do host: we appreciate your time. thank you very much. thank you. guest: thank you too. host: that doesn't for today's washington journal. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. eastern time. the houses and for the legislative session. live coverage right here. commission, and for other the chaze m the -- before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: november 11, 2015, i hereby ereby -- i assign david w. jolly to act as speaker pro tempore on this day . ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties

with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip , but in o five minutes no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend of mine and an outstanding member of this house who passed away on november 3. house oble served this with honor, always concerned first and foremost with how the policies enacted would affect those he served in north carolina's sixth congressional district. he was a coast guard veteran of the korean war, a prosecutor and a dedicated public servant. howard believed strongly in this house and its role in our democracy. in the 30 years we served together, we stood on opposite sides of debate far more than we were on the same side, but

we had a close friendship that transcended politics or policy. and howard coble was one of the kindest and most warm-hearted individuals i've encountered in my years of service in this capitol. howard was incredibly proud of his north carolina roots, and he tried his best to make it to every parade and event in his district that he could. he was a champion of our nation's first responders. we served together in the congressional fire service caucus and howard was steadfast in advocating for firefighter safety and for our nation to meet its responsibility to those who fell in service to our country. in many areas we participated together in ceremonies to honor the families of the fallen and we met with those families as well. howard's compassion and his devotion to these families were unparalleled. he was also chair of the trademarks caucus and we worked

together on intellectual property issues over the years, critical to our economics. like so many of our colleagues, i will miss howard coble very much. there was a great incident that happened here on the floor of this house. in 1994 and 1993, howard coble came over to me. his chief of staff was a university of maryland graduate , and howard coble came over to sort of a d coble is consider mudgeon soul. wonderful, grafblely voice and he came over to me and he said, steny, you need to hire somebody at the university of maryland as your athletic director. and mr. speaker, frankly, i thought this gravelly voice, hard-nosed north carolinian who was not necessarily a maryland fan himself, of course, there

being four extraordinary teams in north carolina, said to me u need to hire debbie yao as your athletic director and i looked at howard deble and i didn't know debbie but she was from north carolina. as a matter of fact, her sister was the great coach at north carolina state of the women's basketball team. kerwin, d up brett mr. speaker, who was at college park at that point in time. when i got back to my office, and i said, brett, i don't know debbie but howard coble believes she would be a good athletic director. if she can convince howard coble that one of the few women i head up a ncaa level athletic program would be a good athletic director she must be really something. we hired her just a few weeks later. and howard coble was right. she was extraordinary.

she is now back in north carolina, but it was that kind of relationship i had with howard coble and so many members on this floor. he loved the house and served it with distinction and humor. he believed that working together across party lines was in the best interest of america. those of us who were privileged to serve with howard will always remember his jean yalt, his -- gen yalt, his intellect, his abiding love of this country and his native north carolina. he left a lasting impact on his community, his state, his country and this house. and mr. speaker, we thank him for his lifetime of service and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. rodney davis, for five minutes. mr. speaker, i rise

today to recognize my friend, johnny wade, an 8-year-old from jerseyville, illinois, who is battling a fair form of brain and spinal cancer. after being diagnosed with cancer on christmas day of 2014, johnny's undergone several surgeries as well as multiple rounds of radiation and chemotherapy. despite the diagnosis, johnny continues to think of others and his rallying cry remains, i don't want any other kid to have cancer. while he was unable to travel to washington, as i invited him to do just a few short months ago, to come here to advocate for cancer research, i want to take this time, mr. speaker, to speak out on his behalf. cancer is the second leading cause of death for children. et, only 4% of cancer research

funds go to children. johnny and his twin brother, jackie, have a special place in my heart because i'm the parent of twin boys too. and while johnny and jackie may not be here with me today, they brought their cause to the capitol. pediatric cancer is a relentless disease and we cannot waiver in our efforts to eradicate it. for johnny and the thousands of children who are diagnosed with cancer each year, we must work together to fully fund pediatric cancer research. johnny's favorite sport, jackie's favorite sport is baseball. these two guys right here like to go to baseball games, football games, and unfortunately for both of them they're st. louis cardinal fans. being an atlanta braves fan i'd like to joke with them about their choice in teams. but i got a baseball right here, mr. speaker, and i want to thank all the colleagues who signed this baseball for me.

i wanted everybody to sign it as you can see, there's no room left. this baseball's for you, johnny. i want to thank you for being the fighter that you are and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. lumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. chuck rosenberg, the acting administrator of the drug enforcement agency, recently called the notion of smoking medical marijuana a joke. what is a joke is the job rosenberg is doing as acting d.e.a. administrator. he's an example of the inept misinformed zealot who has the misinformed policy of marijuana prohibition. americans recognize it's time for a change in direction to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana. 58% now support legalization,

continuing an upward trend in public opinion and at the ballot box. over 75% of americans supports edical marijuana as does the majority of american physicians. rosenberg claims that medical marijuana is a joke but the proven therapeutic use of cannabis has approved medical application and 17 states have authorized more limited use. rosenberg's claim that more research is necessary is true, but it weeks of hypocrisy because the d.e.a., under his leadership, has made badly needed cannabis research difficult, often impossible. if rosenberg were doing his job, key have visited with some of the hundreds of thousands who have found medical marijuana has had a profound affect on their lives and that of their families. president obama's the first sitting president to tell the truth about cannabis. his administration has not acted to shut down the adult or medical reforms sweeping the

country but sadly, it isn't just his d.e.a. administrator who's undercutting his policy. last month the department of justice took an outrageously flawed position on the rohrabacher-farr amendment that passed with strong bipartisan support which clearly specified that the federal government should not interfere with state legal medical marijuana operations. the department of justice and the d.e.a. contends that it only prevents against states, not individuals. this is a ridiculous interpretation of the law and caused a federal court in california to rule, quote, it defies language and logic in deciding against them. more recently, the senate passed the milcon appropriations bill which included an amendment offered by my colleague in oregon, senator merkley, mirroring my legislation to allow v.a. doctors to recommend medical marijuana to their patients in accordance with state law.

yet, on november 13, the department of veterans affairs indicated they won't allow doctors and patients to participate in state legal marijuana laws, even if this bill becomes law. sadly, these actions bied a minute straighting officials are in-- administratoring officials are indicative of ideology rooted on the failed war on drugs which needs to stop. they do not reflect the overwhelming body of evidence about the effects of medical marijuana. the reforms happening at the state level or in congress or the opinion of the american people. they don't reflect the statements by the president himself and the official policy promulgated by deputy attorney general cole outlining the administration's commitment to stay out of the way of state marijuana laws. there's overwhelming evidence that marijuana offers relief when nothing else has happened, including more effective pain management tools than highly addictive narcotics, as opioid

overdoses are skyrocketing and we have an epidemic of heroin abuse. sadly, the culture of opposition in the federal government continues. on one level we have this amazing progress at the state and local level. we made significant progress here in congress with the introduction of over 20 bills in both chambers dealing with federal treatment of cannabis and hemp, and there have been three successful votes on the floor of the house and three in senate committees in this congress. this culture needs to change. leadership needs to change. rosenberg is clearly not the right fit for the d.e.a. in this administration. i would hope that the president directs the heads of all relevant agencies to adjust their policies, clarify regulations that deal with marijuana laws, establish policies that reflect changing state laws and most important, reflect the president's own position. he has said that he has bigger fish to fry than interfere with state legislative efforts.

it's time that the rest of his administration gets onboard, and it should start with a new head of the drug enforcement agency. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. curbelo, for five minutes. mr. curbelo: mr. speaker, last week's gruesome terrorist attacks in paris were a disturbing reminder that the r on terror is war on terror is ongoing and that radical islamic extremism represents a clear and present danger to all freedom-loving civilized people. the time for september 11, 2001, up until today, has been difficult for our nation. we have seen our young men and women engage in endless wars. we have lost thousands of american lives and spent a significant portion of our national treasure fighting in the middle east. costly mistakes were made in afghanistan, iraq and libya.

we are understandably a war-weary people. however, last friday we were reminded that the consequences of inaction or of weak actions are far greater than any risks associated with making a erious and unwaivering commitment to condepronting a -- confronting and defeating radical terrorists. isis is not a problem to be managed or contained. this ambitious terrorist organization is a dangerous enemy of the united states and our allies that must be eradicated. if we refuse to fight isis on their home turf, we will have to fight them in the streets of paris and maybe in our own communities. just as the previous administration recognized that its iraq strategy was failing and needed a jolt, it's time for president obama and his national security team to show that they are serious about destroying this dangerous threat to the stability of the world and to our own very

lives. mr. speaker, i have co-sponsored a resolution authorizing the use of military force, introduced by the gentleman from illinois, my friend, adam kinzinger. it would guarantee the president and the military every tool necessary to defeat isis. this resolution deserves a vote so that we can fight to win a war that we cannot afford to lose. . mr. speaker, since the announcement of the president's engagement policy with the cuban dictatorship in december of last year, we have witnessed a 78% spike in the number of cubans arriving to our country. and on untold number have been lost to the sea. but they aren't only coming by sea. thousands of cubans are illegally entering central american nations, making the long trek north through mexico, and entering via our southern

border. too many are at the mercy of re prehencible human trafficking rings. costa rican authorities report that the number cubans entering their country illegally has 5,400 last year to 12,000 this year. it's so severe that the costa rican government had to temporarily close its borders this past weekend. these trends show no signs of letting up and i'm concerned about another migrant crisis overwhelming our nation particularly south florida. this is a matter of our national security and requires the president's immediate attention. cubans on the island seem to be reacting to the administration's new policy with desperation and fear. risking their lives and their safety to escape the prison that s castro's cuba. mr. speaker, today i rise in

support of the administration's proposal to provide an alternative to accreditation for providers who develop partnerships with an accredited institution. the i.n.s. tucks of a regulator to judge programs like computer coding boot camps can help challenge traditional acreditors to put more focus on the success of students after graduation. this could be the groundwork for a true alternative to accreditation that would not replace the traditional system. rather it would enhance and allow other successful models to access funding resources to replicate and extend their reach. the creditors maintain an important role within higher education. however, alternative models can help deal with segments that traditional acreditors may not be able to address effectively. as a large number of students enroll in noninstitutional programs, we should encourage the growth of successful models that are providing students with a path to successful and

rewarding careers. emphasizing outputs is an important step forward in helping the system of higher education in the united states evolve. as we continue our work towards re-authorizing the higher education act here in the house, i look forward to collaborating with my colleagues to ensure that we are helping prepare students for success. in education, one size does not fit all. and this step by the administration is one in the right direction. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. danny davis, for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise at that pay tribute to. mr. reginald adams, a dear friend whom i have known and worked with since the late 1960's. in 1968, hats was hired as the chief youth worker at the mile square health center. he had previously worked with

boys and girls clubs of chicago. after having the title of community lee ason and employee relations coordinator, he was named director of community affairs at rush presbyterian st. luke's medical center in 1974. and held that position which he defined and redefined several times to coincide with what he was doing. rush presbyterian st. luke's medical center is a large complex and device corporate entity which trains thousands of doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel and has an excellent record of patient care. much of mr. adams' work involved outreach to the broad community on the medical center's behalf. over the years, he has worked with municipal, county, and state entities while at the same time developing and maintaining close ties to grassroots

organizations, social service agencies, and faith institutions. mr. adams has always been seriously interested in and involved with young people. his youth development work is legendary and he's paid special attention to the education of kens of minority students -- concerns of minority students. as a result, rush sponsors summer work study programs for minority college students, some are internships for high school students, and math and science enrichment programs for students at more than 60 elementary and high schools. through mr. adams' efforts, the science, math, excellence network was launched in 1991. the network is a coalition of public and private organizations working directly with the local schools to improve science and math education of elementary students. rush and his corporate partners

sponsor after school science clubs, provide judging at local science fairs, offer summer training programs for teachers, and sponsor a mobile science lab that visits schools without laboratory facilities. each year the network hosts an award dinner to recognize the top science and math students at participating schools. since 1991, the network also has coordinated the construction of 10 science laboratories in local schools, including several specially designed facilities for preschool-aged children. mr. adams served as president of the network. notwithstanding his outstanding professional work and civic involvement, mr. adams has always been endeared to his personal family, church, and friends. he was passionate about his family. and at times was known to have his own seat staked out at church. mr. adams was also actively

involved in the affirmative action activities of the medical center and helped assure that minority vendors, contractors, and business interests had access to business opportunities at the medical center. he was a man of great wisdom, courage, and determination. always protecting the interest of the medical center but never forgetting the community from which he came. the port kipling may have had hats in mind when he wrote, if you can walk with kings and queens and not lose the common touch, if neither fauxes or loving friends can hurt you, if all men matter with you but none too much, finally if you can forgive the unforgiven moment of 60 seconds worth the distance run, yours would be the earth and all that is in it and what is more, you'll be a man, my son. reginald "hats" adams. what a man. his life is gone but his legacy

lives on. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yield back. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to rise today and discuss the issue of the syrian refugees and the islamic state terrorists who are coming across our southern border and in relation to this the office of refugee resettlement loophole that exists there and also, mr. speaker, as i begin my remarks, i commend the house and our speaker for speaking out and taking an action to condemn the paris attacks. this administration has announced its intention to resettle 10,000 syrian refugees within the united states in fiscal year 2016. now, i want you to think about that number.

10,000 in the year 2016. they will go to resettlement communities all across the country if the administration has its way. it is important to note that the office of refugee resettlement, or the o.r.r., as it is called, does not simply resettle refugees from overseas. in fact, the o.r.r. has been resettling, they have been resettling thousands of illegal aliens that are coming across our southern border. i want to read to you from their 2013 report to congress and i'm quoting from the report. other categories eligible for assistance and services, certain other persons admitted to the u.s. or granted status under other immigration categories also are eligible for refugee benefits. in addition, certain persons deemed to be victims of a severe

form of trafficking, though not legally admitted as refugees, are eligible for o.r.r. benefits to the same extent as refugees, ending quote. that's correct. the o.r.r. resettles illegal aliens not classified as refugees providing another potential gateway for the islamic state terrorist. frankly, we would know more about the o.r.r. activities if they filed their annual reports as required in section 413-a of the immigration and nationality act and did it in a timely fashion. but the last report we have from them is from 2013. it is not transparent. it's not accountable. and it cannot be trusted. and i know this for sure, mr. speaker, i wrote secretary burwell twice last year about resettlement activities at the o.r.r. and have been

investigating them since july of 2014 when congressman bridenstine and i traveled to a u.a.c. facility at fort sill, oklahoma. mr. chairman, i would like to submit those letters for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. blackburn: we know there are more than mexicans and central americans coming across that southern border, and we know that once they are here the o.r.r. has no way of tracking them and keeping up with them. in april, a judicial watch report cited a mexican army officer and police inspector who advised that isis was operating training bases in close proximity to the u.s. southern border. another report from august, 2014, advised that social media traffic indicated isis was planning to infiltrate the southern border in order to carry out a terrorist attack. due to these findings, all, all of our resettlement services

must be temporarily suspended. i am currently working on a solution with several ofy colleagues to address the loophole that allows nonrefugees to be resettled. in the past three weeks, the islamic state has bombed a russian jetliner, committed suicide bombingsn beirut, and massacred, massacred french citizens? paris. they are now exporting their terror. there is simply no method that will allow us to determine with 100% accuracy whether syrians or illegal aliens that we resettle nto the u.s. are really isis jihadists. mr. speaker, is the isis threat contained? no. can we guarantee that syrian refugees who are resettled into the u.s. will not commit acts of terror against americans?

no. doe know who these people are? no. are they properly vetted? no. would it be responsible to bring syrian refugees into this country after the attacks in paris? the answer is no. do americans across this country want the administration to resele syrian refugees into the u.s.? no. is the administration dangerouy naive on this policy? absotely. i encourage my colleagues to look closely at the issue. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, for five minutes. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: withot objection. mr. rangel: thank you for this opportunity, mr. speaker. i wod just like to joinith that lions of americans feel heart-base sympathy for the losses of our friends i

europe and france and paris. d of course to give sympathy to those peop that are absolutely hysterical on this issue as relates to refugees, even though there's no evidence at all that it was refugees that were responsible for it. ut this pe of unprovoked attacks does cause fear and many times irresponsible behavior on behalf of people as they attempt to instill fear in all people to such an extent that it shatters the principles of what this country was built on. nevertheless, there's enough of us to be concerned about, there's enough for us to be fearful about. and there has to be concern as to what are we going to do about

it. those that read in the media and listen to it you would find that -- and even members of congress, we have member now saying that we can't win this war against isis unless we have more of our military on the ground fighting against the assad government. we talk about sending troops overseas to put their lives in harm's way as though it's just another foreign policy decision that members of congress can make without any regard at all to the constitutional responsibility we have to ourselves and to be an example for the world. . whenever this great nation is

threatened, whenever our national security is threatened, the president should be coming to this house of representatives and the senate and share with us what other threats to our national security, and when it becomes abundantly clear that we have to call upon our military in any way, we should have a declaration of war for the reasons that the president has given to us. and our responsibility to our constituents is to share as much information as we can to tell them that war means sacrifice, loss of life. and yet today we haven't had a declaration of war since franklin roosevelt. tens of thousands of americans have died. in this recent crisis, less

than 10% of eligible americans have actually put themselves in harm's way because of executive mandate and the allowance of the congress to allow this to happen. nd we've lost just in iraq 7,000 american lives that some of us have to go to the funerals and explain the best that we can that even though would be at war there american lives lost in foreign countries. i submit to you that if we believe that our national security is threatened, we should have a declaration of war, we should have a draft and we should have a way to pay for these wars so that we would know that it's not easy sending your loved ones abroad and not even know the reasons that they are there. it would seem to me that as

everyone heard the president of france says they're at war against isis that if we are at war against isis, whatever country they're representing, it should be brought to the american people. it should be brought to the congress and the president should ask us to declare war. but it's just totally not fair for people in the house of representatives to come here and to say that americans should be sent overseas to fight an unknown enemy, to put their lives in jeopardy and perhaps their families in jeopardy without being able to say that they're fighting a war for democracy -- to preserve democracy in this country. it just seems to me that whether you call them no feet on the ground but boots on the ground, that if someone's coming back here with a flag-draped coffin, that we should be able to say they fought for america, they died

for america and that we're fighting for peace and to end the war that has yet to be declared. i yield back the balance of hi time. the speaker pro tempore: -- mr. rangel: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr, for five minutes. mr. barr: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of our allies, the people of france, and in strong condemnation of the terrorist attacks in paris, france, carried out by the islamic state this past friday. the people of france have been our allies since the american revolution, and having traveled to normandy and seeing the american flag over omaha beach, it underscores the important alliance that we have had with the people of france throughout our history. and ever since the founding of our country, we have been united with the people of france by our shared values of freedom and civil society and democracy. the attack on friday was an

attack on these values, by barbaric terrorists who want to impose their brutal and twisted version of islam and authoritarian rule across the world. we grieve for the mass of loss of life, not just for the french people, but also for the victims and their families around the globe, including nohemi gonzalez, an american student from almonte, california. we join the voices around the attacks but condemnation is not enough. as i saw firsthand while visiting iraq and afghanistan last month, the president's strategy of withdrawal and containment is clearly not working. by underestimating the threat, referring to isil as the j.v. team, declaring that isil has been contained just hours before the brutal attacks in paris, president obama has allowed this radical islamic cancer on humanity to fester and grow. indeed, the key lesson that my trip to the middle east is that

american retreat has made the world a much less stable and much more dangerous place. the weakness of the president's foreign policy and u.s. withdrawal from the middle east has allowed our adversaries, isil, russia, iran, al qaeda to fill the vacuum, to grow stronger and become a much greater threat to our homeland and our interests. in contrast, our allies -- israel, the jordanians, the government of iraq, the kurdish regional government, the regional government in afghanistan -- they have become more threatened and vulnerable. there is not a place in the world that is more safer or stable today or where our adversaries are weaker or our allies are stronger than the day president obama took office. the president has in recent days lectured his critics to ome up with our own plan and regurgitated his tired attacks on his predecessor's national security policy.

but if there is any lesson to be learned from the obama policy in iraq, as contrasted with u.s. policy after world war ii in japan and germany, is that once you win a war, do not leave. a residual security force and a continued diplomatic engagement to prevent sectarian divisions would have reassured moderate sunnis and prevented the rise of isil. the president implies his critics would lead us to another unpopular ground war in the middle east. but we do not need to fight the iraq war again. we've already won that war, but we do need to do more to combat isil. what about authorizing use of military force that doesn't constrain the commander in chief, which is what the president sent us? why don't we do what our ally, president abaddy, in baghdad wants and asked us for, which is more u.s. airpower, more u.s. special operators on the

ground for more coordination of the air campaign, more funding for the iraqi train and equip fund? we must do to help the moderate forces, the indigenous forces on the ground such as the kurdish peshmerga and address he serge of refugees across -- surge of refugees across the world but the answer is not to settle them across the united states. a settlement program is an admission of defeat that their homes will never be safe for them to return to so we should assimilate them with new homes, new languages, new cultures. that's not the answer for these refugees. we know that one terrorist blended with those trying to lee from isil, it would pose as a security threat to the united states. we should not take them away from the anti-isil campaign through an open-ended refugee program.

let'sin stead, let's actively protect -- instead, let's actively protect them and win the war. the best thing we can do for these people is to defeat the enemy and to end their reign of terror, rape and oppression. we need a strategy not to contain isil but to eliminate them. the refugee issue is larger than the refugees. as we were reminded so tragically friday in paris, failure to confront ideologies abroad gives them a reason to attack here at home. let's pray for the people of france but let's do more. let's rise up with them with resolve to defend our shared commitment to liberty, security and freedom. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. emmer, for five minutes. mr. speaker, i rise today to applaud the 3-m

company, a great minnesota business, for recently being named one of the top 100 innovative organizations for the fifth consecutive year by thompson reuters in their fifth annual list of top 100 global innovators. originally known as minnesota mining and manufacturing company, 3-m started out as a small-scale mining company in northern minnesota. however, mining turned out to be an unsuccessful venture causing the company to suffer. instead of accepting defeat, the company embraced a pioneering spirit. more than a century later, 3-m has evolved into a multinational company that produces more than 65,000 products which are used all over the world. among the many products created, the post-it note and scotch tape, remain one of the most well-known. as of today, 1/3 of 3-m sales comes from products that were invented within the past five years, making it clear that

this company defines american creativity and innovation. congratulations, 3-m, and here's to another century of ccomplishment. mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate one of minnesota's finest educators, dr. daniel bitman. dr. bitman has been the superintendent of rice public schools since 2010 and this year has been named superintendent of the year by the minnesota association of school administrators. dr. bitman earned both a masters and doctorate of education from the university of nevada and has been working in education in minnesota for more than 20 years. as a result of his continued efforts and leadership, the students of scott rapids rice schools are now performing at a higher level than ever before and thriving within a more engaged and supportive community. our children are the future of this country, and dr. bitman's dedication to his students show that our future is bright.

dr. bitman, thank you for what you have done for our children and our community and for what you will do in the future. congratulations on being named superintendent of the year. you deserve it. mr. speaker, in honor of national diabetes month, i rise today to voice my concern for this disease that is plaguing our nation. statistics show that nearly 30 million children and adults in the united states are currently living with diabetes. in my home state of minnesota, more than 8% of adults have been diagnosed with this difficult and dangerous disease. as if these harrowing statistics are not concern enough, studies show that type 2 dwibets will grow at wide -- diabetes will grow at widespread rates. in other words, our diabetes problem and the associated costs are going to get worse. this disease can often be prevented. while genetics play a role in developing diabetes, diet and exercise play a role in the development as well.

if we eat better and exercise in short if we live healthy lifestyles, many of us can prevent the onset of diabetes. so i urge my colleagues here in congress to join me in raising awareness for diabetes. if we all put in the effort, i believe that our country can overcome this epidemic. mr. speaker, in honor of alzheimer's awareness month, i would like to bring attention to a disease that is all too prevalent in our country. alzheimer's is the most common form of dementia and today approximately 5.3 million americans are living with this disease. to put it in perspective, that is the same of the population as the state of minnesota. alzheimer's is a cruel disease that knows no limits. from the 30-year-old mother of three young ones who is suffering from early onset alzheimer's to the elderly grandfather who fails to recognize his loved ones, this is a disease that is devastating families across our country. unfortunately, statistics show

that alzheimer's rates are rapidly increasing. by 2050 the number of people aged 65 years or older with alzheimer's is estimated to triple. at this point in time, alzheimer's cannot be prevented or cured, which is why we must work harder to ensure that one day life without the risk of alzheimer's can become a reality. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota yields back. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair and not to a perceived viewing audience. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, for five minutes. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize november as alzheimer's disease awareness month. approximately 5.3 million americans are currently suffering from alzheimer's. this is a disease that is the sixth leading killer in the united states. yet, there is currently no treatment or cure for this horrible disease. this devastating disease will

cost medicare and medicaid approximately $150 billion in 2015 alone. it also places an incredible burden on caregivers. oftentimes these caregivers are family members who sacrifice their own well-being to care for their loved ones. we must work towards a cure, mr. speaker. this is one of the reasons why i was proud to be a co-sponsor of the 21st century cures act earlier this summer. think about that for a second, mr. speaker, an opportunity for us to be able to invest in research so that we can actually have a breakthrough in some of the diseases that are the biggest drivers of our health care costs. diabetes, for instance, $330 billion we spend each and every year treating diabetes. alzheimer's and parkinson's

again will significantly ellipse that as we go forward. mr. speaker, i believe the best way to honor those impacted by alzheimer's disease is by dedicating time and resources to finding that very cure. i will continue to do just that and i urge my colleagues here in the chamber, across the aisle, and over in the senate to be able to join me so that we can once and for all find a cure for this horrible disease. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois deeleds yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick, for five minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. speaker, america has a long tradition of opening its arms to oppressed people from around the globe. while the human rights of those fleeing terror and destruction must be respected, it is vital that we work to ensure that our nation's safety is in place in this time of turmoil and unrest. the united states cannot

indefinitely close itself to the stark realities of the world, nor should we hastily accept tens of thousands of people without proper screening. that is why i have called on pennsylvania governor tomorrow wolfe to suspend efforts to bring syrian refugees to pennsylvania until there are verifiable and robust mechanisms in place to properly screen all participants for potential security risks. to facilitate the thorough screening needed, i'm supporting legislation prompting the department of homeland security in coordination with the director of national intelligence and the f.b.i., to provide new security assurances before admitting refugees into the country and for the governmental accountability office to conduct a sweeping review of security gaps in the current refugee review process. this measure addresses both shortcomings in our existing programs and ensures a role for congressional oversight. the refugee crisis the world

faces is a symptom of a larger problem. militant islam and the efforts of groups like isis destabilize and destroy others. we need a long-term solution to this problem. and that includes defeating isis. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

director brennan: thank you very much, good morning, everyone. i greatly appreciate this invitation to have this opportunity this morning to talk to all of you because of the importance that i attach, certainly, to osac. that partnership between the private sector and the u.s. government, particularly here at the department of state, is so, so important. and i do want to take a moment to express my great appreciation, gratitude, and admiration for the work of the bureau of diplomatic security here at the department of state and their regional security officers and assistant r.s.o.s around the world who do a tremendous teroic job in keeping u.s. diplomats, attache, intelligence officers safe and

also do a great job of making sure u.s. citizens around the world are kept as safe as they can be. with that interaction, so i just want to be able to say on behalf of the c.i.a. we greatly appreciate the tremendous work and sacrifices of our state department colleagues and bureau of diplomatic security. i don't believe there's ever been a time for a stronger partnership between the public and private sector. just looking out over the last 2 1/2 weeks and the incidents and tragic attacks that took place in paris, the airliner that came down over the sinai territory in egypt, the bombings in southern beirut, all of them attributed to isil, 400 dead, 500 injured. isil, the islamic state of iraq, the so-called cali fat, is just the latest manifestation of what a -- cal fate -- caliphate,

is just what is the latest manifest case of what is a twisted ideology that can lead to such blood shed around the world. i think we all know what al qaeda has been capable of doing over the last several decades. it was nearly 20 years ago when i was in saudi arabia dealing with al qaeda, then in its early formative stages, and looking at what it was able to do on our homeland here. now, looking at isil, da'ish, as the acronym is known by, it's a different type of phenomenon in my mind. it is one that has taken some of the al qaeda and other terrorist models and expanded it significantly. it has, as you know, deep roots in iraq and syria being al qaeda in iraq and al qaeda in syria in years past. wellt now has branched out

beyond the iraq and syria into other parts of the middle east -- africa, asia, and beyond. spreading its pursuit of --olerance, sub jew case and subjugation and violence well beyond its areas of occupation and activities. i think just taking a look at what happened in paris demonstrates their commitment to random violence in terms of going after the most vulnerable targets and carrying out as much mayhem and reeking as much death and destruction as possible as the innocent. they have taken advantage of the freedoms and liberties that we are so proud of in much of the world, and they also have taken full advantage of social media. using that as an environment to indock continue nate, communicate, brainwash, direct, guide, train.

and also presenting, i think, a very misleading narrative and impression of what is going on inside of iraq and syria. they have been able to use these great advances in technology to spurt their aims. -- further their aims. certainly they have been aided by much instability and political upheaval and sectarian tensions throughout the region. so they have been able to take advantage of that to be able to advance their goals and objectives. and as was noted, i started out in national security intelligence back in 1980, and i must say i have never seen a time when we have faced more serious and consequential issues confronting our national security around the globe. secretaries kerry, carter, myself, and others spend much time at the white house and the white house situation room with national security advisor rice, president obama, and others to address these issues that span

the globe, that are of such intensity and consequence, as well as so quick to develop, as well as to have impact around the world. that there has been, again, never a time, i think, that the u.s. national security challenges have been greater, nor the requirement for the united states to be ackively involved in trying to a -- ackively -- actively involved in trying to prevent these challenges. i spent a greater part of my life working in, studying in the middle east. the middle east and the islamic world is going through some very, very challenging times. making the transition from authortarian governments and regimes to try to move forward with democratic principles and reforms is certainly very challenging. the cost of the embedded obstacles to those reforms, to include on the economic front, moving away from essentially

planned status economies to a free market capitalist system where individual opportunity is rewarded. but unfortunately in many of these societies and countries corruption remains rampant. there is still very weak institutions of governments -- governance, internally displaced people, refugees, great uneven distribution of wealth. and so that when i look out over the next decade or more, and i see this great expanse of territory in the middle east, africa, asia, i think we are still going to be facing serious challenges as we move forward. these challenges, i mentioned, i think are compounded by the new environment that we are dealing with, which is the digital domain. that cyberenvironment that can be used for great good and to advance the interest of

prosperity and freedom and liberty. but also can be used as a domain and environment for ill and to do harm. so whenever i -- every month when i swear in a new class of c.i.a. officers, i tell them that this unsettled global landscape is going to demand their expertise, their dedication as we go forward. working in strong partnership with our diplomatic law enforcement, military partners here as well as abroad. despite the unsettled nature of the global landscape, i believe that the u.s. is still looked at by the overwhelming majority of the world's populations, as well as governments, as something that is very, very special. our commitment to universal , to , to social progress economic prosperity, to individual freedoms and liberties, are much admired and

widely aspired to. so i think as importantly is the strong reputation and capabilities and potential of the u.s. private sector. because the u.s. private sector is still seen as the world's leader in innovation, entrepreneurship, education, medicine, technology, and science, and so much, much more. so i think this is the time for us to be able to stand tall among each other. stand tall with our allies and partners around the world as we face these challenges that are serious, that are, unfortunately, going to be enduring, at least for a while, so that we can, in fact, deal with the challenges that lie ahead in a collective and constructive way. osac, i believe, plays a very, very important role in helping keep the u.s. dream alive here

in the united states, but then worldwide. so i am committed to making sure that c.i.a. and the intelligence community does everything possible to work very closely with our state department colleagues as well as with the private sector to ensure that we do our utmost to be able to optimize the safety and security of americans and american companies and enterprises around the world. earlier this week i gave some csis here in -- washington. rather than preeting, i would invite you to take a look on the website. i invite you to look at what i said as opposed to what has been, unfortunately, misrepresented in some quarters by my good friends. so with that i would welcome the opportunity to be able to address the questions that you might have in the remainder of my time.

>> we have microphones on either side here. so please, for osac constituent and members, please walk forward, ask your question, and as mr. brennan said, he'll be appy to respond. >> director brennan, thank you very much for your presence here today. we hear quite often in terms of intelligence sharing internationally about the i-5, but we don't hear much about what's happening between us and france, of course, in the current days and others in the western world, develop economic societies that are all the target of this threat that you have described for us here this morning. i'm like to hear, if i could, what exchange is taking place on a broader intelligence community

basis so we can fight them more comprehensively thank you. director brennan: when i looked back over the last 14 years or so since 9/11, there has been tremendous progress. here in the united states as well as internationally, as far as putting together that architecture that is required to be able to share and access information in as rapid a fashion as possible. . and as we've come to realize in the states, lots of departments and agencies have different information technology systems. we have different authorities. we have different responsibilities as far as handling different types of information to include on u.s. persons, u.s. citizens. but i think we've come a very, very long way over the last 14 years. in addition, it's not just what we've been able to do here within the united states, and it's not just within the federal government. i think there is a lot of very good and robust sharing information with state and locals and others.

we're trying to, and we have in fact made a lot of progress internationally. the information sharing mechanisms with the five i's, partners of canada, australia, new zealand, are rooted in traditional, sort of information sharing practices and systems. i would say a lot of our information sharing practices and mechanisms with other countries -- and you noted france -- are as strong as what we have been able to do with our five i's partners. in terms of making sure we have, again, the mechanisms to share the information, we share it electronically because we want to be sure it gets to the recipient as quickly as we can. sometimes we still have to provide sort of hard copy of the information, but the real challenges to make sure you take information that may be derived from very sensitive sources wlrks it be human or technical -- whether it be human or technical and where it's acquired around the globe, and to move the essence of that

information, particularly if it's threat information, through a system that will enable the person on the other hand or the entity, the organization to be able to receive it. so, for example, france, we have had truly a very strong interaction with our french partners. i'll be speaking again with our french partners about what it is what we need to do as far as sharing the information but also sharing the strategic approaches and what are our policy courses are -- what our policy courses are to deal with the challenges we face. but it does span the gamut of partners around the globe. i mentioned at the session on monday over the last five weeks or so i had conversations with my russian counterpart. despite the policy differences we have in syria and ukraine, these have been discussions about how we can in fact share more information about this threat from isil and what we need to be able to do as far as having the analytic exchanges

but also the procedures in place so that if we have threat information it's going to get to them as quickly as possible. we take very seriously within the u.s. government our duty to warn responsibilities. and so if we have information about a threat to a particular entity, person or whatever, we make sure we move it very, very quickly. i think as you know a lot of times threat information that comes in is broad. it's vague. sometimes the ultimate sourcing is uncertain, but at a time particularly now when there is concern that there could be other operations that are somehow under way, that threshold in fact is about as low as it can be. and so one of the challenges that we have as an intelligence community working with our partners is trying to separate out the weak this time. and particularly in the aftermath of these terrible attacks, there is also a spike in terms of people who will be

reporting bogus threat information. and so it's really up to the professionals within the government as well as in the private sector to be able to take the information that's available -- and do i distinguish between the strenalic warning in terms of -- strategic warning in terms of the bare metric pressure. you know there's something that's brewing. you don't know exactly where it's going to hit or when but there are things you can do in light of what the intelligence portends. it's when you have the more specific intelligence, then you can take sort of preemptive action that's going to try to disrupt the plot that is under way. nd every day around the globe, law enforcement security intelligence agencies are taking actions that disrupt the plans, intentions and activities of these terrorist organizations. unfortunately, some get through. i think this is what we have seen over the last several weeks. i can tell you -- you, i'm sure

can tell me the same thing, these types of incidents only redouble the determination of intelligence security professionals to make sure we do our jobs the best we can and we are certainly going to do hat. surely i haven't answered all your questions. [laughter] >> maybe i can pose a question. our audience is a bit shy this morning. since friday, since the attacks in paris, there's been a lot in the media regarding the threat that the refugees from syria and other countries may or do pose. if you could comment a little bit on that on how you see the security situation pertaining to the refugees that are coming to europe and to the united states. director brennan: well, that's certainly one of the biggest questions as well as the biggest challenges that we are facing right now with the

tremendous, tremendous displacement of individuals from these waring lands, whether it be iraq or syria. syria, country of 24 million or so before the conflict, is approaching 50% of the population that has been either internally displaced or has moved across the borders to other countries or migrating then to europe and beyond. and i do think it is important for us to do a number of things. one is, we are a country -- certainly i believe we are a country that prides itself on its tradition of welcoming people from around the globe. there is no other country on the face of the earth that is more of a melting pot than the united states. and so what we want to do is make sure we are able to maintain our commitment to those values and the things that have made this country great which is why we don't want the terrorists to succeed in terms what have it is they are trying to do. at the same time, i think it makes it even more incumbent on

the security intelligence professionals to make sure we are able to look at individuals who are coming into this country with an eye toward what it is we might know about individuals or ways that terrorist organizations might y to get people into these refugee flows. something i will do working in concert with my fellow partners both here and abroad is to see what we can do to strengthen that system that allows us to have as best insight as possible into the backgrounds of these individuals as well as what their intentions might be. and so what we need to do is to strike that balance. as i noted earlier this week, there are a number of challenges from a legal, policy , political standpoint that akes striking this balance

challenging. we need to make sure we're able to have the government play what i think is certainly its rightful role in protecting its citizenry and for many years, decades, centuries we have had experience about what it means to be vigilant in the physical domain, on teraferma, in the maritime domain, in the aviation and air domain. this new domain of digital domain is something that is very new as far as our history, our experience. and what we need to be able to do is to make sure that we understand what that appropriate role is for the government in that digital domain because if the government's primary responsibility is to care for the security and welfare of its people, it needs to do that in all domains, and so there is a great debate of what the

government's role is in that domain and there should be that great debate about what it is that we need to do in order to balance individual rights and civil liberty and what is the appropriate role for government in that domain in order to protect its citizenry. i don't think we're there yet as far as being able to understand all of the dimensions of that domain. it's one of the reasons why at c.i.a. we have recently considered a new directorate of digital innovation because that domain fundamentally affects my agency's ability to be able to operate and carry out its intelligence mission since many of the things we do need to be done clandestinely. and all of you here, all of us have a forensic history in that digital domain. when we use our a.t.m. cards, when we pump gas, when we check into a hotel or get on an airplane, we create that forensic history that is recoverable and knowable, not just by nation states that are

out there that might be our adversaries from a counterintelligence standpoint, but also from groups that have the capability to understand, manipulate, exploit that digital domain. so if we try to avoid the question of what the government's role is in that domain and say that government should not play a role in it, i think we do it at our peril. and i think this is one of the fundamental challenges that this country's going to face in the coming years. and i'm certainly determined to do what i can to be able to explain from my perspective, at least, what i see as those challenges, those threats, those risks as well as those opportunities. and as we have done, i think, through the course of our history, we need to be able to strike that proper balance between the great individual freedoms and privacy rights that we embrace and we love and we want to keep near and dear but also making sure that our families, our children, our

neighbors, our communities, indeed our international community is kept safe from what those who would cause us harm, would want to cause us harm can do in terms of its ability to operate within that digital domain. because that digital domain is the worldwide web is owned and operated by 85% by the private sector, and that's why the partnership osac has really epitomized, needs to extend beyond physical domain. it needs to extend into that digital domain and it needs to extend beyond our sovereign borders because the digital world, the digital domain does not respect those sovereign borders. you can move things around the world at the speed of light and hop around so many countries. and unless there's going to be some type of international understanding about what is appropriate and acceptable

within that digital domain, we're going to face a world of hurt in the future. and so my emphasis, because of what it is that i have been able to understand what our adversaries, those who want to cause us harm, those who want to kill and maim in the streets of paris, as well as around the world, how they can operate within that environment and we need to make sure that we're comfortable with what it is that we are expecting our government to do and what the government is quite frankly obliged to do in order to make sure that our way of life is aintained in the future. yes. david: david smith of "the guardian." what impact do you think edward

snowden's revelations had on everything you talked about in that debate over privacy? and secondly, could you give us your current assessment of the threat level to the u.s. homeland in the wake of the paris attacks? director brennan: i think any unauthorized disclosures that are made by individuals who have dishonored the oath of office that they raised their hand and attested to undermines this country's security. and so individuals who have done that over time -- [applause] director brennan: and heroizing uch individuals i find to be unfathomable as far as what it is this country needs to be able to do again in order to keep itself safe. and a lot of people who are speaking out there about what -- some individuals have done and applauding it have no

understanding, are totally ignoreant of what it is that -- ignorant of what it is that such people have wrought. we need to make sure in the future, again, this balance between individual rights and liberties, and the government's sacred obligation to keep its people safe and secure, needs to be struck but it needs to evolve because just the way the world has changed over the last 50 years, fundamentally it has transformed. there's been a revolution in technology. we need to be able to adapt to his new reality. anybody else? one over here. over there -- sorry. scott: scott with consillum. thank you for your comments most recently here and for your

time today. there's a lot of yuck people in this group who are entering into time of government service and also with these companies. my question is this. given your experience in the government and what you've done for years, do you have hope for the future? and if so, what gives you that hope? director brennan: that's a fair question in terms of what i just talked about. [laughter] director brennan: i am hopeful, not only hopeful but optimistic because as we look back over our history as a country, we have had to deal with tremendous, tremendous challenges. nuclear war. nazi germany rolling over europe. in each one of these instances i think the clouds looked rather dark and the future looked bleak but because of what it is that, again, this country is founded upon, i think we have always risen to the occasion. now, what i really want to have happen when i talk about the

digital world and the cyberworld, i don't have to have to see -- the united states to endure sort of the equivalent of a 9/11. we need to be able to take these actions preemptively, preventively, prophylactically as opposed to doing it in the aftermath of a crisis. so when i look at the internet of things and how we're going to be even more dependent on this worldwide web, we really need to be mindful of what, not just what those opportunities are, but then what the vulnerabilities are. and the dependencies on security. when i talk to our new recruits as well as student groups that go out and i encourage them to pursue their dreams of being involved in national security, international affairs or intelligence because i tell them this is such a historic time for so many reasons. the global landscape that's changing, the technology, they're coming in at a time of

great opportunity if you are a national security intelligence specialist. but for students i also give them a word of caution and warning. i say that once you get in to the realm of security and intelligence, national security, it gets into your blood. it is something that drives you. you become addicted to making sure that you're doing your level best and your absolute best in order to achieve what it is that your mission asks of you which is to keep this country strong and safe. and so for the past 35 years with a brief interim in the private sector which was really designed, focusing on security, it has been something that's motivated me to work with professionals, not just c.i.a. but across government and around the globe as well as people in the private sector who are really determined to make sure that this country is able to attain even greater heights in the future.

so i ep courage people, young officers who are here who are part of this effort, we now have a new type of challenge that we have to face. this is the time, as i said, that we need to be able to stand tall and to let those who want to do us harm know that we are the united states of america, that we can stand up to this and we're going to get through it and we're going to do it in partnership with our good friends and allies around the globe and i certainly am willing to continue to do what i can in partnership with you. so thank you so much. i believe i have to go. i wish you well. i thank you for your work and your service, and i look forward to be able to work with you in the future. [applause] >> thank you, mr. brennan. >> c.i.a. director brennan this morning. and we join live coverage now conference on international security hosted by the state department's overseas security

advisory council. right now it's a panel on radicalization, and later remarks from secretary of state john kerry. >> to actually contribute to prevention work. the whole basis of the prominent radicalization we are seeing now is about dividing communities, is about -- is about building walls, it's about creating barriers and the more we can do in a united fashion whether it's here now or the international space and organizations that you run, i think it can be nothing more powerful than a demonstration of unity among people of different faiths and different cultures. so don't feel -- don't feel not capable of being able to engage in this space. just standing side by side with another faith leader, someone of another faith, having a cup

of tea -- we had a campaign called cup of tea, and all it was was showing people different faith, different cultures sitting together having cups of tea. that image, that wonderful image of different faiths and different cultures sitting together, having a cup of tea and having a chat was so powerful and it resonated with the community. and what we also have to understand is we're in it together. one of the most -- one of the in powerful things i heard an army general which is battling radicalization is we're here to help you. what i'm saying we are all in it together. let's not point fingers that you need to do more. you're the victim, we're the victim, we need a triangle of partnerships where we have communities which are prone to radicalization. those communities which are probably suffering from

radicalization in the sense or the victims of radicalization, even though you can't really define that because everybody suffers from radicalization and violent extremism at the end of the date. so this strong cooperation has to exist and once we can get over that triangle of cooperation and that triangle of partnership i think we will be able to move forward. at the moment we're pointing fingers at each other saying it's the states' job, that community's job and that community is saying, no, government is not doing more. if we can stop pointing fingers at each other and really just get on -- get together and say this is a problem that's common between all of this and let's deal with it. the last thing i would say, it doesn't matter which level we're working whether it's local, international, the key thing is this issue is global. we have to be -- equip our people who are at the prevention stage who are dealing with this issue on the front line with an ability to deal with global issues.

i'm tired of people saying this is a regional problem or this is -- affects only this part of the world and tries to -- tries to categorize and divide the issue up into different segments. you know, this is a global issue, and we need to equip with the global narratives. we need to equip people in a globalized world where we can communicate with each other instantaneously. we cannot say this is a u.k. issue or this is a u.s. issue or syrian issue or iraq issue. this is a global phenomena that we need to be equipped to deal with. >> thank you. so the talks in paris are certainly still on everybody's minds, fresh in our memories. could each of you maybe respond

a little bit as to what is both the power of those attacks as far as driving for the radicalization or the dangers nherent in poorly conceived or poor implemented responses to those attacks and perhaps creating backlash, further adicalization? ms. khan: well, one of the realities that we have to deal with is we are dealing with a very sophisticated enemy and one which is quite open and wants -- uses misdirection and that is part of their own trategy. i raise this because one of the first responses post-paris attacks, has been the issues of refugees. now, if europe starts shutting

its doors to refugees, it is actually playing right into the hands of what isis, daesh, has said they want. in fact, a few months ago when the body of the 3-year-old child washed up on a turkish beach and that gained international media attention, it became a big media issue on look at this, what's happened to the refugees. within a week isis put out something like 10 different directives telling the syrian people, why are you leaving syria? you should actually come to us because we will protect you from assad? and if you leave and every refugee who is leaving syria is actually -- you have left the religion and you are now -- you should be killed. we have the right to kill you. and so they don't want syrians to be leaving syria. that's one of their objectives. they're very clear on that.

to the extent -- of those eight attackers, most of them are french. but they said they found one syrian passport. well, what the french news media was reporting yesterday was that the syrian passport belonged to a soldier, part of assad's army, who was killed six months ago. so the fact he was carrying a passport which was off a dead soldier is perhaps an indicator of the misdirection that's there. i think at this stage, while the investigations are happening, we have to be careful to not just respond with fear but actually make sure that we have a cool-headed response to what we do. in terms of responses overall, we have the option of -- everyone has a role to play. it's not just government. it's private sector. it's civil society. every role -- every sector of society has a role to play. whole of government, whole of society. so we talk about what our countering violence extremism,

c.v.e. relevant responses, are things that help change the underlying environment but they might not be directly addressing the issue of extremism head on. specific deals with extremism head on. they need both c.v.e. specific and c.v.e. relevant. private sector is equipped already or they are very enable to be a platform for c.v.e. relevant measures because they have the ability to actually work in the world of awareness, of education, of diversity and building inclusion. we talked about belonging, right? issues of identity. those impact your staff, your clients, the people on the ground, every part of your world is impacted by this. and also working on issues of exit. if someone is trying to get out, how can you help them?

and this is a place where there's a lot of c.v.e.-relevant responses which the private sector has. and then let me talk about c.v.e.-specific, because especially for the technology platforms and the technology companies out there, you have a tremendous role that you can actually play in .v.e.-specific work. >> it's always tough following humera. she makes excellent points. and just to build on what she said. the concept of resilience, i think, is very important here. especially in the aftermath of an attack like the one on paris. we need to understand that ese sorts of terrorist attacks won't break us. they are not existencal steps. i think promoting the population of their citizens is very, very important so that you don't get very conservative

responses or responses that end up exacerbating the problem like we're starting to see in terms of the backlash against refugees or the infringement on civil rights as intelligence efforts pick up. but a lot of these responses will then end up with intel, and that's where it needs to stay. i think for -- sorry, for c.v.e. efforts, there are -- there are things that can be done and i'll give you an example. in montreal they opened up a center for individuals who are suspected of being on the path to radicalization. it's a center that allows their families or their friends to report them or -- in a safe space. they have only had very few instances which they had to involve law enforcement, but such a center allows individuals with concerns or -- i mean if they themselves feel conflicted or on a path, they can come and speak in a safe

space. i think those types of programs are integral in the situation. i'm sure you'll speak to the u.k.'s prevent and the way they handle sensitive issues. it's an important to not immediately prosecute all those who might start down the path but also allow them opportunities to disengage before they engage in any violence. mr. hafiz: i want to take advantage of the people's comments. i'm not used to going last. i would like to reinforce christina's and humera's point of refugees and resilience. they can be nothing more owerful than ensuring we -- at a time like this maintain the values that we hold so dearly. and that we show in the face of these atrocities very strong esilience.

the attacks in paris can have a variety of effects. something i said about eight it's going to get bad before it gets better, it's going to get worse before it gets better and no doubt it did, it got worse and it's got very worse. would like to potentially see the attacks in paris as a turning point where from this point onward things get better rather than worse. it's unfortunate that so many people have to die for it to get better. it's a bit like in the u.k. when rigby was killed. he was a british soldier whose head was -- he was beheaded on the streets of london, and it was unfortunate that he had to die for people -- for people in our communities to stand up for

our armed forces because a lot of people, whether you believe it or not, in the u.k. we potentially maybe don't have the similar relationship with our armed forces that you might do in the u.s. but it was unfortunate that, you know, a soldier had to die on the streets of london for people to begin to stand up and support our armed forces and the values and principles for which they stand which is to defend our country and our people. and at that time, one of the most powerful sound bites i heard from the u.k. government was when prime minister david cameron came in front of number 10 downing street with a black door, with a number 10 just above his head and said this is not a representation of islam. this is a betrayal of islam. and that sound bite well brought all of our community together. and so i think positive responses carefully thought through responses by some of our leaders are crucial at this

time. and so the paris attacks i think and i wish and i hope can be a point where people realize the brutality of this ideology and realize that this is not the path we want to follow. i hope that they prevent -- response to this -- a prevention response to this which is automatic, which nobody has to do anything about in order to dissuede people from joining this ideology whether emotionally. we've seen responses around the u.k. and around the world which people cheered the attacks, were happy about the attacks and in a sense encouraged eople and renewed a sense of confidence in these groups of people that this ideology, look what it can do and get to.

it's kind of a double-edged sword. one thing i also do fear is a new war on terror. say war on terror in inverted commas. and carrying out escalating its raids in northern iraq and syria. and we really need to be careful as to how we -- how we present ourselves in the aftermath of these events. we don't want -- at a time when we just got over the toxic statement war on terror, i don't think we need to be creating another environment here people feel that they are now the subjects of this war on terror. so it's absolutely crucial that we don't do that. and that the raids that are

taking place and the bombing that's takes place, absolutely right. i'm not going to -- i'm not in a position to question military strategy in dealing with the threat. the way we present that issue is very, very important. is this a revenge, is this -- are we becoming irrational and insane as the extremists and terrorists that all of a sudden we want to throw 30, 40 bombs onto a nation, onto a community that we weren't doing before? is this revenge? have we lost our sanity and our moral compass? how do people view us all of a sudden these images of jets flying from airbases in the region? how do people view that? and we want to also ensure that , you know, this is not seen as

a kind of, you know -- a kind of a religious war. and this potential for that to happen -- and there's potential for that to happen as well. i also want to say, alongside the military action that's taking place whether it's effective or not effective is that what we're dealing with is an ideology and you can't bomb an ideology. we were in afghanistan for 15 years, and one of our main efforts in afghanistan was to destroy the taliban. the taliban are stronger today than they were 15 years ago, so they still exist and they're still causing problems within afghanistan. so an ideology cannot be bombed. an ideology cannot be destroyed. the only way to destroy this ideology is through a big global heart and mind campaign and to work together globally in being able to deliver the

hearts and minds campaign and to -- the battle out there is not a battle for ground. it's not a battle for territory. really, the battle out there is for hearts and minds, and unfortunately we're losing that battle at the moment and we need to do more. >> i think we now want to open up the floor to questions. if anybody has questions for our panelists. >> everyone can hear and we can also get the recording of it. thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you for all the work that you're doing in communities in the u.k. and here in the united states. the foundation of a society is a family and all the problems we see in the western civilization and the western world, it starts at the family. when i see those young men in mexico being recruited by cartels to go out there and behead, you know, people that are opposite reminds me a lot

of this radicalization problem, that's it's taking advantage of disenfranchised youth. it starts in the family because today, you know, young muslim men are going to mosque but they don't need to go to mosque to be radicalized. they can pick up that on the internet. and it all starts at the home. because if parents do not know what their children are doing, because if parents may themselves be prejudical against western ideas so what do you think that communities imams to instead of -- and what they're spreading society as a whole, in families as a whole, muslim communities is not exempt of this integration of the family nucleus. and the foundation of society is the family. if the muslim families are disintegrated, they're

prejudical just like many other western families might be, then how can we find a solution? what do you think the solution o that problem is? ms. nemur: there are a few points in response. i would start with i think it's -- it's hard to make a generalization that these individuals who are being recruited are -- or join extremist groups come from broken families or their families don't adopt western values. there are lots of examples to the contrary where they do come from loving homes. their parents have been present. they themselves are well-educated. so you cannot make that broad generalization. there are many times when law enforcement has attempted to involve family -- parents in helping to deradicalize individuals and it does not work. for a whole host of reasons.

either they're too set on the path to radicalization, adolescence will hide whatever they can from their parents, whether it's one extremism or anything else. i wouldn't start with that assumption. when it comes to extremism, i think the role of friends and networks is more important. not to say that family isn't. there should be a bigger role for the friend network. cyber iz: we need to get -immams. >> every friday you could join in. the hour of power. mr. hafiz: i think i agree with your point about the mosque not necessarily being a place where people -- where individuals are radicalized. it's never been the case, apart from a few -- if i would take a u.k. perspective, apart from a

few known mosques and charismatic imapples. mosques are a -- imams. mosques are a place where people go and they don't hang around much, to tell you the truth. in the last 15 years, definitely the cyberspace, the social media environment has become extremely powerful and all the radicalization we've seen in the u.k., a lot of it has happened online. and that's where we definitely eed to work. i've recently been visiting schools in the u.k. what i've been talking about with social media and what i've said is actually we need to create a new word which describes how vastly and how quickly we can communicate on social media, because instantaneous is not just good

enough. it's just not good enough. it's massive. but what's also really important is that young people are so savvy with these things. they're so extremely savvy that the three muslim young innocent girls from the u.k. who decided to pack their bags up and go to syria, their parents didn't have a clue. they just didn't have a clue. the family was fine. the family unit was fine. it was a loving family. they just didn't have a clue. the young people are just so savvy and so sophisticated in how they deal with these things that it's -- the family's important, i agree. but i have young children and as much as i keep an eye on my young children, i fear, you know, one day my daughter won't come home and she won't come home because not because she has an after-school club. it's because she left the country. that's how scary the

environment is and the issue is. so family is important and i think we -- the family has a role to play, but like the honorable john brennan said, this digital -- this new digital space, this new digital world, this virtual world that we've created can do amazing things but at the same time can do horrible things as well. the last thing i would say is, you know, in terms of sophistication and savvy, my son is a great example of that because he has this online account where he has to do his home work. and many of you probably know about it, but he's able to hack into the website and change his scores to show -- to show that he's completed his home work when he actually hasn't. he was honest enough to tell me that he could do that, but these are the kinds of minds

we're dealing with. [laughter] ms. kahn: so intelligence analysts are estimating that at least in north america about 90% of the radicalization is happening, the recruitment is happening online. in europe the numbers is about 50/50. 50% face-to-face and only 50% online and the numbers drop even more when you're talking about middle east, north africa, asia. and we have to remember that this is a representation actually of internet penetration, right, and how much -- how communities and societies actually, how technology is used. so this is not a surprise because every young person you know has got at least one smartphone, right, that's the reality we work with. also it's the age when we talk about 14 to 25 where every study says that they listen to

their peers, right. they are most impacted by their peers and their friends' network and less impacted by authority figures who are talking down to them. t let me ask you, any one of you. how many are you going to say i volunteer or i encourage my 15 or 16-year-old child to go talk to a stranger online to convince them not to go to syria? how many of us are willing to have our kids actually join the battle, knowing what they're up against is the whole isis machinery? because the moment you try and tap into it -- so we actually engage online in the space and we are actually dealing with people who are online who are recruiters. you can't talk to just one of them. you get attacked by teams of them who are monitoring and will go back in and change what has been said and the text. for every individual who's been

recruited, there are handlers who are handling the social media presence at any point in time. and that's just on the public side, right? so the issue is bigger because our most -- where we would have the most leverage is also our most vulnerable population. right? and how do we make sure if we are going to get our youth into this world, do we really want our youth to be getting involved in counterterrorism? right? that's a huge ask, and this is something which there is no good answer to and this is something we're grabbling with. but you talk -- grappling with. but you talk about instantaneous. let me give you an example. last year the senate put out a report. it dropped at midnight. guess how long it took before isis supporters were actually tweeting excerpts from that? 30 seconds. from when it went on the website. were we ready for any sort of response? no. did we know the report was coming?

of course, for weeks. so there's places where we can actually do something proactively but we are not geared up to work in this world which moves much faster than most of us are used to. >> thank you. >> ok. i'm going to allow one more question but i have to caveat if the secretary arrives, i -- i have no options. [laughter] >> it might be a takeaway or a food for thought. i will phrase it with a little bit of context. may name is dawn. thank you very much for what you did today in the panel discussion. it was very interesting and very informative. as previously mentioned, there are many pathways to addressing being radicalized. and it sounds like change can only happen if people are aligned on this globally. and not working in silos and not focusing on one approach but focusing on a variety of approaches. another point was made, when something happens, people often have a knee jerk reaction and

seek short-term quick solutions which in my mind may focus on symptoms rather than a root cause. and you luss pointed out this is global, without borders. so my question is and my thought is, have -- has anyone considered the value of intersecretary torial partners -- intersectoral partners with the private certificator? you can't do this in one big massive intersectorial partner that would then have various roles and responsibilities and a variety of approaches so they aren't working in silos and there is more of a collaborative on focus on that different approach to that wholeistic approach to work on that? do you think -- holistic approach to work on that? do you think that's feasible? and if so how do you think it could be assembled? ms. kahn: i'll start with my snarky take on this one. it would be great to have it and the summits which happened

starting from february onward. there have been many regional summits. have worked on exactly this. in october when you had all the side meetings, there was several new initiatives. there was smart cities. there's several partnerships and new networks which are coming into place. the reality is how do you manage them? and how do they actually become useful? you take, for example, smart cities, right, and that's about connecting mayors from different cities around the world so they can actually start to deal with these exchange information and knowledge, best practices so -- good practices, at least, so they can learn from each other. i talked to a mayor in a town in norway. she'll remain unnamed. and his response was, well, the network was great but i'm still waiting for america to tell us what to do. [raffter] you sort of look and said, this is a network. this should be everyone contory

contributing. -- contributing. some will lead more than others. the sense of partnership, right, we recognize -- everyone recognizes the need for it but it's not -- it hasn't happened yet. the other huge obstacle that we are facing -- and this is something which everyone is working towards is that this sector has in the past always belonged to either law enforcement or military. this is the first one of the -- one of the first times in history where we're saying, hey, civil society, you're going to step up and you're going to be part of our counterterrorism responses. civil society is saying, what are you talking about? we know nothing about the subject. law enforcement is having a very hard time in how do you share information? this is new for everyone, and i think we have to give everyone space to make mistakes. everyone's going to step on each other's toes. there's -- it's not a static balance. it has to be dynamic. it's going to be fluid and it's going to shift. but i think we actually have to

allow space to have -- what do we call -- like safe fails rather -- there's no fail-safe, right, but can we have safe failure modes so we can actually learn and take the learning and integrate into what we do next? >> i apologize. i have to end the panel at this time. i've gotten the high-five. so i do want to thank you, the ndously, four -- for panel and the panel members. [applause] one thing -- one thing i have experienced over the last 18 months here with osac is the quieter the audience the more focused and more receptive they are to your discussions. and we could hear a pen drop today. so thank you very much again.

>> it will be just a couple minutes. thank you. i'm bringing my puppet show i was fearful i was going to have

to use when the key note speakers were canceling. i want to thank everyone this morning. the presentations have been wonderful. the weren'ters, the questions. the -- this afternoon we'll go into our breakdown with different presentations being presented by the risk staff. the schedules will be posted -- are your pamphlets but they'll be posted on the monitors. the volunteers are happy to help you. we'll begin promptly at 1:20. you'll have roughly an hour and 25 minutes for lunch. if you do leave the building, i ask you to please, please factor in the return time as far as checking back into the building. it does take a while to get back in. and the walk to a nearby restaurant or dying facility can be sometimes longer than xpected. after lunch, the presentations,

we go back under chatham house rules. there will be no press coverage. ask you maintain an acknowledgment, you can use the information but it's not attributable. but feel free to ask questions and utilize the information. tomorrow morning we'll begin at 8:30. the -- [laughter] stephen: as i dance here and not too expertly, we will start promptly at 8:30. our first presentation will be a panel discussion on the paris attacks. we'll provide an overview and a number of our colleagues have stepped forward to present on

what -- how they were impacted, they're responses and what we're hoping to do is develop a dialogue with q&a as well as input from other members here in the audience who have been -- who were affected by the attacks last friday. we believe this is a very healthy exchange of information , for best practices and move forward. unfortunately, our key note speaker, anderson cooper from cnn, is in paris. he was unable to make it back in time to present. also, after that presentation, there will be a hostage -- there will be a journalist safety panel with four journalists now. kimberly joser got permission to attend. these journalists have been hostage at some point in time during their career. terry anderson, who was a hostage in lebanon. kim berly dosee, who was a

victim of an explosion. and two journalists who agreed to present on their experiences as a hostage. the presentations are consistent with an issue here at the state department of tremendous concern to the secretary on journalist security and freedom of the press and respect for the jurmist. the department's launching a new initiative in the coming weeks here promoting that journalist security and stuff. so we figured it would be a very good opportunity for -- especially for many members out here who have an interest in the hostage issue and the kidnapping issue to listen firsthand to some of the victims of these kidnapping events. so that should be a very well-attended and very interesting panel.

i knew i should have packed my resume into the laptop and i could be presenting it right now. so -- but the other thing -- couple osac footnotes here while we're waiting, if anyone will be in india, the conference in mumbai. this is where we bring the r.s.o. in from the consulate and from the embassy. they're available to the osac constituents in india. if you were there, you're more than welcome to attend to discuss issues of security concerns in india. the week after that we're doing something similar in mexico. all the r.s.o.'s in mexico will meet in mexico city. i believe it's on december 16. to share their experiences and their respective consulate areas on the security issues there. if you're in mexico, mexico city, you're more than welcome

to attend and we look forward to an excellent exchange. similarly in may we'll be doing one in china in shanghai this year where all the r.s.o.'s will come in for a meeting. we'll dedicate a day for the osac constituents to hear presentations and to ask questions. so it's an effort by us to make sure everyone has full access to the r.s.o.'s in these large posts where we have multiple locations of hosting r.s.o.'s. all right. i'm told a couple more minutes. one minute? ok. very good. no, i'm fine. >> thank you. we'll be right in. [laughter]

stephen: mr. bill miller, will do the introduction for secretary kerry. >> here on c-span, we will not be able to bring you secretary kerry's remarks live as we'll be breaking away here in just a couple of moments to take you back to the u.s. house. we will record secretary of state john kerry's remarks, and you can watch them live on our website, c-span.org. we'll record them here on c-span and play that back for you later today on the c-span networks. coming up in just a few minutes, couple minutes from now, in fact, live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span and work today on a bill easing

mortgage standards. currently in the dodd-frank regulatory law. and another dealing with auto lending practices and the role of the consumer financial protection bureau. tomorrow, members will consider a bill on syrian refugee -- has and that bill is been introduced by representative richard hudson of north carolina. it would require refugees from syria and iraq to go through f.b.i. background checks for the -- from the homeland security department to guarantee they are not security threats. again, that on thursday in the house. this from "politico" today that house democrats plan to oppose that g.o.p. bill that would force the obama administration to adopt stricter requirements for refugees entering the u.s. from syria. republican leaders had hoped to get bipartisan support. members of democratic leadership, though, met today

to discuss their strategies. sources said the opposition is unlikely to be unanimous, but that a majority of house democrats will likely oppose the legislation over concerns that it would damage the refugee program in the long run. again, live coverage of the house. today the house working on a bill easing mortgage standards currently in the dodd-frank regulatory bill. another bill that deals with auto lending practices and the role of the consumer financial protection bureau. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] chaplain, thed christopher widener from gill rts ha, pennsylvania. >> you are our help in agesast and hope for yes to come. we remember your servant leade who have come before us seeking light ot of darkness, fashiing order out of chaos

and mindless of the voiceless, ding decision and deploying power for the life of our nation and the care of the earth. move us by their witness, and guide us by your wisdom in every opportunity that comes before us now. and whenur way is uncertain, untraveled or unclear, when failure or fatigue drive us apart, restore ourooting, reconnect us by the g of your grace, member uas one body, members of this one house, faithful in ou one service. give us courage, inspire our beginnis, nudge us to dare the possible in your gift of today ith ourifts for tomorroin your holy name,e pray. the speaker: the air h

examined the journal the day proceedings. pursuant to clse 1 of re 1 th journal stands appved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from nebraska, mr.shford. mr. ashford: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for wch it ands, one nation under god, indivisle with iberty and justice for all. he speaker: without objectio the gentleman from pennsylvaa, mr. costello, is recognzed for e minute. m speaker, i rise to welcome an introduce our guest chaplain for today pastor christopher l. weidner, the pastor of st. luke luthera church in pennsylvia in 1985, pastor chris was dained as minter of te southeastern pennsylvania senate of thevangel lutheran church in america.

fo30 years he's played an active and important role in our local community, engaging in programs such ashe companionship ministries of the evangelal lutheran church in nzania, the sene council finance committee, ther creek lheran camp boarof directo ande has held provide affordable hsing for seniors thrgh the st. luke knowles program. additionally,e volunteers his time as a hospital chaplain. this coming sunday, after 20 yea, pastor chris wll serve his fil woshipervice at t. luke's. godas culled called him on to anotherarishnd we wish him well. we wish him essings on the next chapter of his ministry. it is gre pleasure that i welcome stor cis to the ople's house today and offer our mosteart-felt thanks for leading us in prayer this morning as our guest chaplain. i yield back the remainder of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the air will entertainp to 15 further quests for one-minute speecs on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlman from wisconsin seek recognition? without objection, the ntlem is recogized for one minute. the speaker: the world stands with the people of france this week. the event in pariswere horrifyingall of us re shaken by yet, we know that whenever terror like this strikes, the world community will rally together. terror will not prevail. but these events should serve as a reminder. there is still evil out there. we cannot ignore it. e cannot contain it. west must defeat it and we must -- we must defeat it and we must protect our people. the country is uneasy and unsettled, and they have every

right to be. not because of what they're hearing from politicians but what they've seen with their own eyes. all of us here, republicans and democrats, are hearing these concerns in our offices. people understand the plight of those fleeing the middle east, but they also want basic assurances for the safety of this country. we are a compassionate nation. we lways have been, and always will be but we also must remember that the first priority is to protect the american people. we can be compassionate and we can also be safe. that's what the bill that we're bringing up tomorrow is all about. it calls for a new standard of verification for refugees from syria and iraq. it would mean a pause in the program until we can be certain beyond any doubt that those coming here are not a threat. it's that simple.

and i don't think it's asking too much. i also want to point out that we will not have a religious test, only a security test. if the intelligence and law enforcement community cannot certify that a person presents no threat, then they should not be allowed in. this is common sense and it's our obligation. let me also say to members and to the country that we cannot lose sight of the bigger threat in syria. the refugee crisis is just a consequence of a failed policy in that region. the ultimate solution is a plan to defeat isis. that's why we are sending to the president a bill this week that requires him to finally propose an overarching strategy to deal with syria and the terrorist threat in that region. this threat is not going away until we acknowledge and confront the real danger that

exists. there is a long road ahead, but today, for this moment i urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation tomorrow and to help keep america safe. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise -- mr. ashford: i rise to honor a share a birthday, november 10, with such a distinguished member of our community, dr. haney. he is a world renowned researcher in vitamin d deficiency. he is one of the most published researchers in the united states. dr. haney has published over 400 original papers, chapters and reviews on science and education. his accomplishments speak to his perseverance and commitment

to innovation in his field. from 1971 to 1984, the doctor served as professor emeritus and vice president of health sciences for my law school alma mater creighton university in omaha. in addition to his achievements in his own field, he's no stranger to nutrition policy. dr. haney helped redefine nutritional requirements by providing the link between malknew trigs and long-term health problems. most recently he served as research director of grassroots health, a nonprofit organization trying to solve vitamin d deficiency. i wish the doctor a happy 87th birthday and here's to many more. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: perk -- i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: i'm grateful that dr. john king testified before a joint hearing of the foreign affairs and homeland security committees. general king provided an overview.

quote, isis is part of a multigenerational struggle against radical islam that will likely dominate the first half of the 21st century, similar to the fight against communism which dominated the second half of the 20th century. 14 years after 9/11, the u.s. has no comprehensive strategy or a global alliance to defeat radical islam, end of quote. he explained further, quote, that isis has accomplished in the last few weeks is unprecedented. while conducting a conventional war in iraq and syria, isis has staged terrorist attacks on a global scale against the people from countries who are fighting isis. the result is almost 900 casualties in 12 days, both killed and wounded, who are russian, lebanese and mostry french in paris, end of quote. the president should change course and accept the positive counsel of general king to defeat isis. actions should be taken to prevent further attacks. within the last 48 hours, isis has threatened to attack washington and rome.

in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. hahn: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. i rise : mr. speaker, today to remember nohemi gonzalez, the 23-year-old cal state long beach student whose life was cut short friday night in the terrorist attacks in paris. nohemi was a shining star of cal state-long beach design department. she was in paris for the semester studying at the strat school of design and traveling europe. it was her first time abroad. nohemi was described as a cheerful soul and a self-driven young woman who had everything at her feet. my heart goes out to her

mother, beatrice, her long time boyfriend, tim and her friends and family. i can't imagine the pain they are feeling. this tragedy has brought home the devastation of terrorism which often seems isolated and worlds away. her murder has stunned all americans, but is particularly ainful for us southern california delegation here in congress and the long beach community and the almonte community that lost one of their own. as we grieve for our own loss, we stand in solid arlte for paris and for the -- solidarity for paris and for the people who were killed in the attacks. as they bring those people to justice, our hearts are with he people of france, our loyal friend and our ally. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one

minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in recognition of the contributions of center county, pennsylvania, sheriff denny who will retire at the end of this year. he served for two decades after being elected in 1991. before being elected sheriff, he served as a pennsylvania state police trooper. he's a marine, joining after graduating high school. over his 24 years as center county sheriff, denny has influenced countless law enforcement officers. in fact, more than 40 of his former deputies are police officers in areas ranging from altoona to pittsburgh who who are serving state troopers. now seen great growth as long as new technologies from type riters to use of state-of-the-art software to track cases to a video conference system to conduct hearings. mr. speaker, sheriff denny now has provided a wonderful example of public service, as a

marine, pennsylvania state trooper and high sheriff for center county and i wish my friend the best of luck in his retirement. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, i rise to recognize the work of the alzheimer's association of western new york. 5.3 million americans and their families are living with alzheimer's. that number is expected to triple by 2050. 2/3 of americans with alzheimer's are women and 200,000 are under the age of 65. in western new york, 55,000 people have alzheimer's or related dementia. last year the alzheimer's association of western new york provided 10,000 service contracts for those patients and is an invaluable resource to western new york families. alzheimer's is a disease whose cause is unknown but whose end is absolutely certain. this house must work together to increase funding for the alzheimer's research and we must support the caregivers and volunteers who make a

difference for millions of americans and their families. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the most important obligation we have is to keep americans safe. as paris has reminded us, there truly is evil in the world. mr. bost: and when we -- we know that our seas and our borders alone will not protect us. we must act swiftly and smartly in the face of this evil. while my heart hurts for innocent people suffering in syria, our priority must be in keeping americans safe. that's why i oppose the president's effort to bring refugees to our shores without a real plan to vet them. that's not leadership. that's sticking your head in the sand. and it matters -- in matters of

life and death, we must do better. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? without, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the house is scared today. mr. himes: you hear is in the voices of my colleagues and you hear it because the american people are scared as they come to learn the capabilities of these evil psychopaths at isis. but mr. speaker, when this house, when we scared, we do dumb things. we force the cafeteria renaming french fries freedom fries. we invade iraq because we're angry what comes out of the middle east. mr. speaker, on may 13, 1939, the trans-atlantic liner, the st. louis, sailed from germany with almost 1,000 souls aboard, all jews seeking to flee the murderous wrath of adolf hitler. . it would come to the united states but denied entry.

the refugees were reported to be communists and we were scared of them. jewish refugees fleeing hitler. the ship was turned back. nearly a quarter of the thousand souls lost their lives in hitler's holocaust. it was not a good moment for the united states. it was a moral stain. let's keep our people safe. we can do that while not trading our moral values. mr. speaker, we are exceptional, because we're good and because we're moral. let's not lose the moral part of that equation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? unanimous consent to permission to address the house for one minute. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i congratulate the athens area emergency food bank and the service they provide to our community. they care for the lives of

thousands of families in georgia's 10th district. for the past 35 years, the emergency food bank has put food on the table of more than 175,000 citizens who are facing economic hardship. this organization has delivered three-yaurs of a million pounds of food and did so on a budget of 80,000. i ask my colleagues to join me in applauding the service and commitment of the athens area emergency food bank. their steadfast commitment to the community is indeed inspiring. we are blessed to have a dedicated organization as the athens area emergency food bank serving our folks at home and i wish them the best in the years to come. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> seek unanimous consent to

permission to address the house for one minute. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> we know now that one of the terrorists who participated in the attack entered europe by posing as a refugee. mr. lamalfa: the director of the f.b.i. has testified there is no way to vet all the syrian refugees and can't allow them to exploit to sneak terrorists in our country. this is a real threat. isis has promised more attacks. we need to at the very least pause and assess allowing syrian refugees until we have a better screening procedure in place and focus on those that are persecuted or even threatened with genocide simply because of their being a religious minority. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition?

mr. carter: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carter: i recognize the living vine christian maternity home in savannah georgia. it has been a safe haven for over 350 women who are experiencing an unexpected pregnancy. once at living vine they provided with food, shelter, education, medical care and a chance to learn about child care, financial management and how to find a job. day in and day out, living vine teaches true success no matter what has happened in the past. they teach women that they are valuable as a human being. they are valuable as a woman. and they are something to be treasured. the living vine christian maternity home fulfills their purpose through private donations and new thrift store. i'm honored to have this

organization located in the 1st congressional district of georgia and i salute them for 20 years of success and wish them continued success for years to come. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped my remarks the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i pay tribute today to the extraordinary life of one of america's finest women who recently passed on to be with our creator, ms. dorothy helms was a long time best friend and wife of the late senator jesse helms. i grew to know both of them. senator helms asked me and said you know where i get my good ideas. he said, dot, you know. for those of us who knew the two

well, dot was the conservative of the family and a strident and forceful communicator of her opinion on all matters. dot helms was a trailblazer in her own right and one of the first women to graduate from the university of north carolina with a dein journalism and worked as a society page editor. jesse helms was working as a sports reporter and the rest of course is history and the two of them changed history. as much as dot helms will be missed something tells us that the tall fellow from north carolina is delighted to her back by his side. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. >> isis is not contained and not enough to try and contain terrorists. they have proven capable of a

global reach. mere hope isn't going to win this nor is short-term planning. american leadership and international coalition are required. u.s. should indefinitely suspend settling syrian refugees here. the records do not exist in syria to properly vet individuals with needed confidence. all involved will be better served with an established safe haven in the middle east and addressing the root cause that provides a motive for people to leave their own homeland. our first responsibility is to protect our nation. no one wants to fight this war here. the world must defeat this ideology and evil doers at their doorstep, not ours. we need a short and long-term strategy. smart use of force and greater commitment to victory. eliminating the threat is a challenge of this generation of americans. mr. speaker, our children are counting on us.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in memory of kenneth masery, a dear friend who passed away on october 25. ken was a loving husband, father, brother and grandfather. he lived in california where he as a successful entrepreneur and avid sports fan and contributor to charity. ken was born in warwick, rhode island and at the age of six, his family moved to california. ken received a scholarship to ucla where he was a catcher. he later graduated from cal state long beach. his career began at a california video security products firm and

in 1989 he launched his own company in irvine, california where he served as c.e.o. he is survived by his wife and daughters and his grandson, his son-in-law and four siblings. i'm honored to have had the privilege of calling ken a friend. i have very fond memories of our political discussions and they were dynamic. he will be deeply missed by all those who knew him and his memory will live on. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition many without objection. . davis: this -- mrs. davis: the world watched the deadliest attacks in paris which killed 129 people from 26 countries including one american, a young student from

california. to all those affected by these terrible acts, i offer my deepest sympathies. around the world, tragedies of this scale have been distressingly familiar but to see one happen in a country at peace and the united states has shared a special relationship, hits particularly hard. those who carried out these horrific attacks want us to react with hate. in fact, they depend on it. they know they cannot survive in a world that stands united against them. we must, of course, respond to this threat with strength. but we cannot forget our compassion towards those in france and those in the middle east fleing the very same dangers. a certain dr. martin luther king junior said, darkness cannot drive out darkness. only light can do that. hate cannot drive out hate. only love can do that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise in support of life saving research at the national institutes of health. as we debate the priorities of the omnibus appropriations act, one must be supporting research for cureing disease. they affect millions of families in our country and each and every one of our districts. 600,000 will die of cancer. the best defense of saving those lives is enhancing and supporting funding at the national institutes of health. earlier this year we passed the 21st century cures act which increased funding by over $3 billion. passing the 344 votes, it had the support of both parties including 170 republican votes.

now is to increase n.i.h. by $3 billion. now is also the time to send a message of hope to each and every patient waiting for a cure that congress hears you and congress is going to do everything we can to find cures and treatment that can ease suffering and save lives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the thousands for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today on behalf of small businesses in the united states and especially those in the 1st district of iowa i represent. as a career small businessman myself i understand the difficulties entrepreneurs face. small businesses the backbone of our economy and a place where the american dream happens. two million of the three million private sector jobs generated in

2014 were created by small businesses. as i visit small businesses throughout the 1st district i'm amazed innovation, determination and optimism often in the face of government policies that make doing business most difficult. mr. speaker, local business deserves our support. i encourage my colleagues in congress as well as my constituents to shop local on small business saturday, november 28. i also urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring the small business saturday resolution to highlight the contribution small businesses make to our economy. i yield back the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in 2-h

of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on november 18, 2015 at 9:17 a.m. that the senate agreed to senate joint resolution 24, that the senate agreed to senate joint resolution 23, with best wishes, i am signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on november 18, 2015 at 11:03 a.m., that the senate passed with amendments h.r. 2297. with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the

speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant 2-hhe permission granted in of rule 2 of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received a message from the secretary of the senate on and-a-half 18, 2015 at 11:58 a.m. that the senate disagrees to the amendment of the house senate 1177 and agrees to conference requested by the house. senate appoints conferees. with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? s sdiverssdivers by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 529 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 574, house resolution 529. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 1210, to amend

the truth in lending act to provide a safe harbor from certain requirements related to qualified mortgages for residential mortgage loans held on an originating depository institution's portfolio, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-34 shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. two, the further amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by representative norcross of new jersey or his

designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. and three, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 3189, to amend the federal reserve act to establish requirements for policy rules and blackout periods of the federal open market committee, to establish requirements for certain activities of the board of governors of the federal reserve system, and to amend title 31, united states code, to reform the manner in which the board of governors of the federal reserve system is audited, and for other purposes.

the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on financial services now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-35, modified by the amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as

amended, are waived. no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part c of the report of the committee on rules. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such further amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

section 3, on any legislative day during the period from november 20, 2015, through november 27, 2015, a, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved. and, b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution, to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 4, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 3 of this resolution as though under lause 8-a of rule 1. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one hour. mr. stivers: mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume.

mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on tuesday, the rules committee met and reported for a rule h.r. 1210, the portfolio lending and mortgage access act, and h.r. 3189, the federal reserve oversight modernization act. house resolution 529 provides a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 1210 and h.r. 3189. the resolution provides one hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services for h.r. 1210 and h.r. 3189. the resolution provides for the consideration of one amendment to h.r. 1210 and consideration of six amendments to h.r. 3189. the resolution provides a motion to recommit for each

bill. in addition, it provides normal recess authority for the chair to manage pro forma sessions next week during the district work period. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the resolution and the underlying legislation. mr. speaker, as you know, the 2008 financial crisis was caused in part by subprime lending meltdown. financial institutions would originate loans, they would sell off 100% of those loans with no skin in the game to some investment party, third party, and they would keep their fee but they wouldn't keep any of the risk. this led to a lot of loans to individuals and families with an inability to repay those loans and that resulted in our crisis. the bottom line was these institutions had no skin in the game. this situation became so egregious at one point there was a term in the industry

called ninja loans. ninja stood for no income, no job, no assets. borrowers across the country ere being given loans by loorn originators that -- loan originators that didn't care. when borrowers began to default on those loans, banks and others holding these loans began to lose tremendous amounts of assets which precipitated the financial collapse. in response, congress passed the dodd-frank act, which reforms mortgage lending and makes a lot of changes. one of those is around the ability to repay. the dodd-frank statute created a category of loans called qualified mortgages that are deemed to comply with the law's ability to pay requirements and it provided a safe harbor from lawsuits and it made sure that those -- that safe harbor

covered regulatory action, provided that those loans meet certain characteristics in underwriting criteria. while it's important to ensure homebuyers to repeating our past mistakes, the current regulatory environment has unnecessarily restrained mortgage lending and made it difficult for some credit-worthy borrowers to obtain a loan. the bottom line of this crisis was it was created by no skin in the game. this portfolio lending act would provide much-needed regulatory relief and allow consumers to buy a home and ensure not only there's some skin in the game, there's 100% skin in the game. these portfolio loans, the institutions that make them, the banks that make them, have 100% skin in the game. they lose dollar one when the loans go bad. this bill provides that when residential mortgages are held

by that originator, the bank, if they hold them in their portfolio as opposed to being sold in the secondary market, they will be considered a qualified mortgage for the purposes of the ability to repay. it will make sure that more financial institutions have an incentive to make loans to individuals and the requirement for making those loans would be to take the entire risk, not pass that risk onto some unnamed third party investor but keep that risk in their portfolio. that's why it's called the portfolio lending act. they will have 100% of the skin in the game. this legislation will also help borrowers gain access to some of the -- borrowers to gain access to mortgages they badly need. h.r. 3189, the federal reserve oversight -- reform and modernization act pulls back the curtain on the federal

reserve and makes it more accountable and transparent to the american people. the federal reserve has more power and responsibility today than ever before, and that's precisely why this law is so important. the institution needs to be modernized, and the decisions they make need to be transparent and predictable to the marketplace. the form act, as it's called, requires the federal reserve to transparently communicate its monetary policy decisions to the american people. it does not require them to choose any one method. some people talk a lot about the so-called tailor rule. this bill does not require the federal reserve to use the tailor rule or any other process. it just requires that when they make decisions they need to make that decision and the reasons behind it transparent to the american people and explain how they make their decisions, whether they use a rule or whether they use some other process, it needs to be

transparent. this bill also requires the deral reserve to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, every other federal agency has to comply with, so we know that the costs of complying with the regulations are less or exceeding the benefits of those regulations. it's simple, common sense, and, you know, other agencies use this cost-benefit analysis today. the form act protects the federal reserve's independence as it requires the federal reserve to generate a monetary strategy of their own choosing but requires them to give more accounting of their actions and transparency to their actions. the bill ensures that american people understand how the federal reserve makes the decisions they make and why they make the decisions they make. mr. speaker, i know that i, along with many of our colleagues in the house, have believed for a long time that we should audit the federal

reserve. i'm pleased to inform my colleagues that this legislation requires an audit of the fed and it contains provisions that remove restrictions placed on the g.a.o. to conduct an audit of the federal reserve. it directs the g.a.o., in fact, to conduct an audit of the federal reserve within 12 months of enactment and requires the g.a.o. to report to congress within 90 days of completion of that audit. s the federal reserve plays an role in the health of our nation's economy, it's imperative to make sure their opaque structure is made transparent so the american people can understand the decisions the federal reserve makes and why they make them because it has such an incredible pam october on our economy. i look forward to debating -- incredible impact on our economy. i look forward to debating this and ask for adoption of the -- both underlying bills and

support of the underlying bills. i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. yumeds. -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman, my friend from ohio, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. i rise today, mr. speaker, in opposition to this rule which provides for consideration of both h.r. 1210, the portfolio lending and mortgage access act, and h.r. 3189, the fed oversight reform and modernization act of 2015. as a first matter of business, i'd like to recognize that yesterday's rule, h.r. -- 45th 526, marked the closed rule of this

congressional session, making it the most closed session in history. i join my colleagues in the minority in their distaste for this closed and exclusive process and echo their calls to speaker ryan to maintain his pledge to usher in a more transparent and open debate process that includes input from members of both parties. . very occasionally i talk about when i first came to congress in 1993 the radio at that time was hammering those who were perpetrating closed rules and my party was in the majority and was being rightly, in my opinion, accused in that regard. i didn't know what a closed rule

was. i didn't come here and start on this committee, but now that i have had a considerable amount of experience on this committee, i have come to believe that it is wrong for either party in the majority to conduct a process that disallows members in this body to have an opportunity to participate in refining the underlying bills that come here for our consideration. mr. speaker, h.r. 1210 seeks to amend the truth and lending act to provide that deposit tower institution creditors be subject to a legal safe harbor for mortgage loans meeting specified limitations that since origination have been held on the institution's balance sheet. the bill would extend this legal safe harbor to mortgage

originators that steer borrowers to a nonqualified mortgage loan if the originator and borrower are notified that the lender intends to hold the loan in its portfolio. we have seen firsthand the consequences that enshoe when underwriting standards virtually abandoned by both large and small lenders. this phenomenon, which contributed to the financial crisis and a bank bailout to the tune of $700 billion in taxpayer money enabled predatory lenders to offer loans, the terms of which individuals could not afford or worse, incentivized their brokers to steer families into more expensive loans even when they qualified for lower rates and a standard mortgage product.

african-american and latino borrowers and single persons were disproportionately affected by these bad loans. this legislation would eliminate effective reforms that require lenders to verify a consumer's ability to repay and allow lenders to once again steer families into the same risky mortgage products with the same predatory practices that destroyed the savings and investments of american families a few short years ago. today's rule also allows for consideration of h.r. 3189, the fed oversight reform and modernization act. this bill will fundamentally change the way the federal reserve implements monetary policy. in doing so, this bill will

change the current, proven, nonpartisan approach to monetary fed currently embraces and will replace it with a rule-based and politically partisan regime. h.r. 3189 will tie the hands of the federal reserve whose objective is to maximize employment, stabilize prices and moderate long-term interest rates. this legislation will require the fed to engage in a a rigid g to provide math formula for setting the interest rate. this notion is not only bad policy that will prevent the fed from acting swiftly to address the potential financial crisis, but fed chair has stated that

it, and i quote, would be a grave mistake tore the federal reserve to commit to conduct monetary policy according to a math mat call rule, unquote. additionally, this bill will create a partisan commission with twice as many as republican members as democrats to review the federal reserve monetary policy and make changes to its current vital role in determining that policy. the objectives of the fed and the policy behind our money supply are much too important to be subjected to political pressure from a partisan commission. this legislation will do serious harm to the federal reserve, leading us down a path of politicizing our monetary policy

and hamstringing the agency with onerous and unnecessary rulemaking. at this time, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. stivers: i would like to address a couple of the the gentleman from's points about the process. under our new speaker, we have had five rules and four have been structured. all the germane amendments were made in order. h.r. 1210, there's one amendment and it's a democratic amendment. to h.r. 3189, there are six amendments and four democratic amendments. that's 75% of the amendments are democratic process and we also allow for a motion to recommit to each of the bills. i yield to my friend from florida. mr. hastings: my question to you even though the germane amendments were made in under,

under the structured rule, am i correct that other members of the house of representatives who did not at the time file an amendment before the rules committee that you and i serve, that they are precluded and that's basically what i'm arguing. mr. stivers: mr. speaker, to the gentleman's point, it is true with the structured rule mebody can't walk in off the street, a member of congress, that didn't come to the rules committee and come up with an amendment right now that they wrote on a napkin and bring it in here. we published the street, a deadline and accepted ones that met the deadline but late amendments and of the amendments we made in order, five of the seven amendments made in order were actually filed late. so we did allow late amendments. we'll double-check the facts on five. but several of the rules that were even filed late, we

allowed. somebody just can't walk in here. it's a structured rule and you can't walk in on the day of the floor hearing and offer an amendment that no bun has ever seen before. mr. hastings: if the gentleman would continue to yield. mr. stivers: i'll yield. mr. hastings: my ultimate point was that in this year we have had 45 closed rules. and clearly, members are precluded and that 45, i might add, has been achieved in this year and that's more than in the previous session of congress. and that's the point i wish to make and i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. mr. stivers: i appreciate allowing the gentleman to make his point. under the new speaker, we have had only had one closed rule. will we occasionally have a closed rule? yes. when the other party was in charge, they had closed rules

all the time. closed rules will happen occasionally, but we will have an open process and i think having four outf five as structured rules is a pretty good measurement for the brand new speaker and our new day that we are experiencing. so i appreciate the gentleman's point, but the point is we are making the process more open. it may not be to the gentleman's liking, mr. speaker, but we are attempting to make the process more open and we'll continue to work on that. i do want to make a couple of points and then i will reserve the balance of my time. with regard to the charge that these are somehow in h.r. 1210, this will result in risky mortgage loans, the point -- and that's why i went through the history where people took a fee and secure the loan, they privatize gains and socialized losses for the taxpayers to cover. the only way this leapeding bill

works is if these lenders hold these loans in their own portfolio and take 100% of the risk and not placing it on anybody else. and that was one of the reforms put in place. i can't think of anything more than 100% more skin in the game and that will ensure that no one privatizes and socializes the losses and we think it's a reasonable step to allowed people to get access to mortgages. with regard to the charge that this is going to somehow tie the federal reserves -- reserve' hand, this bill is about transparency and accountability. it's making sure the federal reserve communicates whatever they use, if they want to use a magic eight-ball, under this policy, they can do that, they just have to tell everybody we

are using the magic eight-ball. nothing is wrong with transparency. transparency is great for the american economy and great for the american people. the gentleman was making the argument about how we need to be more open and transparent, and i think we need to demand it of the federal reserve. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: i'm trying to help us get to a time constraint and unfortunately on either side we don't have a lot of speakers, and therefore, i would not ordinarily have done anything other than ask for the unanimous to help us to try meet our deadline, i would like o include under h.r. 1210, ask unanimous consent to allow the administration policy to be placed into the record.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: thank you. what is said in this particular statement of administration is as a result of the ability to repay rules issued by consumer financial protection bureau, pursuant to the truth in leapeding act, american consumers are protected against harmful mortgage products and abusive lending practices that were common in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. among protections, the consumer financial protection burro's qualified mortgage rule requires a lender to make a good faith effort that the borrower has the ability to repay the mortgage and the loan does not include excessive up-front points and fees. the final rule contains special provisions and exemptions that are available only available to small lenders or small lenders

that operate predominantly in rural and underserved areas. skipping one paragraph, getting to the heart of what the administration said, the administration strongly opposes this bill because it would undermine critical consumer protections by exempting all depository financial institutions large and small from qualified mortgage standards including very basic standards like verifying a consumer's income as long as the mortgage loans in question are held in portfolio by the institution. this bill would undermine the essential protections provided under the qualified mortgage rule. the congressional budget office estimates that the mortgages offered legal protections under the bill would likely default at a greater rate than the qualified mortgages with current legal protection. for this reason, if the president were presented with h.r. 1210, his senior advisers

say that they would recommend that he veto the bill. not to belabor the point that my good friend from ohio and i were speaking about with reference to rules, i join him in saying that the new speaker at least has had only one closed rule. but i remind him of the 45 closed rules that we had previously the new speaker voted for every one of those closed rules. so if this is what is to come, we will have to judge that in the future. as to h.r. 3189 and i'll cut to the heart of the matter, that h.r. 3189 would impose numerous burdensome requirements for the federal reserve board rulemaking authorities including the requirement that the federal

eserve board undertake a benefit analysis when promulgating rules. when a federal agency including an independent agency such as the federal reserve proposal you will gates a regulation, the agency must adhere to the robust act the regulatory flexibility act, the paperwork reduction act and the congressional review, among other statutes. additionally, executive order 13579 encourages independent regulatory agencies to conduct reasoned cost benefit analysis, engage in public participation to the extent feasible and conduct a retrospective review of regulation. the provisions in this bill, referring to 3189, therefore, would create unnecessary, duplicative and onerous

requirements for an entity tasked with ensuring the financial safety and soundness of the nation's financial system. in addition, the bill would add a number of procedural hurdles that would impede the federal reserve's ability to engage with international regulatory bodies and divert its resources to unnecessary reporting requirements. . in addition the bill would add a number of procedural hurdles that are too numerous for me to mention at this time. these provisions, along with provisions proposal parallel requirements on several other executive branch entities could impair the president dess exercise of his exclusive constitutional authority to conduct the nation's diplomatic relations. again, if the president were presented with h.r. 3189, his

senior advisors say that they would recommend that he veto the bill. with that, i'm prepared to inform my colleague that i'm prepared to close, mr. speaker, and i will reserve my time at this time until such time as he indicates that we are both prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the gentleman from florida and thank him for getting us to where we needed to be. i'd like to inform the gentleman from florida that i am also prepared to close and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. now the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. as i said time and again, far too much important work still remains. in fact, congress has only nine legislative days before the december 11 deadline to avert yet another republican

government shutdown and pass an omnibus spending bill. the clock is ticking and quite frankly this nation cannot afford to shut down once again due to my friends, the house republicans, continued manufactured crises. the american people need and deserve better. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from florida for this civil debate on the rule. i want to just remind my colleagues that these two bills are about reform and transparency. h.r. 1210 is a reform that will give more people access to mortgages and at the same time require that these lenders have 100% skin in the game. h.r. 3189 is about transparency

for the federal reserve and accountability to make sure they tell the american people how they make the decisions that they make. so these are reasonable business, important bills. i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back the balance of the time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 243. the nays are 184. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that i speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of making an announcement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i will be sending around a dear colleague later this afternoon outlining the amendment process for h.r. 8, the north american energy security and infrastructure act of 2015.

the amendment deadline will be tuesday -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. please remove your conversations from the floor. the gentleman will resume. mr. sessions: the amendment deadline will be tuesday, november 24, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. amendments should be drafted as the text posted on the rules committee website. please feel free to contact me or my staff if we may be of further assistance. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and submit remarks materials on the bill h.r. 1737, to nullify certain guidance of the bureau of consumer financial protection, and require requirements for guidance issued

by the bureau with respect to indirect auto lending. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 526 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1737. the chair appoints the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1737, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to nullify certain guidance of the bureau of consumer financial protection, and provide requirements for guidance issued by the bureau with respect to indirect auto lending. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from texas, mr.

hensarling, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 1737, the reforming cfpb indirect auto financing guidance act. it's an important bipartisan bill co-sponsored by 166 members of the house, including 65 democratic members. it was approved with strong bipartisan support including more than half of the committee's democratic members who voted. if congress means what it says hen we write a law, then the cfpb cannot ignore the law. without this bill, the cfpb would have done an end around frank. o.d.

i thank representative guinta and representative perlmutter in providing the cfpb with the opportunity to live up to its claim of transparency and accountability and thank mr. williams as well for his outstanding work. the flawed bulletin attempts to regulate compensation paid to auto dealers despite the fact that auto dealers were specifically exempted in the dodd-frank act from cfpb rulemaking. the bureau went far beyond merely clarifying existing law and is trying to make new policy through this guidance and doing this without using the normal rulemaking process and without public input. this is an afront to due process and afront to the rule of law and basic fairness. the cfpb has not transparent in

revealing the methodology it used to determine whether fair lending violations existing in the auto finance market. it took a year of constant pressure and 13 different letters to get the cfpb to provide documentation regarding its impact. in the white paper ultimately provided by the cfpb, they admitted that their own proxy methodology is flawed. it estimates that the african-americans were impacted by 20%. the figure could be off as much as 41. according to a series of three articles published this past september in the american banker, internal agency documents show the cfpb was aware of their impact methodology significantly overstates racial impact.

and have no y used evidence based on the impact theory. in the same internal memos, the american banker newspaper, they also found that unaccountable cfpb bureaucrats chose to disregard the explicit exemption of auto dealers that democrats when they had a supermajority in the senate and the house and controlled the white house, put into dodd-frank. they chose to disregard the formal rulemaking reare uirmentse set out by the act and pressured auto dealers to lower the caps they set on dealer reserve. not only does this call into question the cfpb's attempts to police the fairness of auto loans, its preferred outcomes

will increase costs for consumers. as was noted earlier, the cfpb has preeshed finance companies or eliminate this discretion all together. however, under this pricing model, the "wall street journal" recently revealed that interest payments for some consumers could increase by as much as $586 over the life of the loan. this shows the dire need for the cfpb to follow a transparent process when issuing any subsequent auto finance guidance. that is what h.r. 1737 will ensure. the bill is a simple bill requires the bureau provide notice and opportunity for public comment. number two, it says it must make any studies, data or analysis in writing the bulletin public. number three, it must consult with relevant regulators and number four must study the

impact on women-oipped businesses and minimum--owned businesses. let me quote from the views of the democrat members stated in our report, quote, h.r. 1737 does not alter the cfpb's examination on enforcement activity pursuant to ecoa. that is a red herring. i urge all my colleagues to support h.r. 1737 and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california, ms. waters, is recognized. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i yield to myself five minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. chairman and members, i rise today in opposition to h.r.

1737, which would impede the consumer financial protection bureau's important work of regulating discriminatory auto lending practices. in spite of the fact, chairman hensarling talked about a study. what he didn't tell you was, that was a study done by the automobile industry who is supporting this bill. h.r. 1737 would cancel important policy guidance. the cfpb provided to lenders to help them comply with federal fair lending laws. the ball imposes burdensome restrictions on the issuance of any future auto lending guidance by requiring that the cfpb undergo a public period and conduct studies, requirements that have historically only been applied to agency rulemaking. these restrictions are clearly

designed to substantially delay or effectively prevent the bureau from issuing future anti-discrimation guidance to auto lenders, action that would undermine lender's ability to comply with the law at the expense of minority borrowers. the long shadow of discrimation is still alive. the cfpb has secured nearly $140 million in relief to minority borrowers since december, 2013 inland mark settlements against allied financial, fifth third bank, american honda, finance corporation, finding in each case that undisclosed markups caused minority borrowers to overpay for their auto loans by an average of $200 over the life of the loan compared to similarly situated white

borrowers. of autonson, the c.e.o. nation commended the cfpb's approach in its settlement with honda noting that other lenders to take a close look at the honda settlement as a solution, much like mr. jackson, i believe the cfpb is doing a commendal -old f tackling a deck aid' problem of minority borrowers not getting a fair deal. the bureau's work in this regard should be supported. but instead we are faced with h.r. 1737, yet another legislative proposal that would attempt to tie the bureau's hands as it attempts to inform lenders of the steps that they can take to comply with federal fair lending laws and protect minority.

if you charge everybody too much. but when you single out a certain segment of our society that happens to be a minority and you charge them more than other borrowers, it's a problem. h.r. 1737 follows a familiar script of industry-driven attempts to undermine the cfpb. cost benefit analysis, public notice and comment periods outside of rulemaking unnecessary agency consultation requirements. these providings are designed to do the same thing, delay and undermine the important work of the cfpb. instead of addressing the underlying discrimation that the cfpb is trying to address, h.r. 1737 takes away an important tool for lenders seeking to follow the law who have been relying on the guidance for almost three years to develop their compliance policy. this is not a modest proposal designed to bring about

transparency in the cfpb's oversight of auto lenders. since issuing its guidance in march, 201, the cfpb has been transparent. it has provided industry with its models for identifying potential fair lending violations. its supervisory manual describing exactly what the bureau is seeking when conducting fair lending exams and supervisory highlights that clearly sets forth the business practices that the bureau will focus on when it companies an indirect auto lender. furthermore, the cfpb settlement agreement follows a similar template that gives leapeders a glimpse into the kind of remediation that the bureau will pursue should there be fair lending violations within a lender's portfolio. to identify yet

what information any additional transparency would yield or what additional information lenders need to comply with federal fair lending laws. if enacted, 1737 would actually place lenders at a disadvantage just as scrutiny for fair lending violations from the cfpb and d.o.j. intensified. we should be working to support efforts to give industry as much information as possible so that they can comply with the law and h.r. 1737 does just the opposite, creating unnecessary and uncertainty for lenders. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i'm happy to yield five minutes to the author of h.r. 1737, a real champion for due process and auto buyers, the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. guinta. the chair: the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized for

five minutes. mr. guinta: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, it has been over two years since the consumer financial protection bureau issued flawed guidance that created much uncertainty into the auto lending market. more than half of car buyers finance their purchase when they acquire an automobile. these consumers have the ability o receive great auto rates through dealer-assisted you financing. this flawed and unstudied guidance threatens to eliminate flexibility to discount interest rates offered to their customers. my good friend, mr. perlmutter and i have introduced h.r. 1737 along with 166 of our colleagues, both republican and democrat to give the cfpb a chance to fix this faulty guidance. this bill was written by republicans and democrats to be very simple and narrow to provide clarity, fairness and

most importantly due process. no federal agency can set new policies through guidance. in march of 2013, the cfpb attempted to go outside the rulemaking by disregarding consumers and small businesses. blatantly disregarding their ability and right to comment on guidance that will directly affect them. mr. chairman, h.r. 1737 asks the cfpb rescind their flawed guidance and reissue it under a more transparent process by consulting other regulators and allowing the public notice and comment. i want to be clear, this bill does not strip the cfpb of any rulemaking authority it currently has. h.r. 1737 gives the cfpb the golden opportunity to correct and reissue the guidance that would take into account consumers and bring clarity to the market. mr. chairman, i want to reiterate my colleagues and i are trying to promote

transparency, accountability and due process. there are a small number of critics that believe this bill is unnecessary because the cfpb already has the tools to correct their auto guidance. they could have fixed this over two years ago but disregarded 13 bipartisan letters that were sent urging them to correct the flaws. i find it ironic that the agency that is supposed to protect the consumer is in fact harming them with this guidance. in fact, this guidance impacts much more than car buyers, it hurts car dealers, r.v. dealers, motorcycle dealers and even the manufacturers. by silencing their voices of thousands of consumers and small businesses. on october 31 of this year, the "wall street journal" reported that quote, some auto makers responded by overhauling their loan pricing which means higher costs for some borrowers. if the cfpb cares about developing policies that are in the best interests of consumers,

they should amend their guidance to be more transparent and allow public participation. mr. chairman, my bill is very simple and narrow and quite frankly, it's common sense and only asks for five things, public notice and comment, make the data available to the public, consult with the federal reserve board, the f.t.c. and d.o.j., create an impact report and deduct a study on women and minority-owned business. i ask unanimous consent to offer the letters of support from the auto dealers association, the national independent auto dealers association, the recreational vehicle association, the national auto association, auto auction association, alliance of auto manufacturers, the national r.v. dealers association, the motorcycle industry council, new hampshire auto dealers association and the small business and entrepreneurship

consumers and the u.s. chamber of commerce and urge my colleagues to support of h.r. 1737 and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california s recognized. ms. waters: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas who is the ranking member on the oversight committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. green, will be recognized for three minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i think president obama, i thank the head of the cfpb, and i thank the ranking member

for taking the position of protecting consumers. mr. speaker, we live in a world where it's not enough for things to be right, they must also look right. and here's what doesn't look right as, in fact, is not right. it doesn't look right and it's not right for a person to go into an auto dealership, agree on a price, and then be sent to a finance department where this indirect lending takes place. it doesn't look right for that person to then be quoted an interest rate and agree to that interest rate, not knowing that the interest rate that the person has agreed to is higher than the one the person qualified for. this is what we are dealing with. consumers not knowing that they are paying more for their interest rates than they have qualified for. we dealt with this with the

yield spread premium, same thing, slightly different in that it dealt with home mortgages, but we outlawed that in dodd-frank. the cfpb is now trying its very best to make sure all people are treated fairly and equally when they apply for auto loans. it doesn't look right for this to happen. and studies consistently show that minorities, african-americans, hispanics, asians are charged more for these loans than others are charged. the empirical evidence is there for those who wish to see it. it's not enough for things to be right. they must also look right. and this bill just doesn't look right and it doesn't smell right and it is not right. and we ought not continue this kind of behavior in this country. in a righteous world we would be debating the type of fraud that's being perpetrated on

consumers. mr. speaker, i ask people vote their conscious, but i will tell you that i am not going to support this kind of procedure that makes it entirely possible for invidious discrimination to continue. i came here to fight invidious discrimination. this is a part of that fight. we must not, we must not allow this kind of behavior to continue when we've got a cfpb that's willing to stand up for minorities. we have a president who has appointed this man, and we have a ranking member who is fighting hard to make sure minorities are treated fairly. to this end i would say consumers have no greater friend than the congress of the united states of america than the honorable maxine waters who goes to bed every day to make sure that consumers, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexuality are treated fairly. i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california reserves her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i'm now very happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, chairman of the capital markets subcommittee of our committee. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: thank you, mr. chairman. back in 2013 the cfpb, consumer financial protection bureau issued a bulletin. it eliminated, tried to, auto dealer discounts, seengsly helping consumers, on the grounds that these discounts create a fair credit risk. there's two major problems with what they did. first, the actions will raise cost, raise credit costs for families, these very same families having a tough time as it is in this economy because this is a bad economy right now and making it harder for these families to purchase a car. secondly, these actions are expressly prohibited by law from

regulating auto dealers, by the authorizing statute in dodd-frank. you see, the cfpb acted behind closed doors without any transparency or input from the general public that they are supposed to be protecting to circumvent, go around the law and found an indirect way to alter an industry that the cfpb is prohibited by law from doing. if that's not the very definition of an out-of-control agency, i don't know what is. mr. speaker, it's time we defend the rule of law in this country and defend transparent government against this unaccountable bureaucrats down the street at the cfpb. that is why i'm proud to sponsor the reforming cfpb indirect auto financing guidance act, and by repealing their inproper auto actions, denying the ability to provide the discounts to the customers and requiring a transparent process for all future actions, this bill will

preserve the consumers' ability to get a discounted auto rate and preserve the ability to adhere to the principles of open, honest, transparent lawful government. i urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support h.r. 1737. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you, mr. chairman. we must realize that what mr. garrett just shared with you is certainly not what the cfpb has done. as a matter of fact, what the cfpb has done, it is said that lender, you cannot say that i will take x amount of percentage of interest, will i take 5%, 10% interest, and dealer you can mark it up another 3%, 4%, 5%. it's not exactly shared with you what happens with the cfpb. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, a member of the financial services committee, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. ellison: i want to thank the

gentlelady for the time. the ranking member has been an outstanding advocate for american consumers and i thank her. i rise today to ask you to vote no on this piece of legislation and to alert the american people of another attempt to make it easier to overcharge you when you make a purchase. today's threat to americans' wallets occurs when you try to buy car. most people need to take out a loan to buy a car or truck. they frequently get their financing through an auto dealer. car dealers don't realize that some car buyers don't realize that some dealers can raise the price of the interest rate offered by the partnering bank to make an additional profit. for years there's been a concern that african-americans and latinos, despite negotiating harder and having good credit scores, pay a higher interest rate than white car buyers, charging some people 2 or 2 1/2 more percent than others based

on skin color. it's also a violation of the law. the equal credit opportunity act prohibits discrimination in the financial marketplace. lenders who partner with auto dealers have a responsibility to ensure that borrowers receive fair treatment. that is what the consumer financial protection bureau is trying to do. the cfpb issued guidance recommend remming that the auto industry establish a flat-rate pricing and some other proach to ensure they are not discriminating against their customers. this makes sense to me and would be beneficial to consumers. this bill, which i urge a no, nullifies the cfpb's guidance. it requires the bill to jump through a number of hoops that open the bureau up to litigation before the cfpb can establish new guidance. the national association of minority auto dealers opposes this bill. they say, quote, to date the recent consent orders between the cfpb, d.o.j., financial

institutions and captive finance companies to settle discrimination claims have not resulted in any negative outcomes or loss of revenue for minority dealers. we are convinced this matter should and more importantly can be resolved with a nonlegislative fix. thank you to them. when people are overcharged or treated unfairly in the marketplace, it harms their ability to build wealth and fully participate in this economy. if you want to do something about income inequality, you must say no to this bill. join the national association of minority auto dealers, the national association for the advancement of colored people, the center for responsible lending, consumers union, consumer action, americans for financial reform, american association of justice, color change, leadership conference of civil rights and human rights, the urban league, and more to vote no on this legislation. i want to enter into the record the national association minority auto dealers letter

opposing this legislation. the naacp letter opposing this legislation. i just want to point out that the discrimination in this country has been fought long and hard for centuries. let's not stop now. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i yield myself 10 seconds just to say that the exact same group the gentleman quoted, national association of minority auto dealers say in their letter, quote, this legislation does nothing to alter the consumer financial protection bureau's authority to enforce a lender's obligations under the equal credit opportunity act. again that is a red herring. i'm now very happy to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. messer: thank you, mr. speaker. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. ignoring this simple wisdom the cfpb issued a guidance bulletin without public notice and comment threatening to eliminate

a car dealer's ability to discount interest rates for their customers. this so-called guidance was offered with no study of the impact on consumers or small businesses. and it was issued with no proof that current industry standard discount practices were harming consumers. let me repeat. despite the rhetoric, the guidance was issued with no evidence of any discrimination. this much is clear, the regulatory burden imposed by this guidance will be bad for car dealers because it eliminates a car dealer's ability to provide lower interest rates for their customers. and it's bad for consumers because they will inevitably pay more. h.r. 1737 is commonsense legislation that stops the cfpb's solution in search of a problem. it nullifies the cfpb's current guidance bulletin restricting discounts on auto loan interest

rates and it requires the cfpb to allow for public notice and comment before any further restrictions can be imposed. also requires a study of the cost and impacts of interest rate and deductions on consumers. it's a good bill and i urge my colleagues to support it. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. chairman and members, this business about consumers not being able to negotiate down that somehow the car dealers can't give a discount is absolutely not true. absolutely not true. i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wisconsin, the ranking member of the subcommittee on monetary policy and trade of the financial services committee, ms. moore. the chair: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. chairman. thank you, madam ranking member. i do rise to oppose h.r. 1737. i have listened very carefully

to my colleagues and i am very sympathetic and empathetic to their desire to help their auto dealers. too bad this legislation doesn't do that. i also agree with the proponents of this bill that the cfpb can't directly regulate auto dealers. and i don't think the cfpb wants to regulate auto dealers. the problem with this bill is that it doesn't help auto dealers and it is not a response to cfpb regulatory overreach. what the cfpb does have jurisdiction over is the equal credit opportunity act. now, a few years ago the bureau noticed a funny thing. that minorities were paying higher markups on auto loans, even when you control for credit risk and other factors,

discounts, they noticed that if you were hey sue rodriguez or barack obama jones, somehow you paid a higher price for the car. now, the problem is that this legislation attempts to free the auto dealers from discrimination, of course discrimination is a violation of the equal credit opportunity act. . the cfpb and the department of justice brought action begins these lenders from violations of the eeoc. now, we heard from the other side that there was no evidence that these car dealers had done anything wrong. no. because it didn't go to court, that's why there was no evidence. it went to settlement, and they settled for $140 million. pretty simple. the cfpb protected borrowers from discrimination and then put out helpful guidance. so why are we here today, mr. chairman? we're here considering this

legislation so that auto dealers can violate the ecoa. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. moore: i would yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back and the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. i am now happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank the chairman for yielding and for his work on this issue. also thank mr. guinta for bringing this bill forward. mr. chairman, this -- ever since the cfpb introduced its 2013 bulletin on indirect auto lending, the need for this legislation has been clear. first, the cfpb issued its bulletin in order to get around the rulemaking process for indirect auto lending. this kind of guidance is traditionally used as a mere restatement of law or to provide further explanation of

rulemaking. it is not traditionally used to make a major policy, like fundamentally altering the auto loan market. second, it is clear that the cfpb is unwilling to publish online all of the data and assumptions it's relied upon for this guidance. providing these details should be an obvious and easy step to implement for any credible government agency. unfortunately, because the cfpb is not subject to the appropriations process, they seem unwilling to comply with even the most commonsense oversight by congress. therefore, h.r. 1737 is necessary to require the cfpb to provide for a notice and a comment period before it can reissue any related guidance. mr. chairman, this compromised legislation represents fair and reasonable adjustments to the cfpb's regulatory guidance process intended to promote transparency and accountability for regulators. this legislation is truly a

bipartisan effort that was supported in committee by 13 members on the minority side of the aisle. i am also glad to see widespread support for this legislation from a range of groups including the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national auto dealers association, the national r.v. dealers association, the independent community bankers association and the credit union national association. last year i was proud to introduce similar legislation to mr. guinta, after hearing from so many auto dealers in my state the frustrations they had with this particular rule. i am proud to support this legislation, and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help us promote greater transparency and accountability and bring common sense back to the marketplace. again, thank you, mr. guinta, and i yield back the balance of my time to the chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. chairman. what mr. stutzman is doing is confusing -- trying to confuse

people between a rule and a guidance. this is a guidance, and he's trying, through this legislation, they are, to make guidance comply with the same kind of rules that the rules have to go through. so don't pay any attention to that. he's just trying to confuse people. i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, a member of the financial services committee, ms. velazquez. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. velazquez: mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1737. this legislation is yet another attempt to obstruct the most important watchdog working on behalf of u.s. consumers, the cfpb. since its creation, the agency has returned over $11 billion to more than 25 million consumers harmed by unfair and deceptive practices. its work is absolutely essential for everyday americans, giving them the security of knowing that there

is someone on their side. one area where the cfpb's role is increasingly important is auto finance, where outstanding car and truck loan balances now reach $1 trillion, the highest in history. unfortunately, discrimination is still alive and well in the indirect auto lending marketplace. in the three settlements to date against allied financial, the cfpb secured nearly $140 million in relief and penalties. it found that minority borrowers paid $200 million over the life of a car loan han white borrowers, even when with their credit worthiness. this is consistent with decades of litigation and research that confirms that discrigsary markups in indirect auto --

discretionary markups in indirect auto lending to further their work in this area, the cfpb issued specific guidance regarding auto lending practices. unfortunately, h.r. 1737 won't re-- will repeal this guidance nd replace restrictions on the issuance that will be unique to the cfpb and will place unprecedented burdens on the agency's issuance of guidance design to help lenders comply with federal fair lending laws. this undermines the basic role of the cfpb and will create uncertainty regarding the application of federal lending laws in the auto finance sector. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. velazquez: 30 seconds? ms. waters: i yield to the gentlelady for 30 seconds.

ms. velazquez: doing so is a raw deal for car buyers, especially minorities, who continue to fall victim to the deceptive and unfair practices. let's let the cfpb do what it is supposed to do, protect the millions of consumers that will buy cars this year and reject h.r. 1737. i urge a no vote on this misguided legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, might i inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from texas has 15 minutes, and the gentlelady from california has 13 1/2 minutes. mr. hensarling: at this time, mr. chairman, i'm happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, my democratic colleague, mr. hinojosa. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. i hinojosa: mr. speaker,

rise today in support of h.r. 1737, the reforming cfpb indirect auto financing guidance act. i am proud to say that in my 19 years in congress i have been a champion of the consumer and have fought for their protection. as a member of the financial services committee, i strongly supported the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau and continue to be a strident defender and proponent of cfpb. i support this bill to correct the cfpb's guidance with respect to indirect auto lending, which would increase the cost of consumer financing. in our effort to find discrimination in the marketplace, we must be careful not to push for policy solutions that hurt the very consumers we are trying to protect. this bill does not prevent nor

hinder the cfpb or any agency from enforcing fair lindhing laws. rather, it provides an opportunity -- fair lending laws. rather, it provides an opportunity in a more clear and transparent manner. i urge the cfpb to work closely with thinkholders to improve the guidance in this important area. i also encourage the bureau to develop and implement a financial literacy program aimed at teaching consumers the skills necessary to make informed financial decisions regarding the purchase of an auto through the use of financing. we need to do everything we can to ensure americans have the basic financial literacy skills to enable them to never -- navigate our increasingly complex financial system and make good informed decisions. at this time i yield 30 seconds to mr. guinta so he may express support for financial literacy

and offer to work with you to encourage the bureau to develop a financial literacy program aimed at auto financing. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields to the gentleman from new hampshire. mr. guinta: thank you, mr. chair. thank you, mr. hinojosa, for your remarks. i'd like to reity late that the cfpb has the authority and tools to increase financial literacy skills to consumers, and i would be more than happy to work with you personally to make sure they better educate consumers when they are purchasing a car. it's something that's important and critical. i value the interest that you have on this component of the bill. i plan to work with you and i yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman. mr. hinojosa: thank you, mr. guinta. i gladly accept your offer and i look forward to working together promoting financial literacy, especially with respect to auto financing. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1737, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker and members.

this is not about financial literacy. this is about raw discrimination. i will now yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of the oversight and government reform committee, mr. cummings, a real fighter for freedom and justice. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. cummings: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i thank you for your strong leadership. i rise today to oppose h.r. 1737. if this bill is enacted, it will cost minority auto purchasers millions of dollars. car purchases are extremely complicated transactions. most americans make only a few in a lifetime, and they are not familiar with the many detailed terms and procedures of these transactions. one thing that is not complicated is that charging a

markup just because a buyer is a minority is simply illegal. the consumer financial protection bureau protects minority purchasers against auto dealers that seek to charge abusive and predatory markups. the purchase of the bill before us today is to eliminate this protection. that's exactly what it is, leaving minority consumers at risk of being charged abusive and predatory interest rates. in 2013, the cfpb ordered allied bank to pay $80 million in damages and $18 million in penalties for imposing higher interest rates on 235,000 minority borrowers. just this year, the bureau ordered fifth third bank to pay $18 million in damages for

permitting markups of as much as 2.5% for minorities. because this bill would prevent the cfpb from carrying out its duty to protect minority borrowers, the administration has announced they would veto this bill. this house should reject h.r. 1737 and every repeated effort to undermine -- and that's exactly what it is -- to undermine the cfpb. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. i now, mr. g: chairman, am happy to yield three minutes to my democratic colleague from georgia, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman yields three minutes to the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. and i want to take a moment to point out why i am supporting

this and a co-sponsor of this bill. first of all, to our leader, my ranking member who does an excellent job, she's absolutely right. we must go at discrimination with lenders. but ladies and gentlemen, the unintended consequence of this is not punishing the lenders who may or may not be doing the discrimination. they should. this unfortunately guidance goes directly at dealers and low and moderate income customers, african-americans and other minorities who will be denied because it takes away the dealer's ability to discount interest rates and be flexible. now, ladies and gentlemen, there are 55 million unbanked and underbanked people in the united states. they don't have the bank. they're not going to allied bank, but when they want they got to buy a car. some of them don't even have a

credit card, but they got that dealer that can walk through the door and if that dealer has the flexibility to be able to discount the interest rate, bringing a lower price to the car, they shouldn't be denied from having that opportunity to do it. . let me go to the racial issue. when you play the race card, you got to make sure you play it right. that's all i am saying. when we look at the cfpb and we look at the methodology that they use to determine who the black people were, they said, hey, the best way of doing this is go by the last names. jackson, williams, johnson, robertson. a lot of black people are named that. but an awful lot of white people are named that, too. is it any wonder when the checks went out that there was some white people, happy white people looking like where did i get this money?

where did i get this $200, $300 from? ladies and gentlemen, i take a back seat to nobody when it comes to standing up and fighting for racial equality. my life story is that. i integrated the school systems in scars dale, new york, where i was not only the black kid in the school or in my class, i was the only black kid in the whole city of scarsdale. my office mate in the senate wrass julian bond. we went across this country speaking for 40 years as a state representative, as a state senator, andow as a congressman. my whole life has been fighting this. but when you deal with racial discrimination, it's got to be right. and the methodology that the cfpb used is flawed. it is absolutely flawed. and in the process, the c.f.p. itself is being charged with craigs discrimination itself.

-- with racial discrimination itself. all i am saying is what is fair is fair. we are not asking -- mr. hensarling: an additional 30 seconds. mr. scott: we are asking go after to where the discrimination is but don't hurt the lower, middle income people who don't have the credit, don't have a credit card. they have to go in there and work with that dealer. and if you take that out of the way of the dealer, you are hurting the very people that some of the people who are opposing our bill want to help. so, lange, let's get clarity here. -- ladies and gentlemen, let's get clarity here. let's get truth here. all we are doing is ask the cfpb to come back, start over, get a right methodology so you're getting the right people that you're sending the checks to. and also call in the justice department. the federal trade commission. and the federal reserve who are the ones under dodd-frank that

regulates the auto dealers. and not -- thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. speaker, members, all of the arguments that are used by the other side simply are not true. they claim that the cfpb does not have the authority. they do have the authority under the equal credit opportunity act. they claim that they didn't use the right methodologies, the same that is used by the justice department. they claimed that the dealers can't give discounts. that's absolutely not true. they k i will yield to the gentleman from new york, a man that's been leading an effort on the floor of congress for justice for minorities and williamwomen consistently, mr. jefferies. -- and consistently, mr. jefferies. mr. jefferies: the opponents of this legislation are not playing the race card. america for centuries has played

the race card. slavery, jim crow, lynchings, the black holes, institutional racism, unconscious bias that continues to this day. of course we have come a long way in the united states of america, but we still have a long way to go. everyone should have recognized that fact a few months ago when those souls were killed in charleston, south carolina, that racism in many quarters in this , in ry is still functional existence, and poisoning our society. so when we take a situation where african-american consumers are paying higher interest rates for the same financial product, when controlling for creditworthiness, put in the context of history in this

country, we are concerned. all we're simply saying is that if we really believe in a country where everyone, regardless of color, has the opportunity to robustly pursue the american dream, we need a level playing field. we need rules of engagement that apply to everyone regardless of the color of their skin. we need equal opportunity. and that doesn't exist right now in the automobile lending context, and that's why i urge a no vote against this legislation. et the cfpb do its work. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i'm now very happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, one of the outstanding workers for h.r. 1737, mr. williams. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. williams: thank you, mr. speaker. in full disclosure, my name is williams. as mr. scott had said.

i'm also an auto dealer. but my colleagues here in the house already know that. it's not something i'm ashamed of. in fact, it's something i'm very proud of. but mr. guinta's bill isn't about auto dealers, it's ban agency that continues to act not in the best interest of the consumer but bigger government. mr. speaker, i'm here this afternoon to give you a little perspective on that. as many small business owners can tell you, the financial crisis of 2008 was the worst they had ever seen. millions of americans, thousands of small business owners never recovered. in response, congress passed the dodd-frank act which in turn created the cfpb. the cfpb was given broad jurisdiction over the financial services sector. banks, insurance companies, mortgage lenders, credit card companies, payday lenders, the list goes on and on. dodd-frank consisted of 2,300 pages of new laws and regulations. mr. speaker, i want to take a second and read from one of the sections of dodd-frank that is

of particular importance to us today. section 1029 says, quoit, the bureau may not exercise any rule making, supervisory enforcement, or any authority, including any authority to order assessment over a motor vehicle dealer that is predominantly engaged in sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both. how did we get here today? in 2013, the cfpb didn't propose a new rule or a new regulation, in fact, they didn't seek comments from strirks consumers, or even congress, but instead they offered guidance. since releasing this guidance in 2013, the cfpb has acknowledged that they did not analyze or estimate the economic impact it would have on customers. in addition, an independent study commissioned by the american financial services association found several significant flaws in the bureau's methodology which led to inaccurate, ingreet complete, and unreliable conclusions about pricing disparates in the auto

finance market. in addition, recent settlements from the cf 36789 b and lenders have highlighted the bureau's strong arm tactics and inability to prevent fraudulent claims. as a hearing a few months ago, the committee on financial services heard testimony about the lack of oversight implemented by the cfpb when paying claims to those who were potentially discriminated against. mr. speaker, what most don't understand is that auto dealsers , i repeat, auto deerls, are driven by competition. we are driven by protect our reputation, providing service to our customers and serving our communities. when the cfpb issues fines on auto dend lenders for lealinged scrimtary practices, they don't punish the dealers, they punish the consumer. the very people they are supposedly trying to protect. just as most government involvement does. mr. guinta's bill would finally bring transparency and clarification to a process that has had either.

mr. speaker, i know director cadre and all those at the cfpb think they can control my industry, but controlling the lenders we do business w let's not lose sight -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. williams: i urge passage of this bill. let your conscious be your guide. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, and former insurance commissioner of california, who has dealt with a lot of these issues, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you. my colleague from california has raised a very significant issue here. it kind of helps to actually read the guidelines. i have spent eight years of my life as a regulator. trying to protect the consumers from unfair practices in the insurance industry. some of which dealt with the issue of credit. what we have here is a effort by

the cfpb to give guidance, not a law, not a regulation, but guidance to auto dealers and to indirect lenders on what they should do, not must do, but what they should do to obey the equal credit opportunity act. which the cfpb actually does have the power to enforce. by extension an indirect lender stands in the place of a consumer -- auto dealer in developing the terms of a credit. that then makes the indirect lender subject to the equal credit opportunity act. it's pretty simple here. this is guidance about how you should monitor, what you should do as a dealer or as an indirect lender. in obeying the equal credit opportunity october. it's pretty simple. and when you don't do it, there

are outlines about what you should do to deal with any problem that is found. what's the problem here? the problem here is obeying the law. as an indirect lender where you actually have the power to direct and to determine what the loan is. now, my history in regulating the insurance industry is that there is a pernicious and continuing discrimination that takes place. not necessarily black, not necessarily hispanic. but it exists in the poorer communities. and keeps those communities down because they wind up paying a whole lot more for insurance, for credit, and for other economic policies. metty simple. -- pretty simple. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady yields -- 30 seconds.

mr. garamendi: let me wrap quickly, then. this is about being fair in the practices of lending. i understand the auto dealers and indirect lenders would rather not, but there is a history here as been stated in the debate of where lenders have been found to be out of compliance with the equal credit opportunity act. so what we are trying to do here with this opposition to this bill is saying, follow the guidance. follow the guidance and stay out of trouble. pretty simple. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hill: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today in support for my colleague from new hampshire and his bipartisan bill to reform and assist our nation's auto dealers and consumers and increase the oversight and transparency of the consumer financial protection bureau. dodd-frank explicitly prohibited the cfpb from regulating auto

dealers, but their guidance on indirect auto lending is an end around to do just that. regulate auto dealer sales. not only is the cfpb's guidance inherently flawed, but the agency has not provided the opportunity for public comment or input, nor have they shared any of their analysis or assumptions on which they based their model. this guidance is another example of emerging government price regulation and fee setting in the financial services industry. we have always as part of our financial regulation tried not to set price by regulatory directive. and instead we have operated on a consumer disclosure and consumer education model. but price regulation is clearly what this guidance does. it's softer, more deli cat in its language -- delicate in its

language but clearly leading towards price regulation. one reason, one key reason is the inability of the consumer bank to price for risk. today's legislation is not about discrimination, it's about giving access to credit to people who need it and giving access to credit to them in the right way. particularly those families with limited resources. this bill in no way ties the cfpb's hands. it merely gives the public an opportunity to comment on the bureau's attempt to reshape the auto loan market. whether it's in a rural area or an urban area, this pernicious expansion of price regulation in financial services by the federal government will have a negative effect of credit allocation in our communities. i'd like to submit for the record -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, a true champion for consumers. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i oppose h.r. 1737, the title of this legislation reforming the cfpb indirect auto financing guidance act is misleading. the legislation's not about, quote, reforming the guidance of the cfpb, it's about erasing an undermining cfpb's guidance all together and suspending the bureau's good work when it comes to monitoring and identifying discrimination in auto lending. both of cfpb and the department of justice have found repeatedly that dealer discrimination and determining the interest rate on auto leans loans leads to systemic discrimination against minority borrowers. . supporters have argued this would bring clarity and transparency to the auto loan market but we must ask

ourselves, clarity and transparency for whom? it sure doesn't bring transparency for the american public when it comes to auto dealers who have been found to be targeting minority communities with discretionary interest rate markups, increasing the carrying cost of car ownership for individuals who too often cannot afford the increased financial burden. of course not all auto dealers engage in such practices, and we must be careful in painting with a broad brush. in fact, i believe the cfpb's guidance is a useful tool to protect the reputation of auto dealers who do the right thing by their customers. many of which are leaders in their communities, against the predatory practices of a select few that tarnish the industry. we should have clarity and transparency. clarity and transparency in how interest rates are determined so as to prevent discriminatory lending practices. but let the cfpb do its job, the consumer financial

protection bureau. wall street, the lenders, the mortgage companies, the big banks, they blew up our economy in 2009. they were exploiting a lot of consumers across the country. we set up the cfpb to protect financial consumers across the country. let the cfpb do the job that it was given, which it is doing very well. i urge my colleagues to reject h.r. 1737 and support the cfpb's ongoing war on behalf of american consumers. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. hens mr. chairman, might i inquire as to how much side remains? the chair: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes and the gentlelady from california has 4 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: at this time, mr. chairman, i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, i stand in strong support of 1737, and i'll tell you why. it's because what i have done and what my family has done for

almost 60 years. we're a third generation automobile dealer, and i can tell you it is a people business. not a white person business. not a black person business. not a brown person business. not a red person business or a yellow person business. it is a business that's done face-to-face. i have sat across the desk from many people, lower income people who cannot afford to get a car because they don't have the ability to negotiate the auto loan. it is our business, and i'm stunned by people who've never done what we have done to somehow decide that we are racist and we are overcharging people. we are doing exactly the opposite, and you are doing exactly the -- you are discriminating begins the very people who need our help to buy cars. we negotiate the deal for them. we negotiate the cost down. and to stand here today and listen to think this is how racist, if i were a person of a color, i would be offended that you would even begin to suggest that i don't understand how to

negotiate and i don't understand who to trust and who not to trust. three generations of kellys have sold over 150,000 cars. you don't do that by cheating people. you don't do that by being a racist. you don't do that by discriminating against people. you do that by working with people. it is stunning in this house, america's house that we would reduce this down to an issue of color and not cooperation. the ability to get these people transportation, private transportation falls on the shoulders of those who are the dealers. we negotiate in their best interest. how stunning to think that somehow we are these predators that are just taking advantage of these poor people that don't have any financial literacy. that, my friends, that's the biggest insult you can give people of color or people of gender. it is absolutely discriminating -- incredible to me we would bring it to this issue. if you don't understand our

business, please learn about it. i don't have to have a book of talking points to talk about what we've done our whole life. i stand in strong support of 1737 and in strong support of common sense and the american way. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. chairman, members, no one on this side of the aisle mentioned the word racist. it's only coming out of the mouths of the people on the opposite side of the aisle. i will now yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, a member of the financial services committee, mr. perlmutter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is -- the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. perlmutter: i thank the gentlelady from california, my ranking member, and i appreciate the emotionally charged k -- charged conversation we are having on the house floor today. i rise in support of 1737, and

in the 14th amendment to the constitution of the united states, there are two basic principles among the others that are noted. one is, no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and the other one is, no one shall be denied, equal protection under the laws of the united states of america. and we have kind of a collision of these two principles today. one is there's a potential for despaate treatment of people, discrimination, that all of us abhor and we want to see it rooted out root and branch. but the other is that before you do a major policy in this country, there's always notice and an opportunity to be heard. and that's where the collision comes in today, because the consumer financial protection reau issued a bulletin

without really notice and an opportunity to be heard, to determine whether or not there was desparate treatment or whether there was methodologies to indicate there is accurate. what we've seen is four out of 10 times it can be inaccurate based on this bulletin. so 1737, as much emotion as it has raised, asks the cfpb to go back and check what they've done. at no time is there any limitation to cfpb's or the department of justice's rights under the equal opportunity of credibility to go after discriminating individuals, to go after bad actors. and i would suggest to the cfpb that while they're looking at their bulletin again, if they see evidence of discrimination, they refer it to the justice department and it be condemned loudly and roundly. and i just thank the gentlelady

for letting me have an opportunity to speak. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close if the gentleman from texas has no further speakers. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized to close. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. chairman and members, this discussion today has been about discrimination. this discussion today is about the very powerful automobile dealers coming to the congress of the united states and using their considerable influence to get the members of congress to get rid of a guidance that was put together by the consumer financial protection bureau. they don't want the guidance because they don't want to be guided in how not to discriminate.

they have gotten away for years from markups. they have gotten away for years for targeting certain communities. for those that say this has not happened, you are absolutely wrong. minority communities, poor communities are targeted by every scheme and every fraudulent operation that you can think of. whether we're talking about this markup that causes minorities to pay more for automobiles or payday loans or you're talking about these private postsecondary ripoff schools, communities of color are not only targeted in these ways but we discovered in the 2008 subprime meltdown that communities will be targeted and that minorities who have the same credit rating as others who are given loans, minorities who pay their bills were charged more in interest

rates for their mortgages than others. and so this is not something that we're making up. the people on the opposite side of the aisle will have you believe they are working in the best interest of these minorities who continue to be ripped off. i don't have to say much of anything to prove that that's not true. just take a look at who's supporting them. we are supported by the naacp, the national council of la raza, the national association of automobile dealers, the center for responsible lending, the national consumer law center, center for working families, consumers unions, 67 consumer organizations and civil rights organizations because they're sick and tired of seeing minorities being ripped off. we are often counseled by those who say we are not pulling ourselves up by our boot straps, that we're not doing enough. why do you think a wealth gap

exists? it exists because these fraudulent schemes are supported by people by people on the other side of the aisle. with that i will yield back the balance of my time and tell everyone in the congress to vote no on this discriminatory legislation. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized to close. mr. hensarling: i thank you, mr. chairman. it's fascinating to me how often the ranking member talks about discrimination but she didn't seem to talk about the discrimination coming out of the cfpb. she knows good and well, mr. chairman, that we've had witness after witness not come up with junk science about some dess par at impact -- desparat impact methodology that's proven wrong but we've had people talk about discrimination at the cfpb which now the other side is holding up as a paragon of virtue to enforce our civil rights laws.

e've had the inspector general saying the minority applicants not hired in proportion to qualifications. the inspector general says minority employees receive lower performance ratings. we had one division of the cfpb that employees referred to as the plantation. this is in the 21st century? and now the ranking member wants to hold up the cfpb as some paragon of virtue because they use junk science, a methodology they admit themselves overrepresents minority populations? this is about due process, mr. chairman, due process for every american. we can't have some rogue agency putting out guidance and not allowing any public comment. we cannot allow this agency, regardless of what their motivations may be, to ultimately take away credit opportunities of hardworking americans who are trying to get ahead. we cannot let this rogue agency

increase prices. it is time for us to support the legislation. i encourage all members to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in house report 114-340. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-340. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an

amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-340 offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 526, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i rise today to offer a commonsense amendment to h.r. 1737. this simple amendment ensures that any costs or potential impacts to any and all veteran-owned businesses are considered and included in the study required by this bill for any future auto financing guidance that may be put forth by the consumer financial protection bureau. the three main categories that the c.b.a. uses for set-aside government contracts are women-owned, minority-owned and veteran-owned businesses. the base bill requires the report that would include any costs or impacts associated with new guidance for minority-owned businesses and women-owned businesses. i think we should all agree that this only makes common sense to also consider any

costs or implications for our nation's heroes and veteran-owned businesses that may arise from any future guidance being considered. our service men and women already face tough challenges finding work when they return from service. in recent years, veterans' unemployment numbers have been some of the highest in the country, and at times have been in double digits. and earlier this year, post-9/11 veterans faced unemployment numbers north of 7.2%. . we shouldn't let any future guidance from an already rogue agency created under dodd-frank exacerbate employment hurdles for our veterans. one week ago today, we celebrated veterans day and the patriotic service so many men and women have given to this country. we have asked them to risk their lives for this country and many of our veterans have done this time and time again. most veterans return from service seeking not only to

integrate but to continue to serb their country by contributing to the work force, finding jobs and creating jobs for others by starting small business. my amendment is samplee measure and will ensure that veterans are not harmed by any future cfpr. nes put forth by -- cfpb. this amendment is supported by chairman hensarling and others. i thank the committee for all they do. i urge all my cheeks to vote in favor of this commonsense amendment. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? ms. waters: i claim time in opposition. the yom is recognized for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: this compounds a problem i have expressed in my on stoigs h.r. 1737.

while i have been and continue to be one of congress most vow tall -- vocal supporters of minority owned businesses, further expanding an unnecessary cost-benefit study considering the impact of nonbinding policy guidance sun productive and only increases the likelihood that future guidance the de-sined to help lenders comply with the law is further delayed or never issued. mr. chairman and members, i want you to understand what has been said by the opposite side of the aisle. help sically are saying me to look out for our veterans and make sure they don't have any guidance that would impede their ability to do business. well, i mean, that's kind of a made up problem. this is not a problem. and simply what is happening is, the attempt to throw veterans

into this is to get members thinking that perhaps i want to support this amendment because i don't want to be thought of as not supporting veterans. but when you talk about cost benefit analysis and studies. what you're talking about is how do i tie up the agency? how do i create impediments to the agency being able to do its job? this congress supports veterans in so many ways. we support them in their quest to do business and we have laws on the books that would help them to successfully get into business. we support them in housing. we support them with better health care. i don't want any members of congress to think somehow this kind of made up amendment is something that really they should be supporting if they want to help veterans. this is simply a way by which to

get you to do something, making you think you are supporting veterans and thinking you cannot oppose it. this is an unnecessary bill and it gets in the way of good guidance coming out of the consumer financial protection bureau and so i would ask you to vote no on this bill and i would reserve the balance of my timele the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: i can't believe, mr. chairman, what i just heard. i just can't believe. i hope that veterans watching c-span today are listening carefully, listening very carefully about this amendment. the three divisions in which it oversees, the veterans were left out. we want to make sure our veterans are included in any -- in any study cfpb would go forward with. that's sad. that's sad when we talk about the veterans administration being so pristine, we look at their health care system being 50% worse than it was a year ago. and many of the veterans that i

have in rural arizona are struggling to find anybody that will even hear from them. what a sad shame. what an absolute shame. so i actually would ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment. it's pretty straightforward. i think america gets it and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. go sar: yes, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from texas, the chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to urge all members to adopt his amendment. i must admit if people all over america are wondering why it's so difficult to get something done on a bipartisan basis, traditionally the least controversial thing we do here is study something, and what's even less controversial is

coming together on behalf of our veterans, and yet we have the ranking member of this committee opposing both. i hope the american people are watching closely. again, i think this is a very commonsense, modest amendment by the gentleman from arizona. i encourage all members to vote for it. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gosar: i thank the gentleman and i ask all folks to -- folks to vote for this. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. poastpose. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to -- is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment must remember 2 printed in house report 114-340. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. smith: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-340, offered by mr. smith of missouri.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 526, the gentleman from missouri, mr. mist -- mr. smith, and a member opposed each will control five minute. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. smith: the american people have been misled. they were incorrectly told dodd-frank was meant to go after big banks and wall street. however in my rural congressional district the effects of the law and its close to 500 regulations have been devastating this eto the -- the total economic cost of dodd frank's base regulation has eclipted over $35 billion and 60 million hours of paperwork. that's the equivalent of over 30,000 employees a year dedicated sole throw regulatory paperwork. new army of regulators aren't the keen of jobs americans were promised. the biggest and most costly regulations to come out of dodd-frank is the deceptively named consumer financial protection bureau, an unconstitutional, uncontrollable, and unaccountable agency whose total negative impact on our economy won't be known for decades.

the cfpb was supposed to protect consumers from the predatory practices of financial institutions. instead it has limited american's access to credit, the ability to be financially endependent and even impeded the availability of homes and in this case, cars. the cfpb did this by hiring big, spending big, and regulating big. the cfpb started with a staff of 178 in 2011 but now has close to 2,000 employees. in that same period, annual spending grew frup $10 million to $600 million. the safest place to find a job in this government economy is with a federal financial regulator. in the last five years, those regulators have seen a 16% increase in job growth. the cfpb has more regulations and guidance in its pipeline just ready to roll out and crush rural america. that's why this amendment is so

important. in the endless search for a job in this economy, many americans are forced to migrate to urban areas. in 2013, over half of all the rural counties in the united states actually shrank in population. in 2014, corkt the department of labor, rural counties lost 330,000 jobs while metropolitan counties gained over three million jobs. the last thing washington should be doing is authoring regulations which further enable this trend. with adoption of h.r. 1737 and this amendment we are telling the cfpb that when you issue regulations like this, in addition to analyzing the impact on women-owned, minority-owned and small businesses, you must also take a look at those regulations impact on rural businesses and rural consumers. my amendment is a simple one. but it would go a long way to providing some clarity for the folk offings missouri's eighth congressional district and all

those americans living in rural communities across the nation. while 1600 pennsylvania avenue may be looking at ways to make their life harder, this body, chamber, will continue to fight to make sure the federal government stays out of their way. i think my friend -- i thank my friend and league from new hampshire for introducing this legislation. burdensome regulation is a problem that hits rural america the hardest. i urge adoption of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek reck snigs? ms. waters -- recognition. ms. waters: i claim time in opposition and yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: mr. speaker, members, i'm in opposition to this bill because it's another study, another cost to government, another unnecessary cost, while my friends on the opposite side of the aisle always claim that they're reducing the cost of government, these studies do very little.

as a matter of fact, instead of a study, some of these members who represent rural areas ought to become advocates for their constituencies. they charge many of us as being advocates for health care and education and housing and transportation, all of which they lack in their communities. but you never see them fighting for it. if it was not for some of us who are out there demanding better health care, better transportation systems, better education, and fighting for those who get ripped off by these fraudulent businesses every day, they wouldn't have any protection because they send too many members to congress who mislead them on other kinds of issues but when it comes to their economics, you cannot find them anywhere. so instead of a study, another study, another cost to

government, why don't they become real advocates for their constituencies? why is it that we don't have transportation systems in rural communities? why is it they have to travel miles for health care? it's because they have representatives who they sent to congress who are not really representing their real interests. and so, they may get their colleagues to vote for this study, yet another study, because they don't do anything that's real and substantive for their communities. i yield back the balance of my time. i don't need to say anymore. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. smith: i urge adoption of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-340.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from alabama seek recognition? ms. sewell: i have an amendment at the desk, listed as sewell amendment number 3. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-340, offered by ms. sewell of alabama. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 526, the gentlewoman from alabama, ms. sewell, and a member opposed each will control tive minute. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from alabama. ms. sewell: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of my amendment to h.r. 1737. my amendment is a commonsense and straightforward amendment. it simply states that nothing in this bill shall be construed to apply to guidance issued by the cfpb that is not primarily related to indirect auto financing. this amendment is intended to help ensure that the underlying bill in no way prohibits, disrupts or affects the enforcement of other fair lending laws or guidances that protect millions of americans from unfair or discriminatory

lending practices. the underlying bill, h.r. 1737, provides the cfpb with criteria to consider when issuing further guidance on indirect auto lending. while i agree with the cfpb should re-evaluate its recent guidance, we should also ensure that the scope of this legislation stays narrow and applies only to auto -- indirect auto financing. mr. speaker, i applaud the cfpb's efforts to protect consumers from discriminatory lending practices. we can all agree that no one supports or should condone abusive or discriminatory practices in auto lending or any area of the marketplace. however, it is our job as members of congress to offer guidance and constructive critiques to our regulatory agencies to enforce and ensure that regulations are pragmatic and workable. this noncontroversial amendment simply clarifies that the other value youble tools possessed by the cfpb are not infringed upon

and to ensure there's no room for ambiguity. the cfpb plays a critical role in protecting consumers and buyers. my amendment helps ensure that laws like the equal credit opportunity act and other fair lending laws are not inadvevertently or directly affected by this bill. my amendment helps ensure that the bureau continues to play this role while hard working americans continue to have access to the necessary credit to purchase an essential mode of transportation. i urge support of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although i'm not opposed. the chair: without objection. jarninged for five minutes -- the gentleman is recognized for

five minutes. mr. hensarling: the absolute worst thing i could say about her amendment is it is redundant. but if it is not, we clarify auto only deals with finance guidance. absolutely nothing in the underlying bill to h.r. 1737 in any way, shape or form affects the cfpb's ability to enforce the equal opportunity credit act. and so if this clarification is needed, i'm happy that the gentlelady is offering it and i would urge its adoption and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from alabama. ms. sewell: i yield to the ranking member, the gentlelady from california, such time as she may consume. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized.

ms. waters: i thank the gentlelady for yielding time and as mr. hensarling said, it may be redundant but that's ok but reinforces what we have been talking about in relationship to 1737. i thank a moment to say how proud i am of the consumer financial protection bureau and how pleased i am that this is the centerpiece of the dodd-frank reform and now that we have an agency that is looking out for consumers. prior to the consumer financial protection bureau, our regulatory agency said it was for safety and soundness and they forgot about the consumer and now we have a consumer financial protection bureau that's challenging the practices of many who claim they are legitimate businesses and they are challenging them and saying

no longer can you rip off our consumers, no longer can you target minorities. thank god for the consumer financial protection buyer oover -- bureau and i yield back to the gentlelady from alabama. the chair: the gentlelady from alabama. ms. sewell: i thank the ranking member, congresswoman waters, for her diligence on this committee. she serves as a model for all of us in her vigor in making sure we are not being discriminated against. all of us agree that nothing we should add to the effects of discrimation. with that, i ask for support of this amendment and i reserve the balance of -- i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. in the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is adopted. there being no further amendments under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1737 and pursuant to house resolution 526, i report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments. the speaker pro tempore: the committee has has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1737 and pursuant to house resolution 526 reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the

committee on the whole. if not the chair will put down engross. the question is on adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the amendments are agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, third reading. the clerk: a bill to nullify certain guidance of the consumer financial protection bureau. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling seek recognition. mr. hensarling: pursuant to house resolution 529 and i call up h.r. 1210. relating to qualified mortgages held on an originating deposit tower portfolio and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the clerk: union calendar number 251, a bill to amend the truth in lending act to provide a safe harbor from certain requirements related to qualified mortgages for residential mortgage loans held on an institution's portfolio and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 529 and amendment in the nature of a

substitute consisted of committee rules print is considered read. the bill as amended shall be debatable equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member. after one hour of the date, it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in house report if offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. norcross or his designee, shall be considered read and equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent and not be subject to demand for division of the question. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, each will control 30 minutes. mr. hensarling: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: i rise in support of h.r. 1210, portfolio

lending and mortgage access act, a bill approved by the financial services committee which i chair on a bipartisan vote of 38-18. first i want to thank the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barrr for his leadership and finding simple ways to allow home buyers across the nation to obtain mortgages more easily absent the onerous regulations that are presently being applied so that they can qualify a mortgage through market competition. the aim of h.r. 1210 is simple, banks and credit unions should be free to originate mortgages as long as they keep them on their books, as long as they keep the risk. this is responsible lending, mr. chairman. and helps more qualified borrowers obtain mortgages so they can get their piece of the american dream. h.r. 1210 does this by allowing lenders, particularly hometown community banks and credit unions to treat mortgages held on their balance sheets as

quote, unquote, qualified mortgages for purposes of the cfpb's mortgage lending rules. the dodd-frank act made significant changes to our mortgage lending marketplace. one specific provision is section 1411 of dodd-frank requires mortgage lenders to determine at the time a loan is made that the borrower has a reasonable ability to repay it, the ability to repay are intended to make sure to take into account the ability to repay the loan. it creates a legal safe harbor with the ability to repay rule so-called who issue qualified mortgages. mr. chairman, it seems obvious that are loans held by a lender should be regulated differently than loans originated and then sold to a third party. they have completely different characteristics. lenders that hole the loans on

their own books in their own portefole yeoh assume all of the exposure of risks to nonperformance and default. lending 101 tells us when a borrower is unable to pay the loan, the bank that made the loan is the one that's going to lose the money and any future profit that would be deprived from the loan. underwriters will not stay in business very long. in this instance, mortgages that are held in portfolio are already peru dently regulated by market discipline. without a safe harbor without the threat of litigation that 1210 would provide, lenders would not make loans to credit-worth individuals and we hear it from community banks and credit unions. if they don't meet the standards, the loans simply aren't going to get made. let me stress the cfpb's restrictions on mortgage lending

will have a dispresentence report impact on low and moderate-income buyers especially in rural and certain urban areas. according to the federal reserve within a few years under this rule, one-third of plaque and hispanic borrowers may find themselves disqualified from obtaining a mortgage because of the qualified mortgage rule. this is based on a rigid debt to income requirement. 73% of community bankers have actually decreased their mortgage business are completely stopped their mortgage business of providing mortgage loans due to the expense of complying with burden. regulatory that's why a lot of community banks and credit unions say that qumplet m. doesn't stand for qualified mortgages but quitting mortgages. it shouldn't be the job of

congress and regulators to decide who gets a mortgage and who does not. to force community banks and credit unions to function like utility issuing plain vanilla mortgages for select groups. opponents of this bill will brand it some kind of gift to wall street. let me be clear, h.r. 1210 is a gift to home buyers, all home buyers looking for a more transparent and competitive market. when it comes to loans that are held on the books, the size of the institution does not matter. a loan held in portfolio will carry the exact same amount of risk and profit regardless of the size of the bank that holds it. commonsense regulation that is before us, recognizes that the borrower has the ability to repay and not one size fits all top down--- regulation from

washington. the financial crisis was by misguided regulations. portfolio lending did not cause the crisis. i urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation of the the gentleman from kentucky. support the american dream. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: i rise today in opposition to h.r. 1210. today we are wasting time on the floor discussing a bill that president obama has already pledged to veto because it would undermine important financial reforms and put consumers and the economy at risk. h.r. 1210 would allow lenders to deal in the same kind of risky

loans that sank washington mute tall, wachovia and countrywide and the entire economy in 2008. the bill undermines the anti-predatory leapeding provisions of the dodd-frank act and virtually eliminates one of the most significant consumer protection rules implemented by the cfpb. the bill also revises an industry practice under which mortgage brokers can earn hefty bonuses by steering borrowers into riskier more expensive loans regardless of whether they qualify for better rates. my colleagues seem to forget that we went through a terrible financial crisis, while we did spend hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue the banking system, millions of victims of predatory lending were left to defend for themselves as they were displaced from their homes and saw their life savings disappear. many reforms in the dodd-frank

act ensure that the fingerprint shal try will never again be allowed to take the kinds of risks that drove us to a national crisis. but the mortgage lending rules are designed specifically to protect families from financial crisis. the fact is that many banks whether they held loans on their books or sold them off were able to profit from loans they knew borrowers could not repay. rather than perform careful underwriting, many banks demanded high upfront fees and relied on rising home prices and mortgage insurance to protect them from lossers when borrowers defaulted. anks targeted families banks targeted families in financial trouble who owned their homes outright offering them lanes with high origination

fees and less than optimal terms. it ended up sapping the life save frgs many families who relied on these products to pay for unexpected medical bills or financial hardships. department of justice investigations found that lenders specifically targeted, again minority, with predatory loans, destroying a generation's worth of wealth in many communities of color. you should the new mortgage rules it's illegal to pay bonuses to brokers for steering borrowers into loans with bad terms. cfpb rules established sensible underriting standards so lenders are incentivized to design products that perform over the long run and make sense for consumers. in cases where banks want to make riskier loans with higher fees, they're allowed to do so, but the consumer will have extra protections if the loan goes

bad. these include the right to sue for financial harm and defense against foreclosure. the mortgage rules make good sense. by protecting consumers while still allowing them access to credit and ensuring the economy can grow. these are exactly the types of regulations we should want from our regulators and the cfpb should be commended for its success. republicans continue to declare that the dodd-frank act and the cfpb have been bad for the economy. during the last republican presidential debate, a right wing group aired a commercial painting the cfpb as a munist bureaucracy and claiming the cfpb staff were responsible for denying loans to consumers. the facts show a much different picture. even the conservative "wall street journal" recently reported that industry analysts and experts agree that

compliance costs aren't the greatest challenges facing community banks. the same article notes that loan balances at community banks grew twice as fast as their large counterparts over the last year, and that their profitability is much closer to large banks than it is -- than it was prior to the passage of dodd-frank act. the mortgage bankers association recently revised their expectations for 2016 and 2017 to expect even more growth in housing credits and this week at the national association of realtors ianule conference, industry economists pointed to a strong housing market with high prospects for continued growth. it's time for republicans to realize that dodd-frank and the cfpb are not the problem. they're the solution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield myself 30 seconds to say i'm fascinated

to hear the specter of discrimination waved by the other side yet the federal reserve said when the rule is fully implemented nearly one third of all minorities will not be able to qualify for a mortgage. considering my friends on the other side wanted to roll the dice on fannie and freddie, it turned out to be the largest bailout in american hist iry. if people are going to make bad loans, let's not bail them out with taxpayer money. we give everybody a fair shot at home ownership and that means if a bank makes the loan they hold it on their books. let them keep it. let it be a qualified mortgage. at this time i'm very happy to yield five minutes to the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. barr: i thank the gentleman from texas and the chairman of our committee for his leadership and support of this legislation.

you know, mr. speaker, the best policies serve both the interests of the individual and the broader national interest. in this case, it is in the interest of the borrower to have an affordable right-sized mortgage. it's also in the interest of the nation to have a sound financial system safe from the excesses that led to the crisis in 2008. it is possible to satisfy both objectives but it will require the federal government to acknowledge that changes must be made to the consumer financial protection bureau's interpretation of the dodd-frank law. the ability to replay requirements in dodd-frank are designed to ensure a lender take into account the borrower's ability to repay a loan. simple enough. but the cfpb has implemented this by promulgating a one-size-fits-all mortgage rule. under the cfpb's approach mortgages have been made safer by making the unavailable to a

substantial number of would-be home buyers. 22% of those who boar trode buy a home in 2010, one out of every five borrowers would not have met the underwriting requirements for a qualified mortgage. now look, there is no debating that for the benefit of a mortgage borrower or his or her lender and the financial system that a borrow should have a demonstrable ability to repay that loan. the question is, who is in the better position to determine whether that borrower is able to repay the loan? is it a washington bureaucrat without any relationship with the borrower? or sit a lender with full view of the customer's finances and a bank or credit union that must bear 100% of the downside risk of default. dodd-frank answered that question by taking sides with the washington bureaucrats and the result has been a housing market struggling to recover as a result of stress mortgage credit, impacting job creation and affordable housing and the

loss of consolidation of community banks and credit unions. it's time to try something different. h.r. 121 -- h.r. 1210, the portfolio lending and morbling access act is the solution. this legislation would treat emergencies helt on the balance sheets of financial institutions as qualified mortgages for purposes of the bureau's mortgage lending rules. because mortgage lenders retain all of the risk of the loans held on portfolio, they have a strong insent toiv ensure that the loan is repaid. such a policy would drive private sector risk retention, a goal of the dodd-frank act itself, and mark a return to relationship lending in which a bank or credit union can tailor products to a customer's needs and credit risk without running afoud of the one size fits all government requirements. small banks and credit unions have been disproportionately impacted by these rules. it is no coincident that harvard researchers have found that since dodd-frank's passage, commun banks have lost market share at a rate double that

experienced prior to the dodd-frank passage in 2006 to 20 10, a period including the entire i have to the financial crisis. by bearing the risk, financial institutions have every incentive to make sure that the borrower can afford to repay that loan and no less than chairman barney frank endorsed this concept at a hearing before the financial services committee last year, saying he would like the main safeguard against bad loans to be risk retention because that leaves the decision in the hands of whoever is making the loan. the bureau itself made this key point in its own rule make, where it recognized that port tole yow lend verse a strong insent toiv consider whether a consumer will be able to repay a portfolio loan because the small creditor retains the risk of default. this bill also, importantly, provides an alternative a viable alternative to the original distribute mortgage lending model that contributed to the bubble in real estate and massive bailout.

this embraces an approach that more effectively ensures that borrowers have the ability to repay than the cfpb's restrictive rule. the result will be expanded access to mortgage credit without additional risk to the financial system or the taxpayer. i would note that the ranking member talks about putting at risk, putting taxpayers at risk again. but the cause of the financial crisis was not portfolio lend big community banks and credit unions. it was government policy. fannie mae, freddie mac, buying billions of subprime, improperly underwritten mortgages. this policy, the exemption to the qualified mortgage rule, continues to this bill and my bill offers an altern toiv this risky practice without underwriting and distribution to taxpayer backed g.s.e.'s. this is particularly important because the common sense bill that is before the congress recognizes that the most effective way to ensure that a borrower has an ability to repay is not one size fits all

washington mandates. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is yielded 30 seconds. mr. barr: just to conclude. the most effective way to ensure a borrower as the ability to repay is restore the relationship banking that ensures that financial institutions share the downside risk associated with their business decisions. h r. 1210 that is the support of the credit union national association, the national association of federal credit union the national association of home builders and the u.s. chamber of commerce. the housing sector represents a thoifered economy and the lack of available mortgage credit is impacting our recovery. i encourage my colleagues to join me, to expand access to mortgage financing and support economic growth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has edges pyred. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. chairman and members, i just heard that these bankers have the ability to understand and

know whether or not the consume verse the ability to repay. that's what they told us before 2008. unfortunately, they're the same ones now that is telling us that they can determine ability to repay. they didn't do it then and they won't do it in the future system of i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, a member of the financial services committee, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the ranking member for yielding. i appreciate the effort of my colleague and classmate, mr. barr new york attempting to address this -- mr. barr, in attempting to address this issue. i appreciate the impact that the qualify mortgage rules have had in terms of mortgage lending for consumers and access to credit. it's especial he true for our local and community bankers who have longtime personal relationships with individuals and families. it's these types of relationships that we need to encourage. personal knowledge of people,

the banks and financial institutions lend to. i also appreciate the aspects of the bill intended to increase access for consumer that are -- consumers that are just shy of the strict qualified mortgage standards and i support policy of allowing otherwise nonq.m. qualified consumers to have access of qualified mortgage products if lenders keep the loans on their books. my concern with this legislation, among others, is that it does not specifically disallow the exotic mortgage products that were so much a part of the housing crisis. there are consumer protections that could improve this legislation in terms of how we allow safe harbor protections for banks and mortgage originators. i do think we should focus on consumer protection and not on -- and allow nonq.m. loans to be

nonq.m. only in terms of the borrower, those individuals that fall just outside q.m. standards and not open up to non-q.m. products, particularly because this is not -- this is not applicable only to small, community banks that we're so familiar with, or credit unions, but to all institutions. portfolio lending is an important way, i think, an important opportunity to find bipartisan agreement. i hope we can continue to work on this. one other issue i raise and it was included in the amendment that i offer that the rules committee did not make in order is that i would have preferred that the legislation require that the institutions making loans under this title collect data on how these loans are being made and how they're performing and get us the information we have to determine whether or not the effect that we're trying to create with this short of approach is being met or if in fact it's not. i appreciate the efforts of my friend and colleague.

i wish i could work with him, in fact this moves forward new york a way that's open to suggestion and i yield back the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the monetary trades and policy subcommittee of our committee, mr. huizenga. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. huizenga: imagine with me. imagine a single mom moving out of a trailer. she's had some tragedy in life. she's got two kids that are watching very, very closely what she's doing, how she's handling it. and as a former realtor, the joy that i took in being able to get her into her own home, first thing that she felt like was truly hers, something her kids could be proud of. that's the type of scenario that we are trying to promote.

i would think, as a country. unfortunately, with the rules prom all -- promulgated under this qualified mortgage rule, lenders determine a borrower's ability to repay using, really, an arbitrary standard set by a formula. they don't look at the market, or the background. they don't look at the history of that person. because it's outside the formula. if a lender does not adhere to this bureaucratic established form lark a borrower can sue the lender. this has caused 3% of community bankers, those who know their customers best, to cut back their mortgage business or stop providing mortgages altogether. this is the worst case it removes bureaucrats from the equation and provide them with loans that they can afford. that's a key element. loans that they can afford. how do we know they are going to do this? by keeping the loan on their own

books, the lender assumes the full risk of the loan. let me repeat that. the lender retains the full risk of those loans. if they didn't think that that borrower couldn't pay back the loan, they would not lend it to them. now, in my mind, that's the definition of what a qualified mortgage test ought to be. this bill is going to allow mortgage lenders to extend and cover those loans and offer those services to those people who are looking to that. i have heard on the other side of the aisle claim as the white house did in its veto threat that this bill would quote, open the door to risky lending and expanding the amount of loans that would be exempt from it. well, as was pointed out by my friend from kentucky, loans sold to fannie mae and freddie mac and insured by the federal

housing administration are already exempt under the q. m. rule. who are we protecting? who are we not servicing the way this congress ought to be servicing and advocating for. this mod -- because loans are being moved off of the books, they no longer have any responsibility. they have a blush of a requirement and move it right on off of their books. one has er realtor, no a greater incentive for a borrower to repay their loan and i hope support for this bill. ms. waters: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from alabama, a member of the financial services committee, ms. sewell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognizedment ms. sewell: i rise in opposition

of h.r. 1210. during the financial crisis of 2008, predatory subprime lending was all too prevalent. the dodd-frank act created a new set of mortgage underwriting rules. these qualified mortgage rules are important to helping ensure that all american consumers are protected against harmful mortgage products and abusive lending practices. these rules now require a lender to make a good-faith effort to determine that a borrower has the ability to repay a mortgage. additionally, the final rule contains critically important and special provisions that exempt -- and exemptions that are available only to small lenders and to lenders that operate in rural and underserving areas. exceptions that are critically important for districts like mine. the q. m. rules state if banks

make risky loans, consumers can hold them accountable if those mortgages go bad. lenders are responsible for accurately researching and documenting borrowers' incomes and their ability to repay. unfortunately, as currently drafted, h.r. 1210 would undermine these critically portant consumer protections as long as the mortgage loans inquest are held in portfolios by those institutions. h.r. 1210 as broadly defined wsh would broaden the qualified mortgages to include all mormings held on a balance sheet. under the bill, the institutions that hold loans in portfolio

could receive legal safe harbor even if it contains regulations that are harmful to consumers. it would limit the rights of borrowers to hold harmful those banks that do bad practices. no regulation or law is perfect. we must work together to ensure that regulations are pragmatic and workable without placing undue harm on financial institutions that provide access to capital for potential buyers. home ownership remains an important goal for most americans and one of the traditional gateways to the middle class. we must have in place sensible safeguards toll protect consumers against harmful mortgage products. i thank the ranking member for her leadership on this matter. and i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 1210 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back.

the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. rothfus: i thank my good friend from kentucky for leading on this important issue. mr. speaker, for many western pennsylvaniaians, home ownership is an aspect of realizing the american dream. owning an a home is an investment for these families and local communities. unfortunately, today, that dream is being threatened unnecessarily by the consumer financial protection bureau's qualified mortgage rule. the rule is a washington knows best approach to mortgages that is hampering access to home loans across this country and hurting potential home buyers and their communities. as with many complicated and one size fits all regulations, the rule has brought substantial

unintended consequences. the standards have made it more difficult for consumers to get a mortgage and as a result, it has stalled much needed investment in distressed and recovering communities. a significant amount of borrowers now do not qualify on the rule's 43% debt to income ratio requirement. 22% of those who vowed to buy a home in 2010, one out of five borrowers would not have met this requirement. mr. speaker, these are the hardworking every day people we are talking about. these are the people we are fighting for today. it is our local community banks and credit unions that have long standing relationships with these every day people and they are in the best position to judge credit worthness and ability to repay. but the rule effectively takes that away from the institutions

and subjects to increased potential liability that should they ever decide to stray aside the regulation. this is why as the american bankers and others put it well, for community financial institutions, q. m. means quitting mortgages. this commonsense legislation offers a real opportunity to change this. in short, the bill provides a reasonable tradeoff. should an institution decide to hold a mortgage in portfolio and retain the risk of default, the institution receives legal guidance. on the other hand, if that institution decides not to hold the mortgage and sells it in the secondary market and does not retain the risk, the institution does not receive legal protections. by providing this option, it will allow the credit institutions to meet the demands of their consumers while ensuring that they can meet the monthly obligation of a

mortgage. it realizes the risk and facilitates underwriting by lenders and that mortgages will be readily available for deserving home buyers. let's pass this legislation to help transform communities through home ownership. i urge my colleagues to support it and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentlelady for her leadership. h.r. 1210 would allow the largest banks in the country to deal in types of predatory and risky loans which brought down washington mutual, wachovia, countrywide and the entire economy. it undermines one of the most important title of the

dodd-frank act and one of the most consumer protection rules implemented by the consumer financial protection bureau. this bill contains a provision which allows mortgage brokers to steer borrowers to riskier more expensive loans regardless of what they qualified for. if they hold the loans and therefore their risk in their own portfolios, they will be careful not to originate bad loans. this is not true. several portfolio lenders went under during the crisis due to a failure to underwrite loans because they were focused on short-term benefits of upfront fees rather than the performance of the mortgage. investment banks took these profits and brought up risky derivatives based on loans that were poorly underwritten. this bill does not change what type of loans a bank is allowed

to make but removes consumers from the riskiest subprime loans. the cfpb repay rule is the only line of defense against predatory practices, which brought down the economy and destroyed billions. under the new mortgage rules, defaults are down and leapeding to minorities is up. last quarter had the most loan originations since the third quarter of 2007. the rules are protecting consumers, while also fostering competition among banks and growing the economy. we should not change a rule that is working. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: how much time is remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 12 1/2

minutes. and the gentlewoman from california has 17 minutes. mr. hensarling: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia for two minutes. mr. westmoreland: ron white has a saying and it says, you can't fix stupid. and so i guess that's the reason we can't fix the q. m. rule that has come from the cfpb because it's stupid. why would we not want to give a bank or a credit union the ability to loan somebody money when they're taking 100% of the responsibility for the person to pay back that loan? that's exactly what h.r. 1210 does. it says that a small bank or community bank or credit union -- i don't care who it is, willing to put up their own money to somebody they may know in their community that might

have e the ability to credit otherwise to buy a that house. i had that personal experience. the only thing i had was a home. i went and paid about 13% interest and probably paid a number of points in closing to be able to open up my building business. and in doing that, i was able to do that. and i was able to pay back that loan. but had these rules been into effect, that would have been impossible to do. there are other americans and other people out there waiting to get their foothold in society by buying a house and becoming part of the american dream and to me, part of that dream is home ownership. so the philosopher is right, you can't fix stupid. and the cfpb has come up with many stupid rules but i have to give this one the crown because

why woe would want to keep people from having credit and the ability to prosper and move on and grow on in their life and provide shelter for their family is beyond me. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is ecognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from minnesota as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellsworth: i thank the gentlelady -- mr. ellison: i want the gentlelady for her time. 2008 was a horrendous time here in congress. you can go into neighborhoods not just in my district in minnesota but all over the country, florida, arizona, all over the country and it was wreaking havoc from sea to

shining sea. why? because of poor underwriting standards. why else? because we didn't require much of anything to prove that people could repay a loan back. i remember those days. i don't want to return to those days right away. congress has the duty to protect homeowners and consumers from predatory lenders. i vividly recall the panic and the loss of property value and i vividly recall the exploding unemployment numbers. and i remember the calls from homeowners in my district facing foreclosure the. in hen he opinion county we had ,000 for examples and they were told with predatory terms even though they qualified for better mortgages. they were steered to bad

mortgages and i have talked to people both young, elderly, people who have had english as a second language and people who have been born and been here their whole lives and they were steered to cashout refinancing and stripped them of their wealth and left them homeless. . dodd-frank was good legislation to try to stop these irresponsible practices. we passed dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act and created a standard mortgage, one that we called a qualified mortgage. this is a good step. it was wise to create a nice, boring mortgage loan product. it was a good idea. qualified loans must not, at the time of origination, be interest-only or negatively amer advertising. having term longer than 30

years, be a no income, no documentation loan, also known as liar loans, be a balloon loan, have a cap point -- have a cap on fees and points, and leave the borrower with debt income ratio of greater than 43%. these are commonsense requirements and if you get a loan like this, it's probably going to be fine. these commonsense requirements are going to enable sustainable home ownership. and allow people of taking up that american dream that they've been hoping for and saving for for so long. the fact is we remember when we had yield spread premium. interest-only se ans, negative am or -- amortization. these were ruinous and harmed the american working classes. no, i will not yield. so these commonsense

requirements, these commonsense requirements are what we should do. here we are today, h.r. 1210, seeks to repeal these protections. they want to take us back in time. they want to put us at risk and tender mercies again. and the fact is, it is a huge mistake. h.r. 1210 would allow banks with assets up to $1 trillion to seek mortgage brokers to issue the kinds of exotic prurkts which cause the financial -- products which cause the financial products. you know, even before the ink on the dodd-frank wall street reform bill was even dry, there were people trying to undermine it. even before we even implemented the rules -- all the rules from dodd-frank are not even -- have not even been in place yet, we're trying to change it and undermine it. really, they kick the door open so that the american working and middle class can be at the tender measuresies of unscrupulous lenders again. and that's not to say that all

home lenders are unscrupulous. many are good. but it doesn't take that many to really ruin the industry. these changes that h.r. 1210 proposes would encourage lenders to make loans that are not in the best interest of the homebuyer. and this i have to stand against. but i'm not by myself, not only does our ranking member know that this is a bad idea, and many members of this body, but also the national association of the advancement of colored people, the naacp, is well aware this is bad legislation. leadership conference on civil and human rights knows it. americans for financial reform know it. and the consumer federation of america and dozens more are opposing this piece of legislation. i'd say, you know, some argue that because these loans will be held in the portfolio of the lender, they'll be high quality loans. this is not true. this is a faulty assumption and it's wrong.

they missed the whole point of the qualified mortgage rule enacted in dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. mortgage rules are designed to provide safeguards that would create a safer mortgage product for the borrowers. simply keeping a loan in a portfolio is not necessarily a substitute for the kind of sound underwriting of a mortgage rule -- that mortgage rules are designed to establish. there is ample evidence that predatory loans can and have been held in portfolio. some of the largest mortgage lenders that failed during the financial crisis were large rtfolio lenders like countrywide, washington mutual and wacovia. these lenders can still make money on defaulted loans. during the three years before the crisis, 70% of subprime loans were refinance loans, mr. speaker. not purchase loans.

with refis, borrowers bring equity to the table. if the bank charges up front fees and gets money from a foreclosure, predatory loans can be profitable even if they default. the same is true for predatory purchase loans when home values aren't falling. an that is why we're going to stand here and protect homebuyers. i want to urge all members of this body to vote no on h.r. 1210 and just to remember, it's only been a few years since we passed dodd-frank. it's only been not even a decade since we -- since the financial crisis that really caused tremendous havoc to the american working and middle classes. i mean, after the great depression of the 1930's, at least it took them a couple of decades before they tried to dismantle all the financial protections. well, they haven't even taken a single decade, they are back at

it again and fighting tooth and nail to leave the american working and middle class at the tender mercies of people who have nothing but the profit motive in mind. and so i would say -- i would urge members to vote no on this piece of legislation. it's not worthy. and i urge a strong no vote. and now i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i'm happy to yield 30 seconds to the sponsor of the bill, mr. barr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. barr: mr. speaker, it's important to respond to the rhetoric from the other side. because i don't think they're really understanding what we're trying to do here. what we're not talking about are the predatory abusive risky loans that they're referring to. that's not what we're talking about here. we're not talking about opaque subprime securitizations. we're not talking about the g.s.e. exemption to the qualified mortgage rule. and by the way, where's the outrage with the fhfa, the regulator of fannie mae and freddie mac, for not

prohibiting fannie mae and freddie mac and the g.s.e.'s from buying these mortgages they're complaining she about? what we're talking about are portfolio loans where the risk is on the shareholder, not on the taxpayer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i'd like to inquire -- inquire of the chairman whether he has more speakers. mr. hensarling: yes, we have four more speakers. does -- ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: does the gentlelady not have any other speakers? ok. on that, mr. speaker, i'm very happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittinger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. pittenger: thank you, mr. chairman. i congratulate my good friend from kentucky for his leadership on this important bill for consumers. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1210, the portfolio

lending and mortgage access act. since the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau, it seems that all they've done is make it more difficult for businesses to grow and create jobs and to restrict choices for consumers. america needs an opportunity economy, not hampered with massive bureaucratic regulations. the cfpb's qualified mortgage rule is anti-opportunity. it does nothing but force overly burdensome underwriting requirements on hardworking american families and community financial institutions. making it harder for credit-worthy individuals to buy a home they can't afford to keep. the independent community bankers association reports that 73% of community bankers have decreased their mortgage business or completely stopped providing mortgage loans due to the expense of complying with the regulatory burden. mr. speaker, i sit on a committee bank -- i sat on a committee bank board for over 10 years.

we knew who was credit-worthy. we had personal relationships with our customers. we knew their character. today, mr. speaker, it's one size fits all. we understand the nature of loans and the extending credit. yet what's required today is a box to check. if you can't check all the boxes, you won't get a loan. the regulators today, just like they did before the crisis, are putting mandates on community financial institutions. who you can -- who you can loan money to and who you can't loan money to. this type of obsessive regulation is what bheas -- is what's killing the opportunities and choices for the american consumers. since i've been in congress, i regularly hear how washington's red tape prevents community financial institutions from serving their customers' needs. h.r. 1210 goes a long way to ensure community banks and credit unions who know their customers and communities are

able to serve hardworking american families. and they should not be impeded by needless and misguided meddling of washington bureaucrats. thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank my colleague from kentucky, representative barr, for offering this piece of legislation. this bipartisan portfolio lending mortgage access act responsibly expands access to mortgage credit without creating additional risk to the financial system or to the taxpayer. by allowing insured depository institutions to hold residential mortgage loans import -- in portfolio, this bill encourages strong youthyunled writing standards for lenders while also giving access to credit for young families and first-time

homebuyers. these are people who may not otherwise be able to meet the ability to repay requirements. existing mortgage rules are overly restrictive and have made it difficult and in some cases impossible for banks to be able to make otherwise safe and sound loans to credit-worthy borrowers. this bill puts the community back into community lending. in my district and many others across the u.s., access to mortgage credit is crucial. unfortunately many smaller community banks have been forced to stop mortgage lending since they cannot afford the expensive compliance and personnel costs associated. they simply make too few mortgage loans to be able to cover their costs. in rural areas, this is a significant problem because customers often do not have the alternative to find a lender to be able to approach for mortgage products. thankfully this legislation promotes the type of lending that will boost the housing market in a safe and a responsible manner, without taxpayer expose pose -- exposure. portfolio lend something one of

the most traditional and lowest risk lending a bank ken gauge. they are well underwritten and conservative by nature since the lender retains 100% of the credit and interest rate risk on their own books. i'm happy to lend my support to this bill and encourage my colleagues to be able to support this commonsense measure and again i thank the gentleman from kentucky for his efforts on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i continue to reserve the balance of my to im. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hill: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1210, the portfolio lending and mortgage access bill, designed by my good friend from kentucky. you know, we've seen in arkansas alone approval rates decline significantly since the q.m. rules were put in place. one bank noted a 40% decline in eligible borrowers. and today i just want to tell a

story. a community banker in my district called this week and said he has a customer that from time to time just needs catch-up money. money to catch up on bills, medical expenses or help out her kids. but her credit score's in the low range of acceptable. and therefore she doesn't qualify for unsecured credit. and therefore she uses the equity in her house and she's been doing it for years and paid back those lines over and over again with no problems. now she has to go through the ability to repay process, which is long and arduous, and unfortunately for her, leading to mistrust between a long term client and her hometown bank. as a former chairman and c.e.o. and president of a community bank in arkansas, i can assure you that members of our boards of directors across this country scrutinize all portfolio loans. both those that are sold and those that are kept on the books. but there's no better incentive than to have good underwriting

and ensure the customer has the ability to repay for a loan held on the balance sheet of one of our financial institutions. and that's what we're talking about here today. community institutions know best how to serve their communities and their clients, not washington. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill. i yield back, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california continues to reserve. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maine, mr. poliquin, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine is recognized for two minutes. mr. poliquin: thank you, mr. speaker, i'm still scratching my head. i'm still scratching my head at some of the folks on the other side of the aisle i have no idea why they do not want to help those folks that are less fortunate than others in this country. this is an opportunity, mr. chair, for all of us in this chamber, republicans and democrats, to step forward and show some compassion for folks

that want to live in their own home. now, i urge all of my colleagues right here today to support h.r. 1210, and i salute mr. barr from kentucky for the hard work that he did to put and ortfolio and lending mortgage access act together and mr. hensarling. i enjoy, mr. chair, traveling through the second district of maine, the most beautiful part of the world, and i love talking to our small credit unions and community banks. and when i talk to the folks at the bangor savings bank and they tell me how difficult it is to navigate through this huge, complex, 2,300-page dodd-frank law that is preventing them from lending money to families who are credit worthy and who deserve these loans. now, one specific part of the

dodd-frank law mr. barr's bill addresses, it is called the qualified mortgage rule, or q.m. now, this is a one-size-fits-all rule that does not work for many of the families in maine. let's say you're a lobster fisherman in the downeast part of our state and you want to borrow money to buy a new home because you have a couple new kids and you need a new bathroom. but you know, your monthly income, mr. chair, may vary depending on when you set your traps, when you pull your traps and when you sell your catch to a dealer. now, what they want is they 12 to see a smooth, equal mortgage payments to repay that loan, but that may not be the case, mr. chair, because your job doesn't work that way. mr. hensarling: i yield the gentleman an additional 10

seconds. mr. poliquin: they may have known your family for 50 years. now, on top of all this, mr. chair, the bank takes all the risk. they own the loan so god forbid if a storm comes up and sinks in your traps in your boats in the harbor and you can't make those loan payments there's no risk to the market because the bank owns the loan. i ask everybody, mr. chair, to stand up and show compassion for the folks who are in this country that want a home and do qualify for these loans. thank you, mr. chair. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. chairman. proponents of h.r. 1210 argue that if bank keep loans in portfolio they have every incentive to make sure those mortgages are sustainable and good for both the bank and to borrowers. therefore, loans held in portfolio should automatically receive the cfpb's legal safe

harbor under the qualified mortgage rule. this simply ignores the history of the recent crisis. how can banks benefit from loans that are unsustainable in the long term? let's look at how it really works. step one, underwriter mortgage with high upfront fees. though an honest broker may charge a 1% fee, a better business bureau study from just before the crisis showed mortgage brokers often making 5% in upfront fees. on a $200,000 mortgage, that's $10,000 just for one loan. other examples are appraisal fees, escrow fees, settlement fees, home own -- homeowners insurance fees. these could impback to the loan originators and they could still have legal protection

under h.r. 1210. step two, protect your bank from consumer default by requiring expensive private mortgage insurance. step three, underwrite a large number of loans so that the fees add up. volume churned, volume churned. this has the added benefit of keeping regional home prices high by flooding the market with buyers. step four, refuse to offer loan modifications. banks can divest from loss mitigation processes and keep the profits from the high upfront fees and mortgage volumes. step five, foreclose on the borrower and prevent them from suing the lender for lending violations. once the borrower defaults, the lender can then repossess the collateral. if home prices have risen, they

can sell the home for a profit all the while keeping their upfront fees. meanwhile, h.r. 1210 would provide the lenders with the legal shield against cfpb enforcement or private fair lending litigation. over and over, republicans have attacked the cfpb and the important protections it provides to american consumers. yet, again we're wasting time on the floor considering a bill the president has already pledged to veto when we could be doing other important business. what this bill does is very simple. it forgets all of the lessons of the financial crisis of 2008 and allows the country's biggest banks to put consumers and the economy at risk by bringing back complex, high-cost mortgages. the bill resurrects a practice

that allows mortgage brokers to receive bonuses from the big banks in exchange for steering consumers into expensive risky loans. after the financial crisis, the department of justice investigated these practices and found that minority communities were sought out by mortgage brokers and targeted for risky loans even in the cases where the borrowers were qualified for prime loans. these are the same types of loans that destroyed the life savings of millions of americans, that ended up in foreclosure. and then when i studied foreclosure practices at the largest banks, i discovered that the same banks that made these mortgages were also guilty of robeo signing -- robosigning? remember that? wrongfully foreclosing families. they were up to date on their

payments and fabricating paperwork to defraud consumers. the dodd-frank act and the cfpb have reined in these predatory practices, and yet i've had to come down to the floor over and over again to defend our floor, eliminating fraud in the financial system. we've already seen what happens when regulators do not do their jobs. consumers are left on the hook. we must defend the work we have done in the dodd-frank act and the important work that cfpb continues to do. and so certainly i urge a no vote on this legislation. it has been said over and over again by this side of the aisle that it appears that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle are forgetting the lessons of 2008, forgetting what happened when we brought this country to a recession, almost a depression, forgetting the communities that have been

destroyed with these foreclosures, forgetting these lessons and coming back to the congress of the united states disregarding all of the harm that we have caused to families and communities and presenting legislation that could put them back in the same position. well, we wonder why our constituents and consumers don't trust us anymore. they don't trust us because of these kinds of attempts to present public policy that again could harm our economy and harm these families and these communities. they wonder why it is we continue down this path. we bailed out the biggest banks in america. we bailed out big insurance companies in america. we took the taxpayers' money

and we literally said to the people who had caused the harm, we forgive you, it's ok, we're going to make sure you stay in business, we're going to make sure you have the ability to make money. and while the taxpayers watched this and still many are reeling from the loss of their homes and homelessness has increased in my own city of los angeles, 15% increase in homelessness, many of the families are there because of the predatory practices that we allowed our regulators to turn their heads and bring harm to these families and these communities. i don't understand why you don't understand simply ability to repay. i don't understand why you would simply say, let the biggest banks in america have

portfolio loans that they don't have to be worried about qualified mortgages. i don't get it. why don't you err if you're going to err, err on the side of the consumer? what is it about the biggest financial institutions in america that can promote this kind of public policy and have so many members -- particularly on the opposite side of the aisle -- doing their bidding. i don't get it. i don't understand and i don't understand why many of your constituents don't really know what's going on. ladies and gentlemen, this is not easy work. as you know, working on the financial services committee is extremely difficult and time-consuming work, and here we are divided. one side of the aisle going back to the risky days. another side of the aisle protecting the consumer protection financial --

consumer financial protection bureau and saying we have to protect that bureau no matter how much you attack it. again, i want to remind you, before dodd-frank and this centerpiece that was organized for reform where we created the consumer financial protection bureau, think about the name. nsumers, protection, financial, bureau -- protecting those that had been dropped off the protection agenda by our own regulators. and so we create something and we named it in such a way that consumers and our constituents would understand that we are sorry for what happened to them and we don't like the fact that we almost destroyed this economy. we support the consumer financial protection bureau. we will not go back to those

days prior to 2008, and whether you like it or not, this bureau is here to stay and we're going to defend it with every inch of energy we have. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized to close. mr. hensarling: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: 2 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i find it fascinating that the ranking member says, quote, we have to protect the cfpb, the very same cfpb that the federal reserve's inspector general says, quote, minorities underrepresented in upper pay bands. the same inspector general, not hired to proportions of qualifications. she wrants to save the cfpb where they want to protect a qualified mortgage rule which the federal reserve says 1/3 of blacks and hispanics will no longer be able to qualify for mortgages. yet, the ranking member says we have to protect cfpb.

no. we have to protect the american people from cfpb. the cfpb that's trying to take away their mortgages. i hear almost every week from some credit union or community bank like the first arkansas bank and trust who wrote, quote, our bank has a long history of helping consumers. especially those who for some reason can't qualify for secondary mortgage financing at the time. due to the fact this type of financing is now overly burdened by the qualified mortgage standards, we have completely ceased this type of financing. this includes for mobile homes. that's low-income people, mr. speaker. we hear from the reading cooperative bank. quote, we have experienced a spike of loan declines to women. further investigation said that women attempting to buy the family home during divorce were being declined at a high rate due to the dodd-frank qualified mortgage rules and the ability to repay. i mean, we're hearing this

stuff all the time. we have to protect the consumer, and we protect the consumer by having competitive, transparent, innovative, free markets, rigorously policed for force, for fraud and for deception. it's not by having the cfpb. i'm shocked. we have the ranking member, again, talking about discrimination but apparently it's ok if the cfpb practices it. that's outrageous, mr. speaker. it's simply outrageous. the american people will not abide by it. we have to protect the american consumer, their opportunity for the american dream of homeownership, and that's why every single member should vote for, for the legislation from the gentleman from kentucky, which is so simple that says, if you make the loan and you keep your books, it's a qualified mortgage. you have your shot at the american dream. i urge adoption of the legislation. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the

amendment made in order pursuant to the first section of house resolution 529 will not be offered. pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the truth and lending act, to provide a safe harbaugher from certain requirements related to qualified mortgages for residential mortgage loans held on an originating depository institution's portfolio and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. thompson of california moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 1210, to the committee on financial services with instructions to report the same back to the house with the following amendment. page 2, line 5, strike and at the end. page 2, line 8, strike the period at the end and insert

and. mr. thompson: i move to suspend. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to waiving the reading of the amendment? mr. hensarling: i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: a oint of order is reserved. does the gentleman object to the waiving of the reading? mr. hensarling: no objection. the speaker pro tempore: no objection. the clerk will suspend. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, and members, the bill on the floor before us is a rotten deal for all consumers. but it's especially bad for our service members. when you're a service member, you're often forced to relocate with little notice. that puts our men and women in uniform under tremendous pressure to obtain housing for themselves and for their families, all the while managing the enormous duties that military service requires. it's a lot to handle. we know this and so do the financial predators.

that's why we often see them setting up shop around our military bases. if a service member is targeted and sold a bad mortgage, why do the authors of this bill want to allow them -- don't want to allow them some recourse to make things right? as a combat veteran, i understand the pressures placed on our military. our men and women in uniform often don't have the time to investigate mortgages in detail. they have to trust that no one is taking advantage of them. he problem is, people often do take advantage of them. it's a despicable practice matched only by the majority's bill, which defies them the opportunity to sue the predatory lender to make thelening -- to make things right. my amendment would change this. it would allow any service member or veteran to sue a predatory lender, regardless of who holds the loan. the mere fact that a predatory lender holds a bad mortgage

shouldn't prevent service members from being able to take action to make things right. i know my colleagues on the other side are going to vote to deny protections to your average hardworking american family who had the bad fortune of being sold a bad mortgage. but at the very least let's exempt service members from this bill. we ask enough of them already. the department of defense reports have noted that financial stress can affect service members' performance and combat readiness. and a d.o.d. report specifically states that, and i quote, 48% of enlisted service members are less than 25 years old, have little experience managing their finances, and have little in savings to help them through emergencies. yet on the heels of veterans day, when member after member came to the floor to praise our veterans, this majority wants to return seven days later and put predatory lenders ahead of our men and women in uniform.

their bill limits consumer protections for service members. it hurts our armed forces and it hurts their families. it increases strain on people that already volunteer for a stressful, dangerous job and it reduces combat readiness. let's not forget all we pledged just a week ago on veterans day. let's put our policy in line with our rhetoric. let's protect our troops, let's protect their families and let's protect our country. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i withdraw my point of order and i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. i certainly salute the gentleman for his service to our country and a in uniform and -- in uniform and his service to our country in congress.

although i applaud his service, i do not applaud what he's bringing before the house in this motion to recommit. because what his motion to recommit will do, regardless of what he says it does, it will hurt, it will hurt veterans. it will hurt their home ownership opportunities. i don't know if the gentleman was on the floor when i shared with the house correspondence from just two community financial institutions who were saying that they can't make mortgage loans anymore under this q.m. rule. we know for a fact that when fully implemented, 20% of the people who qualified for a mortgage just five years ago, after the financial crisis, just five years ago, would no longer qualify. many of them veterans. we know the federal reserve has said that when the q.m. rule is fully functional, fully 1/3 of all blacks and hispanics, many of them veterans, will not be

able to qualify for a mortgage. again, it's why so many in the industry are calling q.m. not qualified mortgage, mr. speaker, but quitting mortgages. we don't want banks and credit unions to be quitting on mortgages for our brave men and women in uniform. they deserve the same home ownership opportunities, frankly, they deserve better home ownership opportunities than the rest of the population. and so, i would urge that the house reject this motion to recommit, because at the end of the day, what is going to be best for our veterans, what's going to be best for the american people is more competition in the mortgage market, not less, not taking away their financing opportunities, particularly those who are low income, and particularly our veterans. no. we want to have competitive, transparent, innovative markets.

they need to be policed for force and fraud and deception, but we want as many different financial institutions creating as much opportunity for home ownership for the american people and our veterans as is possible. and so i would urge the house to reject this motion to recommit and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 -- pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 0, this 15-minute vote will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill if ordered and passage of h.r. 1737. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]