work every day seeking to advance. i'm convinced absolutely that it's here. it can be found. in fact this gridlock we so often experience truly is hurting our country.

but as i listen to my colleagues so often on the other side, and i've been up here and had the privilege of serving in this institution three years, quite frankly when i hear statements like, we don't care about consumers, i take offense at this. i've listened to it for three years. i think that it does a disservice to this house and the american people to continue to -- to continually claim that we don't care about the american consumers or don't care about the environment or the poor or the aged. indeed, we do. and this represents my best judgment, the best judgment of so many, that this underlying legislation and my particular amendment would help consumers, i'm convinced of this. what my amendment does sit requires the bureau to simple i hi do this, to consider, to calculate in a very careful way, exactly what impact, what adverse impact that these

regulations that are being put forth by this organization, how it would affect credit. now indeed, isn't this common ground in it's really common sense. before you take any action to do something, you ought to take a moment to consider what that ction might do in inhibiting individual americans and businesses from accessing credit. enge it's critical too that we look at the organization itself. this is an organization that is really outside of the scope of accountability that we should be requiring of each and every agency in the federal government. it's largely outside the accountability and the influence of congress. and this is quite striking. it's largely out of the influence of the president. and in a unique way and i think in a harmful way, it's largely outside of the accountability of

the court system. look, common sense will tell you that's not a good idea for any agency to be outside of accountability. each member here is accountable to our own district. the actions that have been taken by this organization already, sure, we can find a few that have been helpful and i think ought to continue, taking care of our military, making sure that businesses operate in an ethical manner but overwhelmingly what we're seing is this, that the sum of all things is it's hurting the american consumer. it's hurting our ability. fellow americans to access credit. that's why i urge support for the underlying legislation and my amendment. retain the balance of my time and yield. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady --

ms. waters: i claim time in opposition to the amendment and yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: i rise in opposition to this amendment and i'll take a moment just to respond to the gentleman from virginia who seemed a little bit disturbed that we would claim that they do not care about consumers. the proof of the pudding is in the eating, sir. and because of the way that the republicans have opposed the consumer financial protection bureau, the man for the which we have described today that you have attempted to dismantle this bureau, the way that you have tried to deny it having a strong director, all of those reasons, it is absolutely clear that you do not wish to have a bureau that protects our consumers and so when we make these charges, we make them because we have

proof. we have the information, we have the actions, we have all that you have done to demonstrate that you have -- that you really don't want a bureau to protect the consumers of this country. the fact is, americans want panks to be better regulated in order to prevent the kind of economic catastrophe that we're recovering from to this day. because republicans haven't been able to repeal the dodd-frank act, you're focused on making it impossible for the agencies to enact the rules required by the wall street reform bill. your new strategy is to prevent our regulators from functioning by saddling them with burdensome and bue publictive cost benefit requirements. let's take a moment to talk about the cost of financial crisis. the united states department of the treasury measured the cost of the financial crisis at $19.2

trillion in lost household wealth and $8.8 million in lost jobs. communities of color were hit particularly hard, losing over 50% of their household wealth. millions of borrowers have been foreclosed upon, millions more replain under water and struggling to stay in name homes to this day. a report by the government accountability office on the cost benefit analysis of the dodd-frank act stated, and i quote if the costs of a future crisis is expected to be in the trillions of dollars, then the action -- then the act likely would need to reduce the probability of a future financial crisis by only a small percent for its expected benefit to equal the act's expected costs, quote-unquote. beyond all this, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem. the consumer financial protection bureau is already

required to perform cost benefit analysis on its rules and evaluate impacts on small piss. the cfpb has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to minimizing the impact of its rules on small banking institutions and small businesses. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. members are reminded to address their comments to the chair. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. rigell: can you tell me how much time is remaining. the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds. mr. rigell: i appreciate the gentlelady's remarks. i still hold the view that the sum of all thing this is a i've heard in our district is that the bureau is doing more harm than good. and i urge, again, my colleagues to vote for the underlying legislation and my amendment which would help protect individual americans and businesses and their ability to secret, which is an essential part to keeping our economy

growing and creating more jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time. the gentlelady has surrendered her time. all time has expired. 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 not agreed to. ms. waters: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed thonings amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. the chair understands that the amendment number two will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number three printed 113-rt b of house report 350. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek

recognition? mr. desantis: i ask recognition to speak on the subject of my amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in part be b of house report 113-350, offered by mr. desantis of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 475, the gentleman from florida, mr. desantis, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. desantis: thank you, mr. speaker. if men were angels, james madison told us in "the federalist papers," no government would be necessary. and if angels were to govern men no internal or external controls on government would be necessary. as i look at this, i'm reminded by that insight they have founding fathers understood human nature and thaund people in positions of power will

eventually at some point abuse that power. that's just inherent in the nature. so they built the government to have checks and balances. as i look at this consumer financial protection agency, i'm wowed by the amount of power that's been invested in this. very limited executive accountability, cfpb directors, essentially the czar of the country no budget oversight by congress, i know we're trying to change that in this bill. but madison said that's the most effectule check that we have in congress, the power of the purse. last huge amount of deference in terms of what judicial review is aloud to be done. the courts are instructed to defer to the cfpb. the problem with that is that there are a lot of novel concepts in this bill, termed are introducing that don't necessarily have a definition in other regulatory history and the cfpb is going to be given cart blafrpbl to go forward on that. when canned about some of these

term the cfpb director said you figure it out when you see it, it's a puzzle we're putting together. that's not acceptable. i think the american people need to have recourse to the courts. what my amendment does is reinstitutes judicial review, removes the excessive deference that's been granted to the cfpb. i hear these reports about all this data that's being collected on american citizens, credit card transactions, debit card transactions, millions of these things are being done. are we just supposed to say that the people should have no recourse in case that is abused? we're just supposed to trust the cfpb in terms of how they use that data? the bottom line is, you have an agency that's combining legislative power, executive power and judicial power that's contrary to our constitutional structure and contrary to the separation of powers doctrine and i don't think most americans have confidence that some far distant bureau should just be

left to their own devices and that somehow they'll be able to make all these decisions better for individual americans than they can make for themselves. so i urge the adoption of my amendment, mr. speaker, and i'll retain whatever time i have and yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. who seeks recognition? ms. waters: i claim time in opposition to the amendment and yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: the consumer financial protection bureau was designed with one goal in mind. we would give consumers a fair shake in the marketplace by making sure they finally had a regulator who was on their side. the cfpb is the only agency with the ex-peer tees and the mission to focus on developing trends in the consumer finance marketplace. identify abuses and stop them before they lead borrowers into financial ruin.

prior to the passage of the dodd-frank act, consumer financial laws were supposed to be enforced by cooperation amongst all of the regulators. but as we now know all too well, safety and soundness concerns time and again trumped those of consumer protection. leading to the system where all of the regulators were responsible and none of them were accountable. it was precisely this inattention to consumer protection that allowed the crisis to boil up under regulators' noses, leaving american families to foot the bill. fortunately, congress learned the lesson that strong protections for consumers are essential to maintaining a stable and sound economic foundation. upon passage of the dodd-frank act, this house finally had put a cop on the beat with exclusive

authority to issue sensible rule this is a protect every american. e're confident that the cfpb will continue to work diligently with prudential regulators to make sure their rules are consistent with the safe and sound operations of banks. ensuring that both rule making and enforce. authorities reside exclusively with the cfpb and will increase the confidence in consumer markets and also ensure certainty for businesses and financial institutions. returning to the broken model that existed before the crisis just doesn't make good sense. so i would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. desantis: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. the notion that somehow we're just going to put all this trust

in the cfpb and why you can't have the ability to go into court and have the courts review some of their actions, to me, that just doesn't cut it. i would much rather err on the side of having protectioners in american people from government agencies that have too much power than err on the side of giving the agency an excessive amount of power and hoping they exercise that in a prudent fashion. with that, mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i applaud the other members who have been involved in crafting this bill and i yield back the bans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: ms. waters: mr. chairman and members, we've had discussions with members on the opposite side of the aisle about protection for our consumers. we've heard them tell us everything about people should have choices, they can go and hide their own -- hire their

own lawyers, they can get-go into court, they can do all of these things. but the fact of the matter is, the government does have the responsibility to protect consumers. this is a government of laws and rules that we put together for businesses, we allow businesses to operate in certain ways, but we cannot allow them to run roughshod over the consumers. like i said, prior to dodd-frank, that is the reforms, we had nobody looking out for consumers. we had our financial services agencies of government saying that their real job was for safety and soundness, not for consumer protection. and so we've had the news media, we've had nonprofit agencies, we've had groups getting together trying to address all of these abuses. all of these problems, all by themselves. well, guess what? now we have a cop on the block, it is your government.

financial.gov website is there for all of our citizens. this telephone, 855-411-2372, is there for our consumers to call. and while they're calling the bureau, call your elected officials also and ask them why they don't stand up for you, why they were on the floor of the congress advocating against your right to have protection from all of these kinds of abuses. enough is enough. american consumers are losing dollars every day because of crooks and schemes and thieves and on and on and on. and now you get rid of the very agency that would protect them from all of these schemes? i am so happy that we have reform. i am so happy that now the american people can rely on their government to come to their aid and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. waters: request a vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in 350. b of house report 113- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 113-350 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 475, the gentlewoman

from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. chairman. my amendment is straightforward . it simply provides a sense of congress that acknowledges the tremendous work done by the consumer financial protection bureau. as it was originally conceived in dodd-frank, and how it has been operating to this point. the agency, mr. chair, has refunded $3 billion to 9.7 million victims of unfair, deceptive and abuses practices in -- abusive practices in financial markets. the cfpb has helped people and fraud has been curtailed. the message has been sent to the next generation of financial huskers, that there is a dedicated cop on the beat in financial markets. the singular and dedicated

mission of the consumer financial protection bureau is to protect consumers from financial products, from schemes, and inspires trust in our markets that attracts capital and promotes allocations of that capital to productive, legitimate endeavors. my amendment affirms that the current management, oversight and funding source as enshrined in dodd-frank are the best way to preserve the integrity and independence of the agency. and to ensure that we don't return to the bad old days and bad old ways that put the objection in the ditch by creating the -- ox in the ditch by creating the 2008 financial crisis and the $700 billion bailout. now, h.r. 3139 openly acknowledges that it would alter and neuter the agency's mission because h.r. 3139 would rename the consumer financial protection bureau to the

financial product safety commission. removing, mr. chairman, consumers from the equation, both in name and function. it would subject the agency's funding to protect consumers to the unwieldy appropriations process, sequester, defunding amendments, instead of the outside independent funding vis-a-vis these powerful financial institutions. ow, whether intentional or not , the republicans have shown their hand with the omission of consumers in h.r. 3139. and despite the name of the bill as written, this bill would alter the mission and cripple the consumer financial protection bureau by focusing on protecting financial

products rather than consumers. whatever the intent, mr. chairman, consumers would be thrown under the busby removing the cop from the wall street -- bus by removing the cop from the wall street beat. how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentlelady has two minutes. ms. moore: i would reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from wisconsin reserves her time. for what purpose does -- do you seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i rise to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. i find this to be a most curious amendment from the gentlelady from wisconsin. and we do enjoy her participation on the committee. it is a curious amendment because if it is accepted, and i believe the house is going to pass it, then it says, the house is on record as saying we are going to do something but we just really didn't feel really good about it. in other words, her amendment does nothing to the underlying

bill except a sentiment that says, we shouldn't have passed it in the first place. so, it's a curious, it's a curious amendment. i personally, and i don't think the house wants to be on record as saying that the cfpb has given us the fairest, safest markets robust capital in the world. i have no doubt that there are many good men and women who work there, they've done some important work. but fair, fair, mr. chairman? an agency in the name of consumer protection that would and 1/3 of current black hispanic homeowners the opportunity to own a home, this is fair? i just -- incredible. we have brought this up several times in this debate, mr.

chairman. and we hear crickets chirping on the other side of the aisle. now if a private company did that, there would be riots in the street. but it's ok if government has a disparity impact -- disparate impact on minorities. i don't know if that's fair. we've heard testimony in our committee that literally half, half of the mortgages today, according -- today, wouldn't qualify under the q.m. rule promulgated by the cfpb. i am not going to go on record saying that's fair. that's somehow fair that half of americans who otherwise would have qualified for a mortgage can no longer have it. and to say that somehow the current oversight is adequate to this agency, an agency that sets its own budget, an agency that is spending $145 million to renovate a $150 million building they don't even own? to give s tree bosque,

water features. this is somehow a good use of the taxpayer money? a reflective granite water table? triple, triple the renovation rate of class a luxury space in washington? if there was ever an agency, mr. chairman, that demands, demands accountability to the american people, this is it. you do not protect consumers by taking away their rights, their freedoms, their ability to shop in competitive and transparent markets, and you do not protect them by taking away their income and spending it on a lavish palace for unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized. ms. moore: thank you so much. i always enjoy the chairman of the financial services his ttee for his -- just lavish explanations. i just want to clear up some of the confusion and bewilderment that he seems to be under with regard to minority and latin borrowers. he has said over and over and over again, he's talked about -- he referred to the qualified mortgage standards under the new rules. and the newest -- the new standards have just taken place and i think that minorities and -- will find that 95% of the mortgages today will fall within the qualified mortgage standards. now, having said that, i would just say that the chairman should look at something other than the pass act toward restoring the g.s.e.'s if he is

very concerned about minorities and i would join him in that, to be able to get mortgages. but i would say that to clear up his bewilderment here, i just want to congratulate the consumer financial protection agency, because it is a fact that they have supported the refund of $3 billion, with a b, to 9.7 million victims of unfair. and agree with him. the purpose of this bill, and the reason that they won't accept this amendment is because they don't want to go on record that they support consumers over all of these very, very lucrative financial products that are out there. and they want no regulation, which is why we saw the 2008 meltdown. no rules of the road. they want to return to the days

where there was an ability to drive the economy over the cliff. and to deceive consumers to the point that they could and would become victims. and so i can understand the chairman's reluctance to accept this language. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, may i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: a minute and a half. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. i would just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and the gentlelady from wisconsin, i would draw her attention to the federal reserve bulletin, november, 4, page ume 99, number 37, that clearly shows again, according to the federal reserve, that 34% of blacks and 32% of hispanics would not meet

the new q.m. standard based upon the 43% debt to income requirement. now, this is federal reserve data. if the gentlelady or any other member on the other side of the aisle wishes to refute this data from the federal reserve, they are certainly free to do so on their time. but again, i'm not going to go on record saying this is fair. haven't heard anybody rebut what they've said, that when fully implemented, that half of today's mortgage would not qualify under the q.m. rule. this is not fair. mr. chairman, somebody has to protect consumers from the cfpb. consumers, yes. they have to be protected from wall street. but they have to be protected from washington as well. you do not protect consumers by having unelected, unaccountable

bureaucrats in washington whose average sal i have over $175 -- whose average salary is over $175,000, salary and benefits, to say i'm from washington, i'm smarter than you, i'll decide whether or not you get a mortgage. it's unfair, it's abusive, it's arrogant, it must stop. we should reject the gentlelady's amendment and we should adopt the underlying legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on -- ms. moore: mr. chairman, i have a unanimous consent request. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. moore: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to enter into the record our defense of our claims that 95% -- the chair: is the gentlelady requesting unanimous consent. ms. moore: yes, sir. the chair: without objection. ms. moore: appreciate that

indulgence, mr. chairman i would like a roll call. the chair: the request is covered by general leave. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. moore: mr. chairman, i request a roll call. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed ogs then amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin will e postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i move that the committee now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 3193 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee -- the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3193 and has come to no esolution thereon.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 492 and ask for its immediate consideration. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar 387, house resolution 492, resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2b of rule 18, declare the house dissolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union -- for consideration of the bill h. reform 899 to provide for additional safeguards with respect to imposing federal mandates and for other purposes. all points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the chair of the committee on -- of the committee on government oversight and reform they feel bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against the bill are waive nosmed amendments shall be in order except those prinned in the report printed by the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each amendment may only be offered by the member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be considered for the time specified in the report equally divide and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question in the house or the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the con clufingse consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the

house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question is -- the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments throt final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks house resolution 492 provides for structured rule providing for consideration of h.r. 899, the unfunded mandates information and transparency act. mr. speaker, every year bureaucrats in washington impose

thousands of regulatory mandates on local governments and small businesses. those mandates can be costly stretching city and state budgets and making it harder for american businesses to hire. the unfunded mandates information and transparency act, h.r. 899, will ensure that the people who write these regulations in washington know exactly what they're asking the american people to pay and whether the costs of compliance might make it harder for family businesses to meet payroll and stay afloat. h.r. 899 will force washington to think more carefully about regulatory costs before it passes them on to americans. this bill is about transparency and accountability and it is something democrats and republicans can all support. in 1995, congress passed the nfunded mandates reform act, umra, legislation the designed to prevent the government from

imposing unfunded mandates on state or local governments or businesses without policymakers or the public knowing the cost of such policies. umra's main objective was to force the federal government to estimate how much unfunded governments would cost local governments and businesses and rein in out of control mandates. umra ensured public aware thovebs crushing financial burden of federal mandates on employers and state and local government. however, umra has not been amended since 1995 and some subtle changes are needed to preserb and improve on the act's initial purpose. umra suzz was a good bill but over time such -- some shortcomings became apparent such as the clinton and late ore ba ma administrations had -- have written executived orers to fix the loopholes within it. as many of my colleagues can confirm it takes a lot of creativity and hard work to pass

legislation as a member of a minority party. when democrats gained control of congress back in 2007 i sat down with my staff to think about legislative ideas that could gain sufficient bipartisan support to clear a democrat congress. this bill is the result of those efforts. h.r. 899 has bipartisan d.n.a. it codifies those administrative fixes championed by presidents clinton and obama and promotes good government accountability and transparentcy. as a testimony to this fact, the bill is co-sponsored by three of my democrat colleagues here in the house, representatives mike mcintyre, collin peterson and loretta sanchez. i owe them a debt of gratitude for their efforts in promoting this commonsense bill. 'm especially grateful for representative james lankford a republican co-sponsor of this bill, who has worked tirelessly

to promote its passage we have wouldn't be here without his efforts. a common refrain in this is business is that nobody wants to see how the susadge is made, meaning that the process of drafting and passing legislation is so ugly it would repulse people. in this case, i disagree. i'm extremely proud of this bill and extremely proud of the process by which it has been advanced in the house. it has been a pleasure to work with colleagues from both sides of the aisle on this measure and i appreciate their support and counsel. the unfunded mandates reform and a sparency act of 1995 was model for bipartisanship. and my hope is that my bill leaves a similar legacy. i urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very

much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlewoman from north carolina, my friend, ms. foxx, for yielding the customary 30 minutes to me. mr. speaker, you know, we continue down this path of considering bills that are going nowhere. i sincerely wish my friends on the other side of the aisle would stop this conservative merry go round. the majority leader called this week stop government abuse week. abuse? really? my friend on the other side of the aisle have continued to ignore the plight of middle class and working poor americans, immigrants, hoping for a better life for their families and denying the undeniable impact of climate change just to name a few. this is even after shutting down the government for purely political purposes and playing a

game of chicken with the debt limit and yet my republican friends are calling routine government work abuse. -- that seems like a stretch to me. abuse is when underregulated industries fill unknown -- spill unknown chemical into the west virginia water supply. abuse is when coal ash pour into the waters of north carolina. when wall street bankers crash our economy after taking advantage of underfunded and overworked regulators. that is exactly the kind of abuse that the government needs to stop. utcht to talk about abuse? let's talk about today's measure. this bill will not make the regulatory process more balanced or transparent. it will strangle it in red tape. it will not make rule making

more fair, it will tip the scales in favor of businesses with the most resources. improving measure, access to health care and restraining the institutions that unleashed havoc on our it is nothing more than poorly disguised political fodder in favor of some corporate interests that run amok. on the environment and american workers. most egregious is the requirement for agencies to provide the private sector early consultation on major rules. this would give well-funded industry an unfair advantage not afforded to the general public and other stakeholders like public interest, takes

pair and environmental groups -- taxpayer and environmental groups. clearly the interest in amending this only extends to certain privileged parties. if my friends on the other side of the aisle want to see what happens when you allow private interests to run rampant, without any government regulations, they need only look to the small -- smog-filled skies above china. this bill also politicized independent agencies designed to protect the rights of hardworking americans. the consumer financial rotection bureau, security and exchanges commission, the neighbor relations board, consume product safety commission, as wls -- consumer product safety commission, as well as the f.c.c. they left out the federal reserve, i don't understand why. but all those other agencies will all have to answer to the whims of politics. it also forces agencies to

choose the cheapest regulatory option over the best. this is legislating the answer to the same kind of question that a homeowner has to decide when hiring a contractor. do you want it done cheap or do you want it done right? look, i get it. i understand where we are in the congressional cycle. but i think that it is unfortunate my friends across the aisle would rather score political points and write bumper stickers than actually legislate. while i think it is a good thing that most of these partisan measures will never go anywhere, i can't help but point out that we should be making better use of our limited time here. we should be raising the minimum wage in order to give millions of hardworking americans the pay they have earned. nearly five years have passed since the last increase in the

federal minimum wage. currently a full-time minimum wage worker makes less than $16,000 per year, which is below the poverty line for a family of two or more. this is unacceptable. it is time for republicans to end their relentless obstruction and join democrats in an effort to provide for the middle class. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i really respect and appreciate my colleague from florida. but there is nothing in this bill that would stop the development of rules and regulations by the executive branch. absolutely nothing. all we want to do is make sure that the cost of those rules and regulations is totally

transparent. also, i appreciate my colleague saying that we shouldn't be passing bumper sticker bills. well, we've joked about this bill, the title for it, if you umeta.ate it, is that am gram hardly comes trippingly off the tongue and really wouldn't make much of a bumper sticker for us. he also indicates that this bill is going to be dead on arrival in the senate and so we should just give our attention to something else. but you know, i know my colleague knows this, the constitution mentions the house of representatives very first in the constitution. i believe the founders intended for us to do our job and to do it well here. we shouldn't be thinking that

it's my way or the highway. this is a bill that has been co-sponsored by democrats. i believe it will get a lot of democrat votes. so, the logic for my colleague is that because this house is predominantly republican, that we should at the outset just acquiesce to the democrat-led senate or do nothing at all. but that's not how the legislative process works. there has to be a give and take. i believe the house will pass this legislation tomorrow and if the senate wants to change it and send it back, fine. we'll work it out. because that's our job and that's the way it works. but i respect the -- i reject the notion that the senate will not act on this bill because, as i said, it's not a republican bill. it's a bipartisan bill. it has republican and democrat co-sponsors.

so, my conversation with our senate colleague suggests this bill could clear the senate and be signed into law by the president. this president. and, mr. speaker, my understanding is that last year . e president signed 76 laws 64 of those came from the house of representatives and only 12 from the senate. if i am accurate. if not, i'll correct the record. but it's wrong of us to say we shouldn't be pags -- we shouldn't be passing bills in the house because anything sponsored by a republican will go nowhere in the senate, because the democrats control it, because the evidence from last year obviously disproves that. mr. speaker, since the 1995 passage, experts across the political spectrum agree that the bill is led to the generation -- has led to the generation of the important

implications of mandates imposed in legislations and regulations. however, since its inception, there's been very fewer revisions to the law while various exclusions and exceptions have cropped up, creating loopholes limiting the act's coverage. h.r. 899 builds on the success by drawing upon executive orders enacted by the last two democrat presidents to close loopholes, streamline the cost reporting process, and clarify the responsibilities of those in charge, with complying with these requirements. independent regulatory agencies like the consumer financial protection bureau, the national labor relations board, and the federal communications commission, are currently exempted from this. h.r. 899 will require even these independent regulatory agencies to analyze the cost of their proposed mandates before they are imposed on the public. h.r. 899 would also treat,

quote, changes to conditions of grant aid, end quote, as mandates. triggering an umare a cost analysis, legislation or regulations that force states or localities to make changes in order to qualify for federal grant aid, would no longer be xempt from scrutiny. the public will always have an opportunity to weigh in on regulations whereas umra only triggered cost analyses for regulations that were publicly announced through a notice of proposed rulemaking, this bill will require all regulations, whether a notice of proposed rulemaking was issueed, to complete cost analyses. this will also equip congress and the american people with better tools to determine the true cost of regulations. analyses required by h.r. 899 will have to factor in real world consequences such as lost business profits, costs passed

on to consumers and change behavior costs when skring the bottom line impact of federal mandates. and finally, h.r. 899 will ensure government is held accountable for following these rules. if it the requirements set forth by, mumbings ra are not met -- umra are not met, a judicial stay may be placed on regulations. this is purely about good government. it's about being open and honest about the cost of regulations. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i would advise my good friend from north carolina that i have no further speakers and i'm prepared to close or reserve as she sees fit.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, does my colleague want me to go forward and close? do you want me to reserve? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, we're not quite ready to close. if the gentleman from florida would reserve, i will make some comments and then -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from north arolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. according to a report issued by the house oversight and government reform committee, the number of economically significant rules in the pipeline, which are those that cost $100 million or moranualy, has increased by more than -- more annually, has increased by more than 177% over the past

decade. section 12 of my bill reresponds to such concerns by requiring federal agencies to conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing federal regulation at the request of the committee chairman or ranking minority member. the retrospective analysis submitted to the requesting member and to congress is to include, one, a copy of the federal regulation, two, the continued need for the federal regulation, three, the nature or complaints received concerning the federal regulation, four, the extent to which the mandate may duplicate another federal regulation, five, the degree to which technology or economic continues have changed in the -- conditions have changed in the area affecting the federal regulation. an analysis of the retrospective cost and benefits of the federal regulation that considers studies done outside the government. and, seven, history of legal challenges to the federal

regulation. since the duty to promote public accountability and transparency in federal regulatory policy is endless, this provision builds on the strengths of umra by helping ensure ongoing compliance with legislative intent. his kind of ongoing monitoring identified as the priority by section 5 of executive order 12866 issued by president clinton, and section 6 of xecutive order 13563 issued by president obama, is critical for adapting to changing circumstances that changed initial umra cost estimates. this helps ensure a fresh look at regulations to make certain they remain consistent with their initial purpose and have not become overly burdensome, outdated or unnecessary. this is just one of many bipartisan initiatives contained in my bill that

further underscore the need for my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. mr. speaker, section 3 of my bill has received praise from state and local government advocacy groups, as it would allow a committee chairman or ranking member to request that the congressional budget office perform an assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in a bill or resolution to the perspective cost of caring -- carrying out any changes to a condition of federal assistance being imposed on any respective painting state, local or tribal -- participating state, local or tribal government. the purpose of this provision is to highlight costs the federal government is passing along to state and local governments that would otherwise remain hidden, but borne by taxpayers regardless of which governmental entity is taxing them. c.b.o. director's statement

before the committee on government reform, march 8, 2005, speaks further to this issue saying that, quote, according to umra, the conditions attached to most forms of federal aid, including most grant programs, are not mandates. yet complying with such conditions can sometimes be burdensome. in particular, states consider new conditions on existing grant programs to be duties, not unlike mandates. too often cited -- two often excited examples of conditions are the requirements for receiving federal funding under the no child left behind act, and the individuals with disabilities education act. those laws require school districts to undertake many activities, including respectively designing and implementing statewide achievement tests and preparing individualized plans for disabled children but only if they wish to receive certain federal education grant funds,

end quote. in other words, these mandates escape umra's scrutiny because current law doesn't define this type of cost shifting as a mandate. my bill closes this loophole. the landmark supreme court decision, national federation of independent business vs. sebelius, hinged in part on this very issue. although the affordable care act's medicaid expansion was not technically considered a mandate under umra, it required states to dramatically expand the program or risk losing all funding. for this reason, the supreme court ultimately deemed this provision unconstitutional. justice roberts wrote that this portion of the affordable care act violated the constitution because, quote, congress has no authority to order the states to regulate according to its instructions. congress may offer the states grants and require the states to comply with accompanying conditions, but the states must

have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. the states, justice roberts continued, were given no such choice in this case. they must either accept the basic change in the nature of medicaid or risk losing all medicaid funding. in this way, the affordable care act provides a con temp rare salient case study in how important it is for legislators and the public to have access to critical information concerning the cost of federal decrees. my bill will put this important information in the hands of congress and the american people. therefore i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill and with that i reserve the balance of my time and i would be prepared to close if the gentleman from florida is prepared. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: i thank the gentlelady and i'd indicated that i was prepared to close, but i've been advised that we

need to occupy a little time as well. so i yield myself such time as i may consume. 'll try to be slow about it. in this particular legislation, the minority views that were developed allow, among other things, the following. the unfunded mandate information and transparaphernaliasy act would be an assault on health, safety and environmental protections. this legislation would erect down the rs to slow regulatory process and would give corporations an unfair advantage in the regulatory process. section 5 of the bill would repeal language that excludes independent regulatory agencies from the reporting requirements of the unfunded mandate reform

act, with the exception of the board of governors and of the federal reserve and the federal open market committee. i spoke to that earlier. i found that passing strange. the office of management and budget is responsible for overseeing the umra process. since the independent agencies would be under the direction of .m.b. for purposes of umra compliance, this could comprise -- compromise the independence of those agencies. section 7 will create a new point of order in the house of representatives for legislation containing an unfunded mandate, making it more difficult to enact legislation. section 8 would incorporate a cost benefit requirement from