[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 110 (Thursday, July 21, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5302-H5312]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1315, CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 
              SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2011

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 358 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 358

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1315) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
     Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review 
     authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of 
     regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
     Protection. 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 
     amendments specified in this section 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, it shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules 
     Committee Print dated July 14, 2011. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules. Each 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 amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  In the engrossment of H.R. 1315, the Clerk shall--
        (a) add the text of H.R. 830, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 1315;
       (b) conform the title of H.R. 1315 to reflect the addition 
     of H.R. 830, as passed by the House, to the engrossment;
       (c) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (d) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.


                             Point of Order

  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 
358 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order 
against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 
425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of 
section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes 
of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, the Chair 
will put the question of consideration as the statutory means of 
disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily 
out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are likely some in 
the underlying bill, H.R. 1315, but because this bill will put 
consumers and the American economy at risk.
  A year ago today, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act

[[Page H5303]]

into law. This law creates a strong Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, the CFPB, that will protect consumers, especially the poor and 
the most vulnerable, from unscrupulous practices in the financial 
industry.
  The Dodd-Frank law levels the playing field. The CFPB has taken steps 
to protect Americans against abuses by the financial industry, like 
payday lenders and debt collectors, that we were unable to monitor 
before the passage of the law.
  I oppose the underlying bill because it removes these protections. 
This bill, H.R. 1315, is designed to cripple the CFPB before it is up 
and running.
  Voters across party lines solidly support the Wall Street reform law. 
The American people want safeguards to help the economy and protect 
them from deceptive financial practices and predatory products. By 
trying to weaken the CFPB, Republicans in Congress just confirm how out 
of touch they are with the concerns of the American people.

                              {time}  1230

  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from New York, 
Yvette Clarke. 
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. I thank my good friend from Ohio for the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, the Republican majority would like the American people 
to believe that a near financial collapse never happened, never 
occurred. To hear the majority's narrative over the course of the 112th 
Congress, you would think that nothing is wrong with the economy that 
deregulation and tax cuts for multi-millionaires and billionaires can't 
solve.
  What the Republican majority refuses to acknowledge in their 
revisionist narrative is that their tax cuts for multi-millionaires and 
billionaires helped lead our country from surplus into massive 
deficits.
  The majority's revisionist narrative also omits the fact that years 
of deregulation and lax oversight of financial institutions is what 
caused the economic downturn we are struggling to fully recover from.
  Madam Speaker, the near collapse of the national economy not only 
cost the American people billions of dollars in bailouts but also 
resulted in millions of Americans losing their jobs, their homes and 
life savings through no fault of their own.
  The number one priority of the 112th Congress should be to continue 
the economic recovery work of the 111th Congress. The American people 
expect the other side to work with the President and congressional 
Democrats to put Americans back to work.
  So I find it unbelievable, Madam Speaker, that, in the face of 9.2 
percent unemployment and when millions of Americans are struggling 
simply to stay in their homes, the majority would declare war on the 
very agency that would prevent a similar financial crisis from ever 
happening again.
  By decreasing accountability, muddling decision-making and starving 
it for funds, the Republican majority is threatening to turn the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau into a gridlocked agency that 
cannot possibly fulfill their mandate as a financial industry watchdog, 
leaving the American people once again vulnerable to the predatory 
lending that precipitated the financial collapse in the first place.
  Madam Speaker, the 112th Congress has been in session for over 6 
months, and we still have not had one comprehensive jobs bill, nor have 
we voted on one single bill that would help struggling homeowners stay 
in their homes. We have, unfortunately, been forced to vote to protect 
tax cuts for multi-millionaires and billionaires, we have voted to 
protect the profits of companies who ship jobs overseas, and we have 
voted on bills that undercut the social safety net for Americans at a 
time when the most vulnerable amongst us need it the most. In other 
words, Madam Speaker, we have wasted the American people's time.
  If the Republican majority claims to speak for the American people, 
then perhaps they should listen to the American people, stop playing 
games and bring legislation to the floor that addresses the number one 
priority of the American people: jobs.
  By bringing this bill to the floor, the Republican majority either 
doesn't remember the recent financial crisis or simply doesn't care 
about the hardships facing the American people.
  I support the gentlewoman from Ohio in bringing this point of order.
  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentlelady from California, Jackie Speier.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank my good friend from Ohio.
  This is getting old. The majority knows it can't kill an idea whose 
time has come. So now they're trying to slow down the process, just 
like their friends in the banking industry who use tricks and traps to 
separate American families from their hard-earned money. This bill is 
nothing more than an attempt to turn the CFPB into the Center For 
Profits and Big Business.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will provide families a 
level playing field upon which to shop for the full range of financial 
products. Nothing is getting banned. Consumers can still choose to make 
bad decisions if they wish, but now they'll have the tools to be better 
informed through the process. Instead of mountains of mortgage 
documents, they'll get a simple-to-read one-page document that they can 
then use to answer crucial questions like, Is this something that I can 
afford? Is this the best deal that I can get?
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the most accountable 
regulatory body in the world. In fact, it has a whole slew of 
regulators watching and questioning everything it does. It is required 
to undergo an annual GAO report; have all enforcement actions subject 
to appeal; and be regulated, in turn, by every other agency on the 
Financial Stability Oversight Council. Simply put, the CFPB helps 
families hold on to the money they might otherwise give to the banks. 
And the banks hate that.
  That is precisely why the majority has thrown this ridiculous bill 
together. Among other things, this legislation would require those 
regulating predatory lenders to stop if their actions threatened the 
company's ``safety and soundness.'' In other words, their profits.
  We heard all about this issue when we banned unreasonable penalties 
on credit cards. At the time, the credit card companies said this would 
absolutely crush their model. Well, look what's happened. Are they 
still alive and well? You bet they are. But the truth is this 
legislation isn't really about any of that. No, this is about the only 
area where the majority has any kind of legislative record: legislative 
delay.
  The anti-consumer bloc in this Congress is engaged in a legislative 
Ponzi scheme. They're helping Wall Street suck a few more dollars out 
of American families before the inevitable happens and the CFPB stands 
up. Every day politicians can stall the opening of the bureau, well, 
that's more profits.
  Today, the CFPB is alive, and I want every American to look at this 
opportunity to call this number. This is a hotline available today for 
you to access if you've got problems with your credit cards; but you 
had better act now because the majority wants to shut it down.
  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. FUDGE. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York, 
Carolyn Maloney.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank my colleagues for raising this issue.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is needed. House Republicans 
have today officially launched their legislative effort to make sure 
these protections will never have the chance to do the job of 
protecting our consumers and safeguarding the larger economy. It is as 
if our friends across the aisle are blind to the painful lessons of the 
Great Recession. It's the group that says let's pretend the recession 
never happened. The Republican strategy to defang, defuse, and delay 
the consumer protection agency ignores critical issues that contributed 
both to the credit bubble and the financial meltdown.
  Deceptive and misleading practices, predatory lending, unsafe credit 
standards--these practices cost Americans dearly. According to the 
Federal Reserve, between 2007 and the final quarter of 2009, United 
States household wealth fell by $16.4 trillion of the net

[[Page H5304]]

worth, and that is terrible. That is a sum that would be more than 
enough to pay for the United States national debt. If the CFPB had been 
in place in 2001, we might have avoided this painful, disruptive 
economic downturn that has hurt our overall economy, our standing in 
the world, and our consumers. We must let the CFPB go into effect to 
protect our economy and protect our consumers.
  I congratulate the gentlelady on her leadership.
  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, in closing, this underlying bill, H.R. 
1315, is trying to gut the reforms we fought for and won in the new 
Wall Street reform law. The CFPB is set to begin work today as the cop 
on the financial beat protecting American consumers and the economy 
from Wall Street greed.
  Republicans want to delay, defund, and dismantle the Dodd-Frank law. 
Make no mistake, Madam Speaker: Republicans want to remove protections 
for consumers and investors. Republicans want to return to a time where 
consumers, investors, and the entire financial system are at risk.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this question of consideration.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I claim time in opposition to the point of order and in 
favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  The question before the House is, shall the House now consider H. 
Res. 358? That is really the question here.

                              {time}  1240

  While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. The 
waiver is simply made up in nature.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has issued cost estimates 
for each of the three bills included in the Rules Committee Print of 
H.R. 1315. The following statements were issued by the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office:
  ``H.R. 1315 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates 
as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the 
budgets of State, local or tribal governments.''
  ``H.R. 1121 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates 
as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the 
budgets of State, local or tribal governments.''
  ``H.R. 1667 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates 
as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the 
budgets of State, local or tribal governments.''
  Madam Speaker, these are the three sections--the bills--which are 
contained within the rule. As we have stated, as a result of what has 
been defined, there are no mandates. There is nothing in this bill 
which would cause the point of order to stand.
  However, my friends on the other side of the aisle have also raised 
concerns about the amount of debate time provided for in this rule. 
Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee takes great pride in its degree of 
openness; and under the leadership of Chairman David Dreier and of our 
Speaker, John Boehner, we have tried to accommodate this request. This 
rule continues that record of accomplishment by making in order 11 out 
of the 14 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. Of the three 
amendments not made in order, one was withdrawn by the sponsor; one was 
not germane to the bill, and one was duplicative of another amendment 
submitted.
  I would also like to note for the record that the bill being 
considered today and every bill included in the Rules Committee Print 
went through regular order. The Financial Services Committee held 
hearings, a subcommittee markup, and a full committee markup of the 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, I see that my friends are trying to make a point of 
order that simply does not exist. In order to allow the House to 
continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote 
``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 173, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 612]

                               YEAS--227

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--173

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano

[[Page H5305]]


     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Bachmann
     Berg
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Butterfield
     Castor (FL)
     Coble
     Conyers
     Costa
     Crawford
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Fattah
     Giffords
     Graves (MO)
     Hanabusa
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Johnson (GA)
     Landry
     Mulvaney
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Rogers (AL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Walsh (IL)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1307

  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina changed his vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. LABRADOR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BERG. Mr. Speaker, on July 21, 2011, I was unavoidably detained 
for rollcall vote No. 612. Had I been present I would have voted in 
favor of the question of consideration of H.R. 1315, the Consumer 
Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 612, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 
my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which 
I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 358 provides for a structured rule, 
designated by the Rules Committee, for consideration of H.R. 1315. This 
rule allows for 11 of 14 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee to 
be made in order.

                              {time}  1310

  Madam Speaker, this rule provides for debate and amendment 
opportunities for members of the minority and the majority to change 
the legislative text of the underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. This legislation, the Consumer Financial 
Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act, was introduced by my 
dear friend from Wisconsin, the Congressman Sean Duffy, on April 1, 
2011. The bill went through regular order, with hearings, subcommittee 
markup, and a full committee markup.
  I applaud my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Financial 
Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama, Spencer Bachus, for 
providing such an open process and an opportunity for all members of 
the Financial Services Committee to participate in reforming and 
changing this bill.
  Additionally, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman 
David Dreier, has once again provided Members of this body with a Rules 
Committee vote to ensure that we have transparency and an accountable 
structure under the rule which we're discussing today allowing Members 
from both sides of the aisle this opportunity to offer amendments and 
to join in the debate of the underlying legislation.
  Today marks the first anniversary that President Obama signed into 
law the 1,300-page unprecedented Federal overhaul of the financial 
services industry, the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform Act.
  I have the opportunity to discuss this bill today, and also I did 
last Congress. And we spoke at that time about its overarching reforms 
that were being made in that legislation. Additionally, I will discuss 
why and how it is bad for our current economy and what with the 
Republican underlying bill will do to protect consumers, ensure credit, 
and allow for economic growth.
  Last year, I stood before this body to state that our friends on the 
other side of the aisle, that they were once again allowing the 
government to overstep its boundaries well into the private 
marketplace. One of the most far-reaching provisions of the Dodd-Frank 
bill that was signed into law last year is the creation of the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, best known as CFPB. The CFPB is a classic 
example of the government unnecessarily crippling its authority into 
the free enterprise system. This massive new Bureau will be led by a 
credit czar, who will have unprecedented and unchecked authority to 
restrict product choices for consumers and impose fees on consumer 
products and financial transactions. Just about any business or 
financial institution who offers any form of credit falls underneath 
the jurisdiction of the CFPB.
  The new bureaucracy would raise costs for consumers. I will say this 
again--will raise costs for consumers. It will reduce the number and 
types of products available to them. It will increase the 
micromanagement of financial services firms and will greatly increase 
the confusion caused by differing and conflicting consumer laws across 
the United States.
  The underlying bill we are voting on today is designed to promote 
greater accountability and transparency at the CFPB, and to ensure that 
the CFPB fulfills its consumer protection mandate without undermining 
the safety and soundness of the financial system. This bill achieves 
this mission by making the leadership structure of the CFPB a collegial 
body, streamlining the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or what 
is known as FSOC, their review and oversight of CFPB rules and 
regulations, and delaying the transfer of functions from other Federal 
regulatory bodies to the CFPB until the date on which the Chair of the 
Commission of the CFPB is confirmed by the Senate.
  This comes, and it is of a great deal of importance since it was just 
this week that President Obama nominated Richard Cordray as the 
Director of the CFPB, which officially begins its oversight of banks 
with more than $10 billion in assets today.
  So no Director, no mission statement, no accountability, no hearing 
in the Senate to confirm the person who would have this extensive 
authority and responsibility.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement 
Act makes three important changes to the current CFPB:
  First, it would change the vote required to set aside a CFPB 
regulation from two-thirds of the FSOC membership to a simple majority 
vote, excluding the Chair of the CFPB. A letter from the American 
Bankers Association, from May 3, 2011, states, and I quote, ``The very 
purpose of the FSOC was to avoid problems that could lead to risks that 
threaten the economy. To ignore the majority viewpoint of the 
regulators with this responsibility is completely counter to its 
mission statement and that of the council.'' This first provision 
ensures that the council carries out the intended mission and goal;
  Second, the bill would clarify that the FSOC must set aside any CFPB 
provision that is inconsistent with the safe and sound operation of 
U.S. financial institutions;
  Lastly, the bill amends Dodd-Frank which provided for the CFPB to be 
headed by a Director to be replaced with a bipartisan commission with 
the responsibility of exercising the Bureau's authorities. This was in 
the original House version of the bill and was changed by the Senate 
during conference.
  In a letter sent by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, dated May 23, 2011, 
the U.S. Chamber expressed support, saying, ``The Chamber strongly 
supports this reform because it would conform the bureau to other 
independent agencies, ensure impartial decisionmaking, minimize the 
risk of regulatory capture, and ensure continued stability over the 
long term.''
  Reforms to the CFPB as it stands are necessary to avoid business 
closures,

[[Page H5306]]

limitations to start-up companies, slower economic growth, and ensure 
that we do not hinder the free enterprise system. These are all in the 
best interest of consumers and our country.
  The underlying legislation ensures that the original intent of this 
legislation is carried out in a fair and unbiased manner to ensure the 
future safety and soundness of our Nation's financial institutions.
  I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the 
underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 
reflection of the Nation's values. It embodies the ideals of fairness, 
accountability, and equality, values that help us define who we are as 
a people. Just as importantly, the CFPB brings accountability and 
transparency to the financial sector and reduces the risk that 
consumers will be sold financial products they don't understand and 
can't afford to buy.
  The CFPB is already hard at work. This agency has started by 
proposing a simplified disclosure of mortgages so the consumers can 
read them--isn't that refreshing?--in plain language, the terms of an 
agreement, before signing on the dotted line.
  Despite this valuable start, today's bill is designed to effectively 
neuter the agency before it can fully begin to serve the middle class. 
In so doing, this bill is a giveaway to special interests in the 
financial sector that fear they will finally be held accountable by the 
law.

                              {time}  1320

  Apparently unchastened by the economic crisis they plunged us into, 
financial firms continue to take advantage of unknowing consumers. Just 
this past year, a robo-signing scandal led to banks foreclosing on many 
families who had done absolutely nothing wrong. These firms will not 
stop trying to take advantage of people unless someone forces them to 
stop. Despite all this, the majority proposes that we weaken the very 
agency designed to protect consumers against illegal practices and 
unfair play.
  The CFPB was launched thanks to the great work of Professor Elizabeth 
Warren and the team of professionals that she has assembled to launch 
the agency. Their work has been tireless and invaluable. Professor 
Warren acutely understands the struggles of American families and her 
words summarize nicely the choice Members of Congress are being asked 
to make today.
  While speaking about the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the 
CFPB, Professor Warren said, ``I remain hopeful that those who want to 
cripple this consumer bureau will think again and remember the 
financial crisis--and the recession and job losses that it sparked--
began one lousy mortgage at a time. I also hope that when those 
Senators and Congressmen next go home they ask their constituents how 
they feel about fine print, about signing contracts with terms that are 
incomprehensible, and about learning the true cost of a financial 
transaction only later when fees are piled on or interest rates are 
reset.
  ``I hope they will ask the people in their district if they are 
opposed to an agency that is working to make prices clear, or if they 
think budgets should be cut for an agency that is trying to make sure 
that trillion-dollar banks follow the law.'' Members of this House 
would do well to remember her words.
  Will we vote today to protect the middle class and the millions of 
consumers struggling to make ends meet, or will this body stand with 
financial lobbyists and leave the middle class to go it alone? In 
strongest possible terms, I urge my colleagues to take a vote that 
reflects our values and vote against this rule we're considering today 
and against the underlying bill.
  Please let's stand up for the American families and help the helpless 
people who are simply struggling to get by despite what we have done 
for them.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, in an encouragement to my dear colleague 
Ms. Slaughter, I would like to inform her that I have fewer speakers as 
a result of committee hearings and would encourage her to run through 
perhaps two of her speakers at this time and then I will be available 
with mine.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, I want to express my objection to 
the rule. The chairman of the Rules Committee said maybe I can get a 
unanimous consent agreement to modify it.
  All amendments are not created equal. This rule gives a total of 10 
minutes for each amendment, five and five. That is simply inadequate--
grossly inadequate--for discussing some of these important issues. 
There are two amendments in particular where I will be approaching my 
colleagues in the majority to see if we can get an extension of time. 
If that is not the case, I will be very, very disappointed that major 
issues here on this important subject of consumer protection would be 
given only 5 minutes on each side. Now let's get to the substance.
  My Republican colleagues have had a little bit of a change of heart 
since last year. When we debated this bill in committee--actually, we 
debated it in 2009 in committee, this particular section--they wanted 
to kill the whole bureau. They were opposed to the notion of an 
independent consumer bureau.
  Understand where we are. Consumer protection has always, until last 
year, been consigned to the financial regulators. Indeed, the largest 
single share of consumer protection was given, of all entities, to the 
Federal Reserve--and it's been, at best, a second thought for them and 
for some a non-thought. And the Republican position during the debate 
on this was: Do not set up a separate agency. Now they say, well, we're 
not opposing a separate agency, we just want to dismantle it, in 
effect. So we will get into the specifics, but let's be clear: This is 
as close as they dare come now because of public opinion to abolishing 
the whole agency. They want to weaken it, and then they will want to 
undercut it altogether.
  Of course, this is the third major assault they've made on the 
financial reform bill. Yesterday in committee, incredibly the Financial 
Services Committee voted to reduce the liability that rating agencies 
will face if they put an inaccurate statement into a prospectus. And if 
you buy that security based on inaccuracies in the rating agencies, 
they want to lessen what we try to give people in the bill as a right 
to sue. And of course consistently the Republicans have voted 
specifically to deny to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the 
funds that they would need to deal with speculation in energy. And Mr. 
Kingston, on behalf of the majority, said speculation's got nothing to 
do with the oil prices. No one believes that except apparently him and 
maybe those Republicans who voted with him. Today there is an assault 
on the most important thing that's ever been done to protect consumers 
in the financial area.
  Now the Republicans have been saying, we're not trying to kill it, we 
just want to make it work a little better. But last year--and I will 
put in the Record statements from about a dozen of the Republicans--Mr. 
Garrett, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Price, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. 
Bachus, many others--making very clear they didn't want the whole 
agency. So this notion that they're just trying to improve it is belied 
by the fact that they tried to kill it.
  But even then, Mr. Bachus sometimes has trouble sticking to his own 
line. Here's what he said this morning on CNBC: ``We're not trying to 
kill it. That has been totally misrepresented. Republicans stand 
strongly behind consumer protection. We, however, think that safety and 
soundness has to be considered. So we don't worry about a Federal 
Reserve or an FDIC, but we do worry about a consumer protection agency 
whose sole goal is to benefit consumers without considering how that 
benefit affects the stability of our financial institutions.'' Well, it 
doesn't go the other way. They don't worry about what the financial 
institutions do to the consumers. But let me read again what he says, 
We do worry about a consumer protection agency whose sole goal is to 
benefit consumers without worrying about the poor banks.

[[Page H5307]]

  What the bill will do will be to put the bank regulators back in 
charge of consumer protection--and these are the bank regulators of 
whom Mr. Bachus, the chairman of the committee, earlier said the 
regulator's job is to serve the banks. So in roundabout ways they are 
trying to accomplish here what they admitted they want to accomplish 
before.
  The consumer agency does not have an aggressive role. It doesn't go 
out there and do things in a positive way; it is a protection agency. 
Now we passed a credit card regulation bill--and many on the Republican 
side were very opposed to that a couple of years ago; it has worked 
very well. One of the main authors, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney), is here. That has helped people, it hasn't hurt them.
  One of the things the consumer agency gets under our bill is the 
power to cover currently nonregulated entities--payday lenders, 
mortgage lenders--who aren't covered. Frankly, that's in the interest 
of the consumer. The Credit Union Federation likes much of the 
Republican bill, but they don't like the part that would slow down the 
takeover of regulation over their competitors.
  Bad mortgages were not just a problem for individuals, they were a 
problem for the whole economy. We want to strengthen the ability to go 
after bad mortgages. They don't want that to happen. So let's be very 
clear: This is a party, the Republican Party, that tried to kill this--
--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, what we have is, as the 
statements that I am submitting show, the Republicans wanted last year 
to maintain the status quo in which the regulators of the banks--whose 
job it is, according to the Republican chairman of the committee, to 
serve the banks--would maintain this. And they worry about an 
institution whose sole goal is to protect consumers. He says, We don't 
worry about the Federal Reserve, we don't worry about the FDIC, we 
worry about an institution whose sole goal is to protect the consumers.
  They do understand that politically it's not a good idea to be fully 
straightforward about their intention--when they would really like to 
repeal it--but what they are trying to do instead today is 
substantially weaken it. And the most important thing they will do will 
be to put back in charge of the independent consumer regulator the very 
bank regulators who historically have not protected the consumer--
because some of them agreed with the chairman of the committee, the 
Republican chairman, that their job was to serve the banks--and it 
would substantially weaken consumer protection. I do not think that is 
the right way to go.

 Excerpts From the Financial Services Committee October 2009 Markup of 
        H.R. 3126, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act


                               Rep. Price

       ``I think more appropriately, this bill would be called 
     `The Restricting the American Dream and Jobs Destruction 
     Act.' And I say that with all sincerity, pointing out that 
     there are multiple, multiple entities that cover literally 
     millions of jobs out there, that have gone on record and 
     said: This is absolutely the wrong direction in which to head 
     at this time, especially this time, a time of remarkable 
     economic challenge.''


                               Rep. Royce

       ``I'm afraid this legislation and the establishment of a 
     product approval agency will create more problems than it's 
     going to resolve, especially with respect to this safety and 
     soundness.''


                             Rep. Manzullo

       ``This is not the time to have additional rules and 
     regulations on products which are already regulated. And 
     then, to take 400 million dollars away from the Federal 
     Reserve, which could have outlawed 327s and 228s and the so-
     called teaser mortgages, it doesn't make sense. This is like 
     cutting the police force by 20 or 30 percent. That's why I 
     have a big problem with why we're even considering this bill 
     when no agency wants it.''


                              Rep. Biggert

       ``What's the answer to the financial meltdown? How do we 
     prevent it from happening again? What's not the answer is to 
     create another federal agency. Allegedly, to protect 
     consumers. We already have the OCC, the OTS, the NCUA, the 
     FDIC and the Fed. The underlying bill would pile 50 state 
     regulators on top of that. Why not address the real problem 
     with these agencies instead of creating another one? Are we 
     creating another agency or a problem? Are we creating a 
     guarantee for consumers that they will certainly never be, or 
     less likely to be, caught up in a bad financial situation? Or 
     a product that they really shouldn't have signed the dotted 
     line for?
       ``No, there is no guarantee.''


                              Rep. Bachus

       ``Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that I believe this 
     underlying legislation creates a new large and expensive 
     government bureaucracy with broad and ambiguous powers that 
     will ration credit and limit consumer choice. The legislation 
     gives this new agency and its czar-like chairman or director 
     the power to impose both fees and taxes on all financial 
     products, which are broadly defined. It is not about consumer 
     protection. It is about creating a financial product approval 
     agency with the powers to review and approve financial 
     products. Real consumer protection must include consumer 
     choice, competitive markets, vigorous enforcement of anti-
     fraud law, effective disclosure, and product innovation. 
     Regrettably, that is not what the Democratic proposal does. 
     Placing broad rule-making authorities in the hands of an 
     untested agency will limit innovation and restrict credit . . 
     . Congress should not create another layer of federal 
     bureaucracy whose mission includes rationing credit and 
     limiting choice.''


                              Rep. Bachus

       ``What we are creating here is a new Financial Products 
     Approval Agency that has the power to review and approve all 
     financial products. That means they have a right basically to 
     fix prices because they may not approve them unless a certain 
     price is agreed to. They could actually set a price.
       They can ration credit, whatever else the credit card 
     legislation did last year and any benefit it had, it has 
     already resulted in people's credit limits being lowered, it 
     has resulted in interest rates going up on account, it has 
     resulted in annual fees being imposed. Consumers today have a 
     broader array of choices, and choice is good. Innovation is 
     good. In fact, I think the greatest form of consumer 
     protection is giving individuals a choice, if they have a 
     credit card and they want to choose a different credit card 
     or drop that credit card.
       This bill is going to limit competition. It is not about 
     enforcing anti-fraud laws. It is not about effective 
     disclosure. It is not about protecting people from unethical 
     behavior.
       It is placing broad rulemaking authority in the hands of an 
     untested agency, one that is going to be created from 
     scratch, one that has no appreciation for safety and 
     soundness, that has no history of financial regulation.
       Now is not the time to restrict choice and credit. It is 
     not the time to start rationing these things. We have seen in 
     health care proposals to ration health care. We have seen 
     instances where the Government wants to come in and begin to 
     regulate the energy and how we create energy and said no to 
     nuclear energy.
       Now we see it in financial services. We are witnessing a 
     broad expansion of Government interference and involvement. 
     None of those things, it was not choice that created the 
     financial crisis that we faced last year.''


                              Rep. Biggert

       ``You know, there is no question that our financial service 
     regulatory structure is broken, and for both consumers and 
     the health of our financial services industry and the 
     economy, we need to clean it up. However, I fear that we are 
     moving in the wrong direction when we strip from the banking 
     regulators their mission to protect consumers; instead, we 
     place the responsibility with a new government bureaucracy.''


                              Rep. McHenry

       ``What we have here is an agency that will restrict credit, 
     will restrict new products from being offered, innovation in 
     the private sector and in the financial marketplace, and in 
     the end, it will hurt consumers, not help them. This is a 
     credit constriction agency, not a consumer protection 
     agency.''


                             Rep. Bachmann

       ``I would also like to add to the conversation that I too 
     support the Biggert amendment, because the CFPA, in my 
     estimation, it would ultimately increase the costs on 
     American consumers and reduce the customized type of 
     products that are available to them, increase costs, 
     reduce the type of products.''


                            Rep. Hensarling

       ``Ultimately, we do not view this as a bill that promotes 
     consumer protection. Ultimately, what we have is a brand new 
     large draconian Federal agency with new sweeping powers that 
     is going to have the ability to declare financial products 
     and services unlawful based on subjective opinions about 
     ``unfairness'' and subjective opinions about what is 
     'abusive.''


                            Rep. Neugebauer

       ``When you look at this bill, we're going to give 
     unprecedented authority to one individual, who's not elected, 
     to really, basically determine whatever kind of consumer 
     protection rule or regulation that they want to put on the 
     books. And they get to do that. You know, the American people 
     send their Members of Congress up here to make those 
     decisions. To look after their interests. And now, we're 
     going to relegate that decision, that empower this one 
     individual to do that. Somehow, I don't think that's in the 
     best interest of the American people.''

[[Page H5308]]

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
majority's attempt to undercut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
just as it is set to open its doors. Yet again, this majority is siding 
with Wall Street, credit card companies and predatory lenders and 
against the interests of the American people.
  Three years ago, we suffered an economic meltdown that was brought on 
by greed, corruption, and well-documented incidents of predatory 
behavior. We are still dealing with the economic ramifications of that 
collapse today. People all across America are losing their jobs and 
fighting for their homes.
  That is why, as part of the financial reforms Democrats passed last 
year, we created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to 
reintroduce transparency and accountability in the financial sector, to 
put an end to predatory lending practices that were abused by the banks 
and mortgage lenders to precipitate this crisis, and to protect the 
public from future malfeasance.
  But now this Republican majority wants to undo all of that hard work 
and put Wall Street back in the driver's seat. The bill eliminates the 
bureau's independence and gives the regulators, who missed the 
financial crisis, it gives them veto power over its actions, all to 
ensure that nothing of consequence gets done to rein in Wall Street.
  In order to promote gridlock and guarantee the bureau is unable to 
curb the abuses that led to the financial crisis, the bill before us 
also removes the position of director and installs a five-member 
commission at the head of the agency, while delaying consumer 
protection authorities until a commission chair is named. This comes as 
Republicans have constantly attacked the bureau's architect, Elizabeth 
Warren, and made clear that they will not approve any nominee for 
director, including President Obama's nomination of Richard Cordray 
last week.
  We are not here to represent the interests of Wall Street, of their 
banks, predatory mortgage lenders, or credit card companies, as my 
Republican colleagues are choosing to do, by smothering this new agency 
in its crib. We are here to represent the American people. That is what 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been designed to do.
  I urge my colleagues, put Main Street before Wall Street. Stand up 
for ordinary, hardworking, middle class families, oppose this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
San Antonio, Texas, a freshman member of this body, Congressman 
Francisco ``Quico'' Canseco.
  Mr. CANSECO. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Duffy, Chairman 
Bachus, and Chairman Capito for their leadership on this important 
matter.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the 
underlying bill with important measures of accountability to an agency 
that currently operates independent of any real oversight. The mission 
of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is indeed puzzling. How 
exactly a government bureau is going to determine what financial 
products are suitable for every American family has never been 
explained. I have great concern that consumer protection is merely a 
euphemism for consumer restriction and consumer control. But equally 
concerning is that this agency currently operates outside the normal 
checks and balances that exist as a bedrock of our system of 
government.
  The director of the agency has enormous influence over family 
decisions regarding credit cards and mortgages, and there currently 
exists an extremely high and nonsensical standard for overturning a 
CFPB rule. The director can set the CFPB's budget every year without 
ever having to appear before Congress. Despite all of this, the person 
appointed by the President to advise Treasury on the setup of this 
agency came before the House Financial Services Committee and called it 
``the most constrained and the most accountable agency in government.'' 
Only in Washington could someone make that claim with a straight face.
  I fully support H.R. 1315, which would replace the single director 
with a more democratic commission and would also require a simple 
majority vote of the Financial Stability Oversight Council to overturn 
a CFPB rule.
  Madam Speaker, the financial crisis did not occur because of a lack 
of rules, and it certainly did not exist because of a lack of Federal 
bureaucracies. Regulatory overkill does not equal effective regulation. 
It means fewer jobs and higher unemployment.
  The last thing we need is an unrestrained agency adding more 
uncertainty to our economy and destroying our ability to grow the 
economy and create jobs. This legislation will help remove the threat 
to economic and job growth that the CFPB currently poses.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the great leader from New York State for her 
leadership on this committee and in this great Congress, and for 
fighting every day for the American people and New York State.
  Madam Speaker, 1 year ago today, President Obama signed into law the 
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This 
landmark law helped restore faith in our institutions and markets, 
helped our economy, and helped consumers. Yet on this historic day, my 
friends on the other side of the aisle are doing everything they can to 
defund, defang, and derail the important consumer protection office.
  Now, what is this office supposed to do? It is going to make prices 
clear to consumers, risk clear to consumers, and make markets work for 
the American middle class families. We need this independent office.
  For too long, no one was looking out for consumers and we paid dearly 
for it in the financial crisis. But now with the CFPB, everyone who 
takes out a student loan, everyone who takes out a mortgage, everyone 
who takes out any financial product will have a financial consumer 
protection agency on their side.
  And we need this protection. Just yesterday, it was reported that one 
of our largest institutions received the largest fine ever, $84 million 
for illegally pushing borrowers into subprime mortgages--10,000 
Americans in this suit alone--for falsifying loan documents. If a CFPB 
had been in place, that could have helped the 10,000 people.
  Let me tell you I'm calling this Republican bill: Let's just forget 
that the financial crisis ever happened. Let's just forget the pain 
that it caused to people and the painful lessons of the great 
recession.
  These practices cost our country dearly. According to the figures 
from the Federal Reserve, between the spring of 2007 and the first 
quarter of 2009, U.S. household wealth fell by about $16.4 trillion. 
That is pain to the overall economy and to American families. That is a 
sum that would be more than enough to pay off the entire U.S. national 
debt. And if the CFPB had been in place in 2001, we might have avoided 
the most painful and disruptive economic downturn in our lifetime.
  We must fight to keep this in place to protect consumers. I believe 
when it comes to great recessions, once is more than enough. Let's stop 
these practices that hurt consumers. Protect our overall economy and 
protect our people. The American people agree: 73 percent favor it; 93 
percent favor it. The American people favor the CFPB. We should let it 
open its doors to protect consumers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady.
  If there is a problem with the Dodd-Frank bill, it is that it was 
passed 2 years after, rather than 2 years before, the Wall Street 
meltdown. That was a catastrophe. It was so bad that one of the most 
conservative Presidents in the history of this country came to Congress 
with the Goldman Sachs Secretary of the Treasury asking Congress to 
authorize $750 billion to bail out Wall Street's collapse.

[[Page H5309]]

                              {time}  1340

  That was an avoidable situation. The reason it collapsed is because 
of the fact that the only problem worse than no regulation or little 
regulation is no regulation at all. And that's what Wall Street had 
enjoyed. The heart of the crisis were these subprime mortgages that 
were loans to people who had no documentation, no ability to pay them 
back. They were sold and peddled not because there was even an 
expectation that they would be paid back, but they were sold to the 
mortgagees so that they could then be sold off to investors. This was 
the architecture of catastrophe. And the American economy is still 
reeling from it.
  The tradition of regulation in this country goes back to Teddy 
Roosevelt, the Republican ``trust buster,'' who understood that the 
public had to be protected, who understood that with proper regulation 
you set fair rules for business to operate that level the playing field 
for those good banks to do what's right, to do it in the light of day, 
to provide protection to consumers who are busy with their own lives 
and don't have time to go over all of the forms.
  This consumer protection agency is absolutely essential to providing 
fairness to consumers and security in their transactions, to protect 
them from unscrupulous activity that does and can occur, and it's 
important to our banks and our financial industry that want to play by 
the rules and do it the right way. This is very important legislation. 
We must defeat the, in effect, repeal and retraction of Dodd-Frank.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Only a year ago, Republicans were using every trick in 
the book to stop any Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And you 
know, they never really stopped. The party of Wall Street bailouts, of 
Big Bank buddies, remains determined to deny our families basic, 
effective protection from credit abuses.
  The lyrics of Grammy Award Winner Steve Earle, who grew up in 
Schertz, on the edge of San Antonio, ring true for so many families. 
``You go to school and learn to read and write, so you can walk into 
the bank and sign away your life.'' Well, so many families were 
deceived in taking out mortgages or a credit card or a payday loan on 
terms in the fine print that only the big lenders understand. Many of 
these families were counting on a home, on a job, on a retirement plan, 
or maybe with their credit card, just to put clothes on the kids and 
food on the family's table.
  Nobody was there to protect them from the tricks and traps that some 
creditors used to enrich themselves and to fleece consumers with loans 
with incredible interest rates. In too many of these transactions what 
were once known as ``loan sharks'' can today legally ply their trade.
  If you're mugged on the street, you can lose your wallet. But if 
you're mugged on Wall Street, you can lose a lifetime of savings. 
That's why we need this new squad of financial cops whose sole job will 
be to protect those who borrow from abuse.
  With foreclosures at near record highs in San Antonio and in Austin, 
now is not the time for a retreat by consumer law enforcement. Oppose 
this latest Republican attempt to roll back the power of the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau and oppose the effort to take cops off the 
beat when we need them the most.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, if I had to stand up here 
and defend weakening consumer protection in the area of financial 
activity, I wouldn't be too eager to do it either. So I understand the 
absence of discussion here.
  Let me make one general point. When we legislate, you have to take 
history into account and what the balance is. The argument essentially 
of the Republican Party here is--and I wish it weren't partisan, but it 
is. They have made it partisan, not us. The position of the Republican 
Party is that there is a serious danger that we will overprotect the 
consumer. That the Federal regulators will do too much for the 
consumer. That's an extraordinary fear indeed to have. That's not a 
fear. It's a phobia. It is based on unreality.
  The fact is, as we've seen this now, we were able to get that 
legislation enacted with the brilliant work of Elizabeth Warren, whose 
nomination did not come as it should have, although I very much admire 
the man who was nominated, Mr. Cordray, but what we had was an unusual 
moment because the irresponsible practices of many, not all, in the 
financial community--and by the way, let me repeat: Much of the problem 
came from the unregulated, not from the financial institutions. And one 
of the things we do in this bill, which is supported by the Credit 
Union National Association, is to cover the unregulated so that 
community banks and credit unions which did not cause this problem are 
protected from the pressures of unfair competition by the unregulated. 
But what we had was an unusual moment in which there was a great deal 
of public awareness of the need to deal with this. So we were able to 
get an independent consumer agency through, over the unanimous 
opposition of the Republican Party.
  But as things go forward, the average citizen has got other things to 
worry about. So what we'll see is the bank lobbyists and the nonbank 
lobbyists and all the people who represent these mortgage lenders 
already trying to erode things. Apparently, my colleagues would like 
people to believe that they seriously think that the danger is we will 
protect the consumer too much. I defy anyone to show me a moment in 
American history when we did too much to protect consumers in the 
financial area. What we try to do here is to put something in place 
that will go against that overriding tendency to underprotect the 
consumer. And the Republicans say, Oh, no, we're for consumer 
protection. We're not trying to abolish this agency. Yes, they are.
  Let me cite the bill they sponsored last year. The gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) supported the bill. What it did was, it would 
take the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, extend it 
to 14 members. It would put on there for consumer protection a whole 
range of Cabinet officers and others. And it would give them the power 
to study this issue. But it is very, very clear that this council would 
have no power.
  Here's what it says. This is the Biggert bill that was submitted 
instead of an independent consumer agency with enforcement powers. Page 
5: No provision of this subsection shall be construed as conferring any 
enforcement authority to the Council. Here's what it does to come to 
the aid of the beleaguered consumer. It sets up a hotline. I don't know 
what movies they've seen, but I can't remember one where a hotline rode 
to the rescue of the imperiled.
  So they establish a toll-free hotline and Web site to contact 
regarding inquiries or complaints related to consumer protection. And 
what does this powerful council do with this important hotline? It 
refers the inquiries of complaints to the appropriate council member. 
You know who your council members are? The bank regulators, the Federal 
Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency. So instead of having an 
independent agency--and yes, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Bachus, 
said, We think that safety and soundness has to be considered; so we 
don't worry about a Federal Reserve and FDIC. They had no interest in 
the fact that they underprotected consumers and allowed consumers to be 
abused, historically. We do worry, Mr. Bachus says, about a consumer 
protection agency whose sole goal is to benefit consumers without 
considering how that benefit affects the banks, because he believes the 
regulators are there to serve the banks.
  So here's the Republican plan. It takes the bank regulators, you 
throw in a few other Cabinet officers, you get it to an unwieldy size. 
You let them do studies, and you let them set up a hotline. You let 
them set up a hotline. What a powerful tool. And when things come in 
over the hotline, they then refer them back to the very same bank 
regulators who failed to do this. Now, that's what they really wanted.
  We were able to get this passed. And they know it's popular. They 
understand what the public thinks. The public does not think that the 
poor banks

[[Page H5310]]

need to be protected against these rapacious consumers. So they come up 
with--instead of repealing it outright--with ways to weaken it. We 
ought to reject this because this particular bill is a proxy for what 
they really want to do--abolishing the whole agency.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'm going to have to stand up for what we're here for today, and that 
is, Madam Speaker, that after this bill was passed, it took almost one 
year for the President to appoint the person who would run the CFPB. 
The person who runs the CFPB is required to have Senate confirmation. 
During Senate confirmation--and it's a process that takes place for 
senior administrators who run our government--during that period of 
time this person who is nominated by the President would be expected to 
come in on behalf of the agency as a result of understanding their 
mission statement and the things that they do and would be expected to 
come to the United States Senate and to express their ideas. This is a 
brand new agency. How it would be run, what their mandate would be, how 
they would manage the assets and resources not only of the agency but 
how they viewed that mission statement vis-a-vis the industry.
  The President took a year to nominate this person. That person has 
not even begun their hearings. I think, and this is what Republicans 
think, and this is what our bill says today. I know the gentleman, Mr. 
Frank, said, Oh, no, Republicans have something far greater and bigger. 
It's that they don't want this agency. Well, perhaps we don't want the 
CFPB. Perhaps we don't. But that's not what we're here today saying. 
We're here saying that until that head of that agency has a chance--a 
brand new agency--has a chance--after all, it's taken a year to come 
and speak forthrightly to elected officials that are called Members of 
the Senate to answer questions about how they would run this agency, 
what the philosophies should be, what the intent of the agency is, how 
the interaction between other agencies really should be done, what they 
think of the law, and what they see their job as being. Those are 
important issues. And so Republicans are saying we should not move 
forward on that until such time as we are able to go through that 
process. So that's really what Republicans are here for.
  I know there are a lot of people listening and watching and think 
there's something sinister about Republicans. This is common sense. 
Republicans are here talking about an agency that will have broad and 
almost unlimited access to the marketplace. To overregulate, if you 
look at the possibilities. And we're trying to say before we kick this 
thing off, let's make sure we have an idea of what the leader would 
say. Otherwise, we should go to a group of people who will run this, 
not just one.
  So that's what we're here to do today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, Madam Speaker, I want to reassure 
the gentleman from Texas I don't think he's sinister. I think he is 
opposed to effective consumer protection. I think he and the other 
Republicans, some of them believe--the chairman of the committee--that 
the regulators are there to serve the banks. I do believe that they 
were opposed to it last year. And I appreciate his honesty, his 
approach towards openness when he said perhaps they're against it. 
Perhaps they're against it. They understood it would be a bad idea to 
go all out to try to weaken it.
  But let me respond to his point about confirmation. It's bogus, Madam 
Speaker. He said we're just trying to hold this up until there's a 
confirmation. But 44 Republican senators have announced that they will 
not allow any confirmation to go forward--they will filibuster it, and 
they have more than the 40 they need to do that--until the agency is 
weakened. They have said they will not allow it to go forward until we 
allow the bank regulators, who Republicans think are there to serve the 
banks, can overrule this. And they weren't just saying that about 
Elizabeth Warren. Forty-four Republican senators contradicted the 
gentleman from Texas. He talked about this wonderful confirmation 
process. It can't happen because 44 Republicans have said until we give 
in and weaken the agency, they won't confirm anybody.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's perspective 
of looking into my brain and knowing what I think or talking about how 
44 senators override what I'm saying. I would tend to offer the 
argument that as we near now the August recess, they had every 
understanding that the President, without this person going through 
hearings, having to come to Congress, to the Senate, to talk about and 
go through these hearings, that the President would just offer a recess 
appointment. In other words, bypassing exactly what we're talking about 
should happen, and that is where this brand-new nominated person, after 
a year, waiting until just a few weeks before the August recess.
  Madam Speaker, what we're saying is we're not going to allow, in the 
Senate, the 44 Senators saying they're not going to allow a recess 
appointment where this person is appointed, nominated, and just gets it 
done because the Senate is gone. We're not going to allow him to skip 
out of coming and having to be thoughtful and talking about what he's 
going to do as the head of this CFPB.
  So to say that 44 Senators really are trying to do the wrong thing or 
that I'm here trying to suggest something different is not true. We 
believe that this new agency must have the person who's going to head 
it to come to Congress, be forthright and open to hearing questions and 
responding back. I think that's open, honest, transparent, and 
legitimate. And if the President waited a year, he should expect that 
we would probably have an opinion that we would not want a recess 
appointment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from New York for yielding.
  Tomorrow will be yet another Friday without a paycheck for 15 million 
Americans, and this is the 198th day of the Republican majority. It is 
the 198th day that they've brought no legislation to the floor to 
address the jobs crisis and create jobs for the American people. Now 
most of those 198 days, they've ignored the problem.
  Today's bill is a curious approach to the problem that I think makes 
it worse. Americans painfully remember what happened in the fall of 
2008 when the big banks started to go under and slip under. People's 
401(k) accounts melted, people's home equity disappeared, and to this 
day most Americans' homes aren't worth nearly what they were worth in 
the fall of 2008. Foreclosures went up, jobs went down, and people's 
hopes went out the window.
  The predicate of today's bill is the reason that all happened is 
there weren't enough regulators watching the banks. Or, excuse me, the 
predicate of today's bill is that there were too many regulators 
watching the banks. I had it backward because it's so obvious.
  You understand that today's bill starts from the presumption that the 
problem here is that there were too many people watching what the banks 
did to make sure they did the right thing by the country. I think 
exactly the opposite was true.
  I think the fact that these banks could take money insured by the 
taxpayers under the FDIC and gamble it on credit default swaps was 
wrong; I think the fact that they could sell junk bonds masquerading as 
valid mortgages was wrong; I think the fact that they charged 
extortionist credit card interest rates was wrong; I think the fact 
that they papered over loans for people who never should have gotten 
loans was wrong. And the problem was not that their hands were too 
tied; the problem was that they were being ignored by the regulators.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate the gentlelady.

[[Page H5311]]

  So I would just say to you that after 198 days of essentially nothing 
on jobs, they now bring to the floor a bill that says, let's fix the 
jobs problem by having fewer regulators watch the big banks.
  There are very few people in America who think the problem is the 
banks didn't have enough regulators. Unfortunately, almost all of them 
are in this Chamber on the Republican side of the aisle.
  I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. My friend is unfair to the Republicans, 
because they do create more jobs in this bill. The CBO says this bill 
will cost $71 million because instead of the single administrator, they 
want to create four more bureaucrats, with more staff. CBO says this 
will cost $71 million.
  So, in fact, there are some jobs they're going to create. They will 
be for bureaucrats who can dilute the activity of the consumer bureau.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I respectfully would correct the 
record and say the Republicans have not created no jobs; they've 
created four, for four more bureaucrats who will ignore the abuses the 
banks are predicating on the American people.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from 
Birmingham, Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I've been listening to the debate on the 
floor, and although this was concerning the rule, there have been a lot 
of false claims lodged against what this legislation does.
  It does not gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is not 
anti-consumer. It is not an attempt to repeal Dodd-Frank. It does three 
simple things, and all three of those things, Mr. Speaker, the 
Democrats were for before they were against. These are all proposals 
that they have made. We all know who the person who first proposed the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is. I think all of the Members of 
this body would say it was Elizabeth Warren.
  What did she propose? She proposed a bipartisan commission. She did 
not propose the end result of Dodd-Frank, which was an unaccountable 
czar. A five-member board is done for almost every other agency, the 
exceptions being the EPA and the OCC. With both of those, the OCC is 
accountable to Congress because it is part of the Treasury Department, 
and is subject to OMB. The EPA is a Presidential appointee, a Cabinet 
member. He has to be confirmed. Not only that, he has to come to the 
Congress for appropriations. There is no accountability on the part of 
this body.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I will yield to the gentleman to just answer this 
question: Was a bipartisan commission proposed by Elizabeth Warren? 
That's number one. Then you can respond to it or ask me a question. My 
number one question: Did she propose a bipartisan commission?
  Number two, is that what you introduced into the House, saying that 
that was the fairest approach?
  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, I would say the Comptroller of the 
Currency, which is in the Treasury for administrative purposes, is 
legally independent, and the Secretary of the Treasury has no right to 
interfere. The Comptroller of the Currency is not subject to 
appropriation; so the Comptroller of the Currency is even more 
independent.
  Mr. BACHUS. That doesn't sound like a ``yes'' or a ``no.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman made a statement. I am 
ready to get to it. Do you want me to answer?
  Mr. BACHUS. Yes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. You made a statement about the 
Comptroller of the Currency, a statement which I thought was 
inaccurate, and I wanted to correct it.
  Now, as to Elizabeth Warren, yes, that's what she originally 
proposed, and I decided and others on our side decided that this would 
be more effective. We thought, after listening, that the five-member 
commission wouldn't work as well, particularly with the Senate refusing 
to confirm with the 44 Senators.
  Mr. BACHUS. That's right.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So, yes. We listened, and we decided it 
would be a stronger agency.
  Mr. BACHUS. I reclaim my time.
  What the gentleman said is, yes, that's what Elizabeth Warren 
proposed. Then he said, yes, that's what I introduced. Then he said, 
but I decided at some point that we would rather have an unaccountable 
czar because we want him to do whatever we want him to do.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman will state 
his point of order.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I won't quite ask for them to take my 
words down, but the gentleman just simply misstated, blatantly, what I 
said. He said I want a single accountable czar. He was not quoting me. 
I said I wanted a single person.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It is that the gentleman misstated my 
words quite clearly, and I believe they should be taken down if he is 
not ready to rescind them.
  Mr. BACHUS. I will change my remarks. He said a single director, who 
doesn't have to come to Congress for an appropriation. The second thing 
we do is we have an appeal process, or a review process.
  Now, if I could have the second slide, what we have asked for is what 
you said you gave us; but this legislation--I won't say who--created a 
sham review process, and we want a realistic review process. We don't 
think any single person ought to be able to dictate a rule without any 
accountability.
  So what do we do? What is set up in Dodd-Frank?
  Seven out of the 10 regulators have to determine that any one rule 
will endanger the entire financial system--one rule. In other words, it 
takes seven of President Obama's 10 appointees to say that it would 
bring down the entire financial system. How would one rule ever do 
that?
  What we say is it endangers the safety and soundness of our financial 
institutions. That's all we do. That's all we do.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas 
how many speakers remain on his side.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the question.
  I have no further requests for time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to inquire as to how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this rule and this bill will 
do nothing but get in the way of the important work of an agency 
designed to help consumers who are being taken advantage of by 
unscrupulous lenders. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is not 
even up and running yet. There is no reason to think it won't work 
exactly as intended. Is that what the majority is afraid of?
  Are they afraid that CFPB will make prices clear? that they will make 
terms and conditions clear? that they will ensure that mortgage 
disclosures are short, relevant and understandable by the consumer and 
the lender?
  Are they worried about letting consumers shop for the best product at 
the lowest price? to help consumers understand the true cost of a 
financial transaction? that a cop on the beat will make sure the 
largest financial institutions in this country are following the law?
  If that's what they're afraid of, then we don't want to join them, 
Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' 
on the underlying bill so that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
can do its job without Congress getting in the way.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, Congress has an opportunity today to 
ensure that we protect consumers and American business. Additionally, 
we have an opportunity to ensure the safety and soundness of financial 
institutions in the United States. That's what we are also here to do.
  Reforms to the CFPB are necessary and, I believe, timely. Congress 
must

[[Page H5312]]

and has a responsibility to do everything that we can to encourage 
economic growth, jump-start the free enterprise system and put 
Americans back to work. Growing our economy and slowing Federal 
spending will be the best way that we can work together to get our 
economy back on track, to get out of rising debt and also out of the 
financial malaise that's underway. This legislation provides for some 
of these necessary steps.
  I applaud my colleagues. I thank my colleagues also on the Republican 
side who were here to not only defend what we're doing but to talk 
about the need for such action. This bill that we are facing here today 
has the support of the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, 
the chairman of the Rules Committee, and I applaud them for providing 
such an open and transparent process. I also encourage a ``yes'' vote 
on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________