[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 110 (Thursday, July 21, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5317-H5348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF
2011
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 358 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1315.
{time} 1522
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, and for other purposes, with Mr. Poe of
Texas in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia.
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, a year ago, the President signed into law the most
sweeping financial regulatory reform package in nearly a generation.
The centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank Act was the creation of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau. While there was nearly unanimous agreement
that improvements were needed in the regulatory structure for financial
services and consumer credit, we as Republicans did not agree that the
best answer to the problems was creating an entirely new bureaucracy.
No legislation is perfect, and Dodd-Frank is a law that needs to be
improved and refined. The legislation before us today marks an
important step
[[Page H5318]]
in improving the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
I would like to thank both Chairman Bachus and Mr. Duffy for their
leadership on this issue.
The creation of the CFPB presents the first time in which consumer
protection and safety and soundness regulation will not be handled by
the prudential financial regulators for institutions over $10 billion
in assets. While we do not disagree that many of the prudential
regulators failed to uphold their responsibilities in the years leading
up to the financial crisis, there is a legitimate concern in separating
consumer protection from safety and soundness.
This is why H.R. 1315 is a much needed improvement to the Dodd-Frank
Act. The act gives the Financial Stability Oversight Council, also
known as FSOC, the ability to override a CFPB rule or regulation.
However, the threshold is set so high for the FSOC to consider the
overturning of a CFPB rule or regulation that, in reality, it will
never happen. Furthermore, a two-thirds majority of the FSOC is needed
to overturn the rule or regulation once the petition is filed. This
simply sets the bar too high and further exacerbates the problem
presented by separating consumer protection from safety and soundness.
This is Mr. Duffy's bill, and it will lower the threshold for
petitioning the FSOC to ``regulation which is the subject of the
petition that is inconsistent with the safe and sound operations of
United States financial institutions,'' and will require a simple
majority of the FSOC to overturn a CFPB rule or regulation. This is a
critical improvement to the CFPB that will ensure that CFPB regulations
strike the balance between consumer protection and safety and
soundness.
The Rules Committee Print also includes two bills that the Financial
Services Committee has reported favorably. The first represents an
important change to the leadership structure of the CFPB that will
provide greater stability in leadership and moderation in rulemaking.
As we have seen over the last 9 months, the current leadership
structure provided for the CFPB is subject to toxic political fights.
Individuals and groups from across the political spectrum have
advocated for whom they believe to be the ideal candidate and, in some
cases, the only acceptable candidate. This is not good for consumers,
and it is not good for the legitimacy of the agency.
Rather than a single director, we are advocating for a five-person
commission. This strengthens the leadership of the CFPB in two ways.
First, a commission provides greater stability in leadership. We are
all aware of the challenges in the Senate's ability to approve
nominees. A commission where the individual commissioners are staggered
in their terms will provide greater stability by ensuring there is
always some form of leadership at the CFPB. A commission will also
provide greater consistency, not only in rulemaking, but also in
administration. I fear that a single director will set up a situation
in which the leadership of the CFPB will be subject to the variances in
ideology from one administration to another when the director is
appointed. Consumers stand to lose the most if we have a situation in
which the directorship of the CFPB swings back and forth between the
extremes of the political spectrum.
Finally, H.R. 1315 includes legislation that I introduced to prevent
the transfer of full powers to the CFPB, which should begin today,
until there is a Senate-confirmed director or chairman in place.
Personally, I think this is really good government. We are talking
about an agency that is sailing into unchartered waters without a
captain of the ship. It is irresponsible to proceed without a leader
confirmed by the Senate. In conclusion, I know that the creation of the
CFPB is a source of great passion, and I look forward to discussing
these bills. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to one of
the leaders on this committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters).
Ms. WATERS. First, I would like to take a moment to thank Barney
Frank for his leadership in establishing one of the most important
pieces of legislation that has ever happened in the Congress of the
United States of America, and that is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 to create a Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau.
I am so pleased to have been able to serve, not only on the Financial
Services Committee, but on the conference committee that worked through
all of the difficulty of creating this bureau to give protection to
consumers who had been forgotten, who had been dropped off of the
regulatory agency's agenda, who had not been protected because they
simply said that they had the responsibility for safety and soundness
and that they didn't know much about consumer protection. They failed
on both, but our consumers have been harmed.
Mr. Chairman, the CFPB is needed because it is very clear that our
current regulatory framework inadequately protects consumers. Just look
at the wrongful foreclosures on veterans, the robo-signings on
foreclosure documents, the 500 percent interest rates on payday loans.
The list of abuses goes on and on and on.
This bill would undermine the CFPB by creating a commission instead
of a director, making it easier for the Financial Stability Oversight
Council to override CFPB rules and to delay the transfer date for the
CFPB until there is a director confirmed by the Senate. In short, this
bill would bring us back to the days when harmful financial products
and practices went unchecked and when consumers paid the price in the
form of high interest rates, predatory subprime mortgages, and bad
credit card bills.
{time} 1530
We've seen what happens when our banking regulators are tasked with
both consumer protection and bank safety and soundness
responsibilities. The pro-bank, anti-consumer stance wins every time.
That's why we created CFPB, to make sure the consumer voices aren't
shouted down by the industry and that an independent agency is beholden
to consumers and not CEOs.
A strong regulator, one which focused solely on consumer safety and
championed simpler disclosure and products, could have prevented the
current economic crisis and the ensuing foreclosures, bankruptcies, and
defaults. Preventing the CFPB from doing its work, as this bill would,
would only hurt America's consumers and turn our economy upside down. I
oppose this bill.
Mr. Chairman and Members, it is evident what was needed, and it is
inconceivable that at this point in time we could have legislation that
would undermine the good work of the conference committee of the Dodd-
Frank legislation that is in the best interest of all Americans, all
consumers.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 6 minutes to the
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bachus), and I thank him for his leadership on this bill and many
others.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, what is this awful thing that Republicans
are bringing before the Congress today? This monstrosity, the Democrats
have called it, is an attack on consumers. Well, it is a proposal that
was first brought to us by our Democratic colleagues, and that was to
have a bipartisan commission to protect consumers. That is what we're
being attacked for today, a five-member board.
Now, all of us in this body are for consumer protection. Our voters,
our constituents are all consumers, and we're all for protecting them.
We're also for protecting our financial institutions and our economy.
And we need a balance. So how do we achieve that?
Well, the Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, who is the originator of this
consumer protection commission, back in 2007 proposed a Consumer
Protection Product Safety Commission. In 2008, the Consumer Federation
of America proposed a financial product safety commission. Senator Dick
Durbin, acting on their recommendations, introduced, in 2009, a
consumer protection commission with a director and a board.
Then the then-chairman of the committee, in July of that year,
introduced a bill, a five-member board. The Energy and Commerce
Commission followed that a few months later with what? A five-member
commission.
[[Page H5319]]
Then Senator Dodd issued his draft discussion. What did he propose? A
five-member commission because it needed to be bipartisan, it needed to
be balanced.
But what was passed out of this body, really, after three nights of
amendments and sessions that went all day? Well, what came about was an
unaccountable czar--one person. The Dodd-Frank bill put a single
Director in charge, and it gave him unmitigated discretion to issue
rules, to ban financial products, to determine what products would be
offered. Whether you're a borrower, whether you're a lender, whether
you're a consumer of financial services, or whether you offer financial
services, he will determine or she will determine what those services
will be and the terms of those services.
So what is wrong with that? Well, let me say this: In America, do we
give one person the power to do whatever they want to regulate every
product and service that we are offered or that we can accept or that
we, as a company, can offer? That sounds to me like a government
command and control economy with the government making choices that we
make. So for that reason, we've been attacked for proposing a five-
member bipartisan commission instead of an unaccountable czar.
The pattern from my Democratic colleagues continues to be: We're
going to put one person in charge of an agency and we're going to let
them make all of the decisions, and that way there will be no real
review of those decisions. People can either take it or leave it. It's
up to the government. The government controls everything.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want George Washington, I wouldn't
want Abraham Lincoln, I wouldn't want Mother Teresa to have that kind
of power. That, to me, is not what a democracy is about. And if you
look at the person, who is he appointed by? He's appointed by the
President of the United States. There's no input from Congress. Not
only can he determine all of these problems, but his funding, he
doesn't have to come to the taxpayers or their representatives for
funding. He doesn't have to come to the Congress to get funding. He's
totally unaccountable.
Now, Mr. Chairman, how in the world is proposing for the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau the exact same model that the FDIC is set
up with, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities
Exchange Commission--all of these are commissions. All of them are
bipartisan. They basically ensure that no one political party, one
agenda or one person, will make decisions for every American every day.
But that's what has been created.
And the monster is not the bill that we bring forward. The monster is
the bill that you've created. You took a good idea and you ruined it.
You took a good idea that was all about consumer protection and you
converted it into a one-man show where one person could control every
financial product or every offering in America. It could ban any
product. It could say to any American: You cannot enter into that
financial agreement. It could say to every American: You can't make
that financial decision.
And, Mr. Chairman, that is un-American.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes.
I am really appalled at the gentleman saying it's un-American. We
ought to be able to disagree more civilly than that.
And the gentleman made a misstatement when he said we took a good
idea and ruined it. If it was such a good idea, Mr. Chairman, I have to
ask the gentleman why was he opposed to that good idea?
He's making a big deal of the fact that we switched our view after
listening to people. After having hearings, we made a change. That's
why we had hearings. And we decided after a lot of debate that the
model of the control of the currency, a single individual appointed by
the President, without being subject to appropriation, was a better
model for the consumer agency. So does Elizabeth Warren. So does
everybody else who supported it.
The gentleman from Alabama said, That was a good idea and you ruined
it. But the gentleman from Alabama was opposed to it when it was a good
idea. The gentleman from Alabama was, all of the last 2 years, opposed
to the notion of an independent consumer agency.
So he makes a point of stressing, yes, we decided after hearings that
a single individual would be better than a commission. He said: How can
you make such a change? Well, he made a change that dwarfed the
trajectory of ours. He went from being opposed to it to now telling us
retroactively that it was a good idea. But even then, today, on
television, he said: We have concerns about an agency whose sole
mission is to protect consumers unless they worry about the banks as
well.
{time} 1540
There's one other point I would make: There are three parts of the
bill. He took the only one he thought he could defend to talk about
because this bill would also put the bank regulators back in charge,
and it would say that the part of the bill that would give us powers
over the nonbanks, over the payday lenders and the mortgage lenders,
which their bill retards, he didn't talk about that. So I will admire
his discretion.
Of the three parts of his bill, he only talked about one. He didn't
talk about putting the bank regulators, who he said are there to serve
the banks, back in charge and allowing them to veto the consumer
agency; and he didn't talk about their proposal to postpone until we
get a Senate confirmation, which the Senate minority said they wouldn't
allow to happen. They will filibuster, so it will postpone the new
powers.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bachus), the chairman of the committee.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I never voted for a stand-alone consumer
protection financial bill and I never voted against it because it was
never offered. What was offered was a 2,400-page extravaganza which
hires about 10,000 new Federal employees to enforce rules that weren't
enforced in the first place. And I have consistently said let's enforce
the rules we have and not just hire more regulators and create more
rules.
As you know, we offered a bill which did have several protections.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 30 seconds to correct the
latest misstatement.
The gentleman from Alabama did, in fact, vote against this. This
wasn't just voted on in the final. He appears to have forgotten, we had
a markup in committee just on this bill, and the gentleman from Alabama
voted against a free-standing consumer agency, whether it had five
members or not.
So he said it was a good idea which we ruined, but he voted against
it. He did vote against the individual one. And the Republicans offered
a substitute, which took 14 officials, made them a council, gave them
the power to run a hotline, and said, if anything came in over the
hotline, they'd send it back to those bank regulators, who he says are
there to serve the banks, and they would be the ones to deal with it.
I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we are still feeling the effects of a crisis that
largely came about because the referees who oversee the soundness of
our financial system were not on the field. We took the referees off
the field. As a result, millions of Americans are still out of work.
But while Democrats have worked to restore proper oversight to Wall
Street, Republicans want the referees off the field again, and that
would put us all at risk. This legislation puts the special interests
ahead of the public interests by weakening the very entity that shields
responsible consumers from financial abuses.
Last year, Congress passed an important Wall Street reform bill in
order to prevent a job-destroying financial crisis from happening
again. And one of the most crucial parts of that bill was the creation
of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a watchdog, a watchdog
that would look out for the interests of ordinary Americans who want to
sign mortgages, apply for student loans, and start businesses on honest
and fair terms.
[[Page H5320]]
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is empowered to ensure that
lenders provide clear, plain-language explanations of loan terms and to
help stop the kind of abusive and deceptive loan practices that helped
drive our economy off a cliff. If such protections had been in place in
the last decade, the odds of a crisis occurring would have been
significantly less.
And I want to tell my friend from Alabama, he said that there was no
congressional involvement. In fact, of course, the President does
appoint, but it is with the advice and consent of the Senate so that
the entire Senate, as is normal, is involved in this appointment.
The Republican legislation that we have on the floor today would make
it much easier to overturn these consumer protection rules. It would
make the people's watchdog far weaker at a time when they are needed
more than ever. This legislation is part of the Republicans' stated
goal to dismantle Wall Street reform, protecting special interests but
leaving Americans unprotected from another crisis.
Removing America's defenses when we have not even fully recovered
from the last crisis is a new level, in my view, of irresponsibility. I
urge my colleagues, think of what we have been through; think of our
responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again; think of our
responsibility to make clear that the interests of your constituents
come first, and vote this bill down.
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I really am just amazed at the hyperbole of the
dismantling and the ruining of the agency and the weakening of the
agency. The Bureau will go forward with all of the consumer protections
that it's empowered with in the Dodd-Frank bill. The original intent
was a commission. We go back to a commission.
Let me just tell you, the President has had an entire year to
nominate this very important person to lead this Bureau, and it wasn't
until the beginning of this week, Monday, did he finally get around to
it. What kind of signal does that send? At least to me, it sends a
signal that it really isn't all that important to have that person
there Senate-confirmed, as the minority leader said, with the oversight
of the United States Senate.
And let's talk about the Financial Services Oversight Commission.
There are 10 people on there. I am going to go through them quickly
because I don't want to use too much time.
Secretary of the Treasury, he's confirmed; Chairman of the Federal
Reserve, Bernanke, he's confirmed; Director of the CFPB, somebody was
nominated 4 days ago, empty; Chairman of the FDIC, Acting Director, a
nomination, but nobody confirmed; Controller of the Currency, Acting
Director, no one confirmed; Chairman of the NCUA, confirmed; Chairman
of the SEC, confirmed; Chairman of the CFTC, confirmed; Director of the
FHFA, Acting Director, no nominee; and he just nominated the insurance
specialist. Five of the people on this 10-person commission are not
even permanently----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CAPITO. No, I will not.
So I say to myself, what kind of priority is this administration
putting on this marquis part of the Dodd-Frank bill?
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), our
vice chair.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her for
her leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, already we know that in America we are looking at 9.2
percent unemployment. Since the President told us if we would pass his
stimulus plan, $1 trillion, unemployment would never go beyond 8
percent, and now he is presiding over the longest period of high
unemployment since the Great Depression. We just got the statistics
since they've been keeping them. It now takes almost 10 full months for
somebody unemployed to find a job. One in seven are on food stamps. The
fewest new business starts in 17 years.
This economy is not suffering so much from a lack of capital; it is a
lack of confidence, and a lack of confidence primarily in the policies
of our President and the previous Congress. Part of that lack of
confidence is attributable to Dodd-Frank and this CFPB which, yes, does
have some wonderful consumer protection powers but also has historic
draconian powers to ration and ban consumer credit for families and
small businesses.
Yet here it is, as the gentlelady from West Virginia, the
subcommittee chairman, pointed out, almost a year later that only now
has the President seen fit to appoint some type of Director.
The lack of confidence in these policies is what is keeping jobs and
capital on the sideline. It is incumbent upon us to return that
confidence.
So, yes, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is,
yet again, another jobs bill. We need to say, You know what, small
businesses in America? There is not going to be one czar who controls
consumer credit. We're at least going to have a panel representing both
primary parties in the United States.
{time} 1550
And, by the way, at least now somebody will have to consider safety
and soundness in what this bureau does. I mean, the people who are
telling us don't worry about it are the very same people who told us
don't worry about safety and soundness when it comes to Fannie and
Freddie. Come on. It's all about consumers. It's all about
homeownership. Let's roll the dice. Don't worry about safety and
soundness.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we have to worry about safety and soundness.
American small businesses are worried about safety and soundness. It is
time to bring some confidence. It is time to bring some certainty so
that we can get our friends, our neighbors and our constituents back to
work, because they don't want welfare checks; they want paychecks. And
this is one small step we can take today to provide that certainty.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 15 seconds to say the
gentleman from Texas talked about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but he
doesn't do anything about it. The majority has been the majority since
January.
The gentleman from Texas filed a big, tough bill about Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac a year ago. He has sat sweetly and quietly by while his
majority has ignored it and taken no action on it. The Republicans
always talk tough about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they're in the
minority, and then they get in the majority and they choke.
I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Lynch), a leader in fighting, in particular, against speculation and
the abuse of derivatives.
Mr. LYNCH. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
advocacy on behalf of the American consumer.
The Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
with the sole purpose of ensuring that financial markets work for, and
not against, American families. It established a single director
empowered with a singular mandate which is simply to protect the
consumer.
This bill, H.R. 1315, seeks to weaken the CFPB on the day it opens
its doors for the first time in two important ways. First, it would
make it more difficult for the Consumer Protection Bureau to act by
replacing the director with a five-member commission.
As has been shown, a single director with executive authority and who
is directly responsible to the American consumer is better suited to
act quickly to address problems in the consumer financial markets, and
he or she will be directly accountable to Congress for the bureau's
actions.
On the other hand, a five-member commission creates another
bureaucracy that would be both less effective and less accountable to
consumers. A five-member commission would also, in this case, cost
taxpayers an additional $71 million.
To offset the cost of these commissioners and their staffs, we're
being asked to use the money from a Federal Housing Administration
program created to help responsible Americans who have continued to
make mortgage payments refinance their underwater homes. According to
Mark Flemming, the chief economist for the property research company
CoreLogic, underwater mortgages are a primary factor holding
[[Page H5321]]
back the housing market and the economy as a whole.
So instead of working to solve this problem and boost our economy,
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided that our
money is better spent unnecessarily expanding the bureaucracy at the
CFPB.
H.R. 1315 would also make it much easier for the same regulators who
in many cases were captured by the industry that they oversee and who
fell down on the job in the lead-up to the financial crisis, to now
overrule the CFPB. These regulators proved that they were not capable
of ensuring the soundness of the financial system while simultaneously
protecting American consumers.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois
(Mrs. Biggert), a leader on our Financial Services Committee and
chairman of the Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity
Subcommittee.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1315, which
would prevent the most visible legacy of the Dodd-Frank Act from also
becoming the most costly and regrettable.
Today's legislation will provide the new agency with accountable
leadership, proper oversight, and a much needed check against bad
decisions. American consumers don't need more bureaucracy to stifle
innovation and raise costs. We need regulators to understand that the
job isn't just to layer on expensive new rules. It's about educating
consumers and preserving a vibrant and competitive financial market
that provides affordable and innovative options.
Unfortunately, the current structure of the bureau is subject to
virtually no oversight from Congress or anyone else. And unlike other
agencies, even the Consumer Product Safety Commission on which it is
modeled, it is led by a single czar who has unprecedented power.
Even more dangerous, the Financial Stability Oversight Council must
agree by a two-thirds majority before they can overturn a rule imposed
by the CFPB, even if that rule threatens to imperil our economy or shut
down a financial institution.
Mr. Chairman, our commonsense reform adds a few more voices to a
panel that is supposed to protect all consumers, not just those favored
by the political powers that be, and it creates a reasonable process to
overturn bad or inconsistent decisions.
Mr. Chairman, these reforms will help protect consumers and ensure
that the government doesn't stand in their way.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be
joined by so many leaders on the Financial Services Committee.
I now yield 3 minutes to one of them, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that I was a strong
supporter in our committee for the creation of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau and remained a strong supporter of the bureau and its
mission. The reason I did that was because all of these regulators had
within their authority a consumer protection initiative. Unfortunately,
that consumer protection obligation was subordinate to other
obligations that each of the regulators had.
So when we started talking about this, I kept saying to them, look,
we need a consumer regulator that has as much authority as and the
least cumbersomeness of any of the other regulators. So if you're going
to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, don't give the other
regulators authority to reverse them unless you give the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau the authority to reverse the other
regulators. Now, if you think that's fair, do it both ways.
This is the only agency that ended up with the other regulators, the
Federal Reserve, the OCC, the FDIC, having the authority to reverse
them; and we were able to restrict it to things that were in their
jurisdiction. If it was a systemic risk that the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau was creating by promulgating a rule or regulation,
then we thought it was fair to have them police what the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau was doing.
But I don't know of any reason that we would create a child of an
agency to deal with consumer protection when we don't have a child of
an agency dealing with other aspects of the regulation in our financial
services industry.
So for me, this is just about parity. Give this agency equal
authority and oomph as the other agencies had. And we are not asking
that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be able to overrule the
Federal Reserve when it makes a decision. We're not asking that the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be able to overrule the OCC when
it makes a determination. Neither should we be allowing those other
agencies, the FDIC, the OCC, the Federal Reserve, to overrule the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when they are not acting within
their authority.
{time} 1600
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the author of the
bill, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), and I thank him for his
hard work on this issue.
Mr. DUFFY. I want to take a moment and thank Chairman Bachus and
Chairwoman Capito for their hard work on this legislation and for their
drive to make sure that this bill came to the floor today.
All of us in this House agree that we want consumer protections,
where any one of our friends or family members, our neighbors and our
constituents, when they deal with a financial institution, they are
dealt with in a fair way and in a transparent way. Our reform here to
the CFPB does exactly that; it advances that very same cause.
I want to talk about a couple of the components of this bill. One is
we are moving this from a director to a bipartisan commission. I think
it's important to note that my friends on the other side of the aisle,
when they first crafted this bill, the ranking member, they included a
bipartisan commission. And the President, when he talked about this
bill, he was in favor of a bipartisan commission. And now all of a
sudden today, as we have brought this back up, they are now opposed to
a bipartisan commission.
I think it's important that we note that today you may have a
Democrat President and you might like the recommendation for the
Director of the CFPB, but if I'm going to project in the future, I am
one to guess that I bet at one point in our future there will be a
Republican President, and you may not like his appointee.
Let's come together. Let's not regret this moment. Let's come
together and make sure we have a bipartisan commission that is going to
work on behalf of consumers, because this isn't a Republican or
Democrat issue, it is truly an American issue that should be dealt with
on a commission level.
One other key component of our legislation is the review standard of
rules that come from the CFPB. The way it is set up right now, the only
way a rule can be overturned is if we are going to have Armageddon in
the financial industry. And so the only one that can have a rule
overturned is a big bank on Wall Street, one who is too big to fail.
The way it is currently written, you have given a voice to those
people who helped cause this financial crisis. You know what? I'm not
from Wall Street, I am from small town, rural Wisconsin. We don't have
big Wall Street banks, we have small community banks and we have credit
unions. The way the current bill is written--not mine, the one that's
in existence today, the current law--it doesn't give a voice to the
people in my community if a rule that comes out from the CFPB is going
to affect them negatively.
And you know what? On Main Street, the very people who had nothing to
do with the financial crisis, who haven't been given a voice--but will
if my bill passes--those are the people who deal with our small
business owners, with our family members, people who are looking at
expanding their business, growing their business, creating jobs in our
community. They rely on community banks and credit unions for loans,
and they don't have a voice. I don't understand that. And then the same
people that we look to when we want a mortgage for our home or we want
a car loan, it's these people we look to, and they have been left
voiceless in the current law. But my bill gives a voice to Main Street
America. I have to say, the point I don't think can be made
[[Page H5322]]
clearer with those who support my bill. I don't have big Wall Street
support for my bill, but I'll tell you what support I do have. I have
the Community Bankers of Wisconsin, I have the Wisconsin Bankers
Association, I have the Independent Community Bankers of America,
American Bankers Association, I have the Consumer Bankers Association.
All those who are about small community banks that deal with customers
support this reform.
We go a step further. We have the Wisconsin Credit Union League, the
Credit Union National Association, and the National Association of
Credit Unions, all people who didn't have any role in this financial
crisis, all people in our communities who are looking out for consumers
because if they don't, they don't survive in small town America, and
they all support this reform legislation.
I would encourage all of my colleagues to jump onboard and support
commonsense reform that is going to strengthen consumer protection and
provide great oversight for a very powerful agency, and it's going to
hold it accountable.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 30 seconds to say, first
of all, the gentleman made one more flat misstatement when he talked
about car loans. Car loans are exempted from this. This is an example
of the failure to understand what we're really talking about.
Secondly, he does have Wall Street support for this bill. I think he
mentioned the American Bankers Association. And this notion that the
community banks aren't involved is just nonsense. As a matter of fact,
the community banks are favored here because the Consumer Bureau is
given the right to examine banks of $10 billion in assets or more, but
it cannot examine the credit unions and the community banks. So that
was a recognition that he ignores.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Miller), who has been a leader in trying to fight for decent
mortgages.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I also disagree with the gentleman who
just spoke. The reason that all of the Republicans want to talk about
whether the commission ought to be five members on a commission or one
director is that's the only part of the bill that really can be argued
one way or the other. I mean, there are arguments one way or the other.
I think it will be a much stronger agency if there is one director, but
everything else in the bill really cripples this agency before it can
even take hold.
And I also disagree with the argument that everybody here wants to
protect consumers. No, they do not. We saw what happened in the last
decade, we know who was doing it. It was the most powerful industry in
America, and they were making a ton of money by cheating consumers,
cheating consumers on credit cards, cheating consumers on mortgages,
cheating consumers on overdraft fees, and on and on. And we've heard
the same arguments about this that we heard a century ago. A century
ago, when Theodore Roosevelt pushed for pure food laws, the meat
packers said, do you want government to take away your right to buy
meat? Do you want government to take away your freedom to buy beef from
diseased animals or spoiled beef? And the American people said yeah,
that's exactly what we want. We want to know what we're getting. And
Americans want to know what they're getting in financial products too.
Do they want to lose the freedom to get a subprime loan when they
qualify for a prime loan? Yes, they do. Do they want to have a credit
card, to know what they are getting in a credit card? Yes, they do. Do
they want to know what's really in their overdraft fees? Yes, they do.
They want to know that there is somebody with their interests at heart
who is reading all that fine print that the banks' lawyers wrote to be
good for the banks, profitable for the banks, and let the consumer have
no idea what's in that little print in the legalese. Yes, they want
someone, a strong agency reading that fine print with their interests
at heart and saying, no, you can't do that; you can't cheat consumers
that way. That's what this agency does, and the American people want
it.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining,
please.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Conaway). The gentlewoman from West Virginia
has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has
13\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. CAPITO. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds
first to say that I am sorry the gentlewoman from West Virginia
wouldn't yield to me, but there was a lot of talk about switching
positions. The gentlewoman from West Virginia, along with every other
Republican then on the committee, voted against this. She now says she
wants it to go forward. So I will take ``yes'' for an answer. I am glad
that my Republican colleagues, having opposed an independent consumer
agency, I think maybe for tactical purposes, but for whatever, are now
all for it. So as we go forward, I will accept their conversion.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for all he has gone through in the last couple of years
so that people understand that we do need some regulation.
{time} 1610
Now today, my friends on the other side--and I mean that--the stock
market hit its highest point since 2008. Isn't that wonderful? And yet
we are at 9.2 percent unemployment.
Well, I looked at the Treasuries. They're doing very fine. They're
doing well. But Main Street isn't; and that's what consumer protection
is all about, Main Street. No question about it.
We don't want to go back. We don't want to go back to 2007 and 2008.
Why? Because the conditions that led to the mess we have now, we don't
want those conditions to exist now, and that's what we've been trying
to correct, particularly over the last 2 years.
Now, here's the consensus, whether you are a European financial
person or someone in the United States, here's the consensus: Dodd-
Frank puts us more on a level playing field with regard to capital
reserve, with regard to too big to fail. Regardless of what we are
talking about, we are oceans ahead of our European partners and our
allies in addressing these issues because we're addressing the causes
of the financial meltdown in the United States and in foreign allies.
And if it wasn't for the gentleman from Massachusetts, and the
gentleman from Connecticut at the other end of the building, we
wouldn't be where we are today, and we'd be saying: Let's go back; we
want things to be like they were in 2007 and 2008. Well, things were
not good.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. PASCRELL. In a book by James Stewart, ``How False Statements Are
Undermining America,'' he zeroes in on the Madoff situation which
became a poster child. No one else has been really brought before us.
No one else has really suffered for the pain they provided to the
middle class and to Main Street people. We don't want to go back. We
want different rules, and regulations do have a part in it. And the
person who is struggling day in and day out needs our help.
They don't need it. It doesn't matter who the President nominated,
you'll turn it down. It's this bureau you want to destroy, not the
nominee.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say today is a nice day,
but we have 9.2 percent unemployment. It is not a day that I want to
keep repeating when there are so many people out of work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Hurt), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. HURT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 1315. A year ago today,
the President signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law, a 2,300-page bill
with 400 new regulatory mandates that have created an atmosphere of
economic uncertainty that has stalled job growth in Virginia's Fifth
District and across the country.
[[Page H5323]]
The centerpiece of this law was the formation of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, a massive government bureaucracy with
unprecedented authority and little to no accountability.
H.R. 1315 will add much-needed oversight to this far-reaching new
government agency. These checks and balances will help reform CFPB to
protect small community banks and credit unions, like those in central
and southside Virginia, from unnecessary and excessive government
regulations. These community financial institutions play a critical
role in providing capital to our small businesses and families as we
all work to get our economy back on track.
At a time when far too many Fifth District Virginians and Americans
remain out of work, we must continue to support policies that will help
restore certainty to the marketplace, grow the economy, and create
jobs. I urge the body to pass this bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the former chair and now
ranking member of the Small Business Committee, and she is the best
protector of small businesses in the Congress.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank Ranking Member Frank for his commitment and
balanced approach to protect consumers in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1315.
My first question is: Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
really have that short a memory? It was just 3 years ago when regulator
indifference resulted in the single largest loss of middle class
prosperity in this Nation's history, costing over $3 trillion in this
country. In fact, we have spent the last month debating the need to
raise the debt ceiling not because of the war in Iraq, not the stimulus
plan, but because of the massive bailout needed as a result of
regulators turning a blind eye to unfair and unsafe lending practices.
You can go to any community in any part of this country and see the
collateral damage resulting from Wall Street playing fast and loose
under the disinterested watch of Federal regulation. In Brooklyn, one
in eight mortgages is in serious delinquency or foreclosure. It was
this type of dire situation that our working families were left with
that necessitated, demanded that we act and create the CFPB. By
consolidating all financial protection within the umbrella of CFPB,
every American is given the peace of mind that someone is watching out
for their interests, not some financial institution's bottom line.
Unfortunately, the legislation before us today will create a
completely unmanageable regulatory process, once again leaving the
average American in financial limbo. I am not willing to go back to
those days and neither are the 200,000 seniors in New York City who
will be without protections should this legislation pass.
Vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's not allow the very regulator that
stood by and did nothing, while trillions were stolen from Americans,
do nothing again.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the other side that
we're not changing, taking any powers away from the CFPB. We're not
reforming any of the reach of the CFPB. We are simply looking at the
accountability structure of who is going to be governing the CFPB.
The gentlewoman from New York was very helpful in committee when we
amended the commission to have one commissioner particularly looking at
specialty issues concerning veterans and elderly and children, and I
thank her for her input on that.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), a
great member of our committee.
Mr. GRIMM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am almost at a loss for words when I hear that we are
taking away the protections for our seniors, and we're weakening this
and we're weakening that. This is simply a commonsense approach to
reforming the CFPB and correcting the bureaucratic overreach of Dodd-
Frank.
Specifically, this bill, very, very simply, replaces a single
director model with a five-member bipartisan commission. A bipartisan
commission, that's what this bill is doing. A commission has several
advantages over a single director. For example, a commission will
drastically decrease uncertainty over the rules issued by the CFPB. As
the bureau is currently structured, a new director can unilaterally
reverse the decisions of his or her predecessors. Such dictatorial
power will do nothing but increase uncertainty in our markets, reduce
credit access to businesses and consumers; and that stifles job growth.
Today, we have unemployment at 9.2 percent. We must stop the job-
killing, economy-crushing policies that have come out of Washington,
and that's why I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1315.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, I yield myself 30 seconds to say I
understand many of the Republicans objected to the financial reform
bill because it was too long; but apparently even a much shorter bill
was too long for the gentleman from New York. He got up to talk about
this bill and then mentioned one-third of it. That is only one-third of
the bill which he talks about as if it is the whole bill. It goes
forward to give the bank regulators the power to overturn the Consumer
Bureau. It delays the takeover of some of the powers. So when a Member
can't get through a 4- or 5-page bill, I understand why they are
confused by something that is more complex.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
Mr. PETERS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding and
for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, imagine a wave of arson attacks was burning down houses
and businesses across the city. And then imagine if the city council
responded by trying to delay and water down new laws making arson a
crime, refused to appoint a police and fire chief, and gutted funding
for public safety. Well, I know that sounds farfetched, but that's
exactly what the Republican majority is doing in the aftermath of the
2008 financial crisis.
It was everyday American consumers who suffered most from the
financial crisis through job losses, foreclosures, declining home
values, and decimated retirement accounts. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act was designed to address fundamental
weaknesses in the financial regulations that keep our economy safe.
{time} 1620
The centerpiece of this law is the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, a new agency tasked with putting consumers first, not Wall
Street or other special interests.
The bills we are debating today are part of a coordinated effort by
the Republicans to let Wall Street go back to business as usual. They
have been trying to delay the implementation of these new rules. They
have been gutting funding for the agencies that are supposed to be the
cops on the Wall Street beat. And they are refusing to allow qualified
nominees to even be considered for appointments.
This bill is called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Improvement Act, but it has nothing to do with improving the agency.
This bill would make it easier for special interests to block or delay
CFPB rules. The American people are sick and tired of gridlock; yet
this bill only offers more of the same.
In the example of the fires breaking out across town, ask yourself,
Mr. Chairman, who would you blame after the next building burned? Would
it be the understaffed police who failed to catch the arsonist or the
ill-equipped firefighters who failed to put out the fire? Or would the
responsibility lie with the politicians who failed to give them the
tools that they need in order to do their jobs?
I urge my colleagues to stand with consumers and oppose this
legislation. We need to make sure the law takes effect and keep
fighting to implement the reforms needed.
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee and
chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT. I congratulate the chairman of the full committee, the
chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin for the
good work done on, really, a commonsense piece of legislation before
us.
[[Page H5324]]
Earlier, I heard the ranking member from Massachusetts comment about
the partisanship here. He said something like, well, we didn't make
this partisan; they did it. Well, I remind the chairman that his
underlying piece of legislation, the Dodd-Frank piece of legislation,
actually had more Democrats vote against it than it had Republicans for
it. And he was the one that actually pushed through a bill in an
extremely partisan manner, and that's really why we're here today.
I believe that the agency we're talking about, the CFPB, is really a
one-stop shop to basically allocate credit and give the government the
power to direct and control the economy. At the same time they're
talking about consumer protection, what are they doing? They're
separating safety and soundness from it. How can you have consumer
protection when you're separating safety and soundness?
I also remind the ranking member, who originally was the sponsor of
Dodd-Frank--the bill that has his name on it, that bill that is going
to destroy so many jobs in this country as pointed out once before--
that he was in favor of the same type of legislation that we have
before us today on the floor. So, basically, this is once again a case
of where the ranking member was in favor of it before he was against
it. So operating under that logic we are hearing from the other side,
if the bill today weakens the agency, then the bill that the gentleman
introduced originally would actually destroy the agency.
Now, I've heard the ranking member during his debates do what he
always does when he doesn't have the facts or the law on his side: He
attacks and he twists other people's motives. He knows that he was
essentially supportive of the elements of this bill today by offering
these provisions himself before to get through the House, but today he
comes out against it. Basically, he accuses everyone on our side of the
aisle of trying to kill his legislation.
But I remind him to consider his own statements. The ranking member
has claimed over this past week that the most important piece of the
Dodd-Frank bill is the risk retention section of the legislation.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. GARRETT. So he says on the one hand that the risk retention is
most important; then he turns around and says that any loans with 4
percent down payment should be exempt from risk retention. I don't know
very many loans that are at that level. So I find it surprising that he
is attempting to exempt everyone from what he claims is the most
important portion of his bill instead of accusing everyone else of
attempting to destroy this job-destroying bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman from Massachusetts think
before he speaks on the legislation and then come out in support of the
same legislation that he once supported in the past.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia has 4 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, the gentleman from New Jersey more
consistently misstates things that I said. I suppose it's kind of
flattering that he hangs on my every word. I just wish he didn't hang
askew on my every word. He said I should be supporting this
legislation. In fact, the gentleman from Alabama said it. Once again,
listen to what they say on the other side.
This has three pieces. It has a single member versus a commission.
More importantly, it increases the ability of the other bank regulators
who have an historic terrible record of consumer protection and who the
chairman of the committee, Mr. Bachus, says are there to serve the
banks. It would put them in a better position to cancel the work of the
CFPB. The gentleman from New Jersey said I've supported this. I've
never supported anything remotely like that. The gentleman from New
Jersey knows that. I have no idea why he would do that, except for
this. And yes, I will impute some motive.
Of the three parts of the bill, the only one that they think won't be
very unpopular is the one about a single director versus a commission.
But, again, the gentleman said, oh, I misstated that or that I was in
favor of something last year. No, I was never in favor of those parts
of the bill.
By the way, as to the risk retention, I did say you could get the 4
percent if you also had a very good debt-to-income ratio and loan-to-
value ratio.
So the pattern of misstatements of what I said, it's flattering that
the gentleman is so interested in what I say. I did not ever support
putting the bank regulators back in charge. In fact, I will say this
about the gentleman from New Jersey. He's more clear about what he
really believes.
Again, I hope the gentlewoman from West Virginia, when she closes,
will tell us. She voted against this last year. She now says, oh, we're
not trying to undo it. Well, has she switched her position?
The gentleman from New Jersey was very clear. He doesn't really like
this, and he voted against it and he would abolish the whole thing.
That's what we are saying, that people who voted against it last year.
He says we made it partisan. No. When the vote came up on this, they
all voted against it. I wish that wasn't the case, but they had voted
against it because they didn't want an independent consumer agency. The
chairman of the committee said it again today on television: We don't
worry about the FDIC or the Federal Reserve. We worry about an agency
whose sole mission is to protect the consumer without worrying about
how the banks work.
And then we had the performance by the gentleman from Wisconsin,
again, talking only about one part of it and claiming, oddly it seemed
to me, that this somehow hurts the small banks versus the bigger banks.
In fact, the small banks are given preference with regard to who gets
examined.
And in terms of the ability to overturn rules, no, it's not simply--
and this is one of the things some people may misunderstand. Things
that threaten the system might be the action of one particular entity
like AIG, but they could also be a pattern like subprime loans,
particularly subprime loans issued by nonbanks. This bill regulates,
for the first time, those nonbanks.
So let's go back over this. Ms. Warren came up with this. And I do
want to address the single member versus commissioners.
The one issue they have found, it was originally proposed by Ms.
Warren, and I introduced the administration's bill to make it a
commission. We had hearings. We had conversations. Every single
consumer group that we dealt with--and the gentleman from Wisconsin
mentioned all his supporters. There wasn't a single consumer group
there. The AARP just came out against their bill, as have all of the
consumer groups--the Consumer Federation, et cetera. They persuaded me
that a single member would be better than a commission. I acknowledge
we had hearings. I listened to people who were for it.
So here's the debate. We have everybody who voted against
establishing this in the first place, who are against it in principle,
who think we should leave it to the bank regulators, they want a
commission. We have everybody who supports the entity as an independent
consumer protector, therefore, a single member. I listened. I was
persuaded. So, yes, I will acknowledge having changed my position based
on the evidence.
I will repudiate, once again, the gentleman's inaccurate suggestion
that I was for the other parts of this. No, I was not. I think putting
the majority of the bank regulators able to overrule virtually anything
doesn't work.
And the proof of that? The Republicans offered their own version last
year, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). It created a 14-
member council, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, a
bunch of others, and they were empowered to set up a hotline. If they
got things from the hotline or the Web site that were complaints about
the banks, what did they do with them? They sent them to the very
financial regulators who have failed to do things in the past.
{time} 1630
That's where we are. That's what they preferred. They opposed then,
and I believe continue to oppose, an independent regulator whose
primary role is the consumer.
[[Page H5325]]
As the gentleman from North Carolina pointed out, they want to give
the FDIC and the other bank regulators the ability to cancel what the
consumer regulator does, but it's not reciprocal. If the consumer
regulator thinks that the bank regulators have been too lax in not
protecting consumers in what they still have, that's not reciprocal. It
is very clear. They have never liked consumer protection.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that they do the banks a
disservice. I stress again that the banks were not the problems here,
particularly the community banks and the credit unions. They apparently
think that if banks have to protect consumers, they will fail. That's
unfair to the banks.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few points in
closing.
First of all, I want everyone to understand that nothing in this
package weakens or changes the ability of the CFPB to make rules and
regulations for consumer protection.
Now, the ranking member was criticizing me for trying to change
something that I didn't support. Well, guess what: I'm a realist. This
is law, this is now a part of our government, and my chore is to try to
make it better. If I wanted to get rid of it, I'd be sitting here
arguing for a bill that totally dismantled the entire Bureau, but I'm
not doing that and neither are my colleagues, because we accept the
reality that the Bureau is going to exist, and we want to see it exist
in the best form. That's why we're trying to make changes to it.
We can argue back and forth about whether a commission or an
individual director is better or not. We believe a commission is
better. Their original bill stated that. There are others on the other
side of this building who believe that to be true as well, to mirror
some of the other regulatory bodies that we have in the financial arena
and other arenas.
I find it a little bit amusing that the ranking member keeps saying,
well, you're only talking about one section. So let's talk about the
other section, the ability to overturn a rule that's been promulgated
by the director of the CFPB. He says we're trying to make it so that
those rules can be overturned. Well, guess what: His bill makes you
able to overturn the rules. He voted ``yes'' on that and so did
everybody else who voted for this bill. So the concept of overturning a
rule and a regulation is reality. It's already in the bill. We're
simply saying, if you're going to have a rule that says you can
overturn a rule and a regulation, or a law that says that, let's make
it workable. Their standard is the whole safety and soundness of the
entire financial system. Please. What rule could possibly do that? I'm
sure there's one out there, but I'm not sure what it is. We've got to
get over some of the over-exaggerations of what we're trying to do here
today.
The last part of the bill is actually my bill, and that is saying
that I don't think that we should be turning over the reins of the CFPB
to a single person. Number one, I don't agree with that. But if I
accept reality--remember, I said I'm accepting reality--if it is one
person, like it's written, then let's make sure that the intent of that
is a Senate-confirmed person. That's the way it's written in the law.
It's a Senate confirmation. I'm saying in my part of the bill, I don't
like the fact that we're going to throw everything into this Bureau and
have somebody who's not been confirmed overlook this, and then we don't
have the oversight that we have as Members of this Congress.
Those are the three sections of this bill. None of the provisions
that we're talking about destroys consumers' ability to be looked after
by this Bureau. None of this bill undoes any of the bureau's ability to
undo deceptive and abusive practices. We certainly think that that's a
laudable goal. We don't like the way it's maybe been constructed, but
we lost that fight. The reality is this Bureau is here, and so let's
make it better. Let's make it better for the consumers, because this is
who we're talking about.
I've had strings of people in my district, before our committee,
saying, we can't hire people because there's too much uncertainty.
There's a regulatory structure here in the financial institutions that
we don't understand, we don't understand what it is, we don't
understand what it's going to mean, and it's constraining our ability
to help small business owners, and that's constraining our ability to
grow jobs in this country.
That's what we're talking about today. We're talking about getting
back up on our feet, weeding through this bureaucracy, and making sure
that the financial institutions that are the heart and soul of this
country can grow the jobs, grow the economy, and get people back to
work.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 1315, the Consumer
Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011. This
bill is merely the latest attempt by my Republican colleagues to
undermine American families and consumers, joining a distressing series
of efforts including stripping health insurance from children, ending
Medicare, and removing protections for clean air and clean water.
Congress has been in session for nearly 200 days this year and
Republicans have so far failed to enact any legislation that would
create jobs in America.
A year ago today, I rose in support of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, to end taxpayer bailouts of big
banks, to improve consumer protections, and to strengthen the rules
governing the financial sector. Among the most important of these
protections was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB), whose purpose is to protect consumers from the worst
abuses of the financial industry. Today, on the one year anniversary of
its enactment, my Republican colleagues are trying to defang this
critical agency, putting the economy at risk of the very same practices
that caused the financial crisis.
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is led by an independent director
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It will write
rules for consumer protections governing all financial institutions--
banks and non-banks--offering consumer financial services or products
and oversee the enforcement of federal laws intended to ensure the
fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit for individuals
and communities. The CFPB will unify responsibilities that, prior to
its creation, were spread across seven different government entities,
providing consumers with an accountable and powerful advocate.
H.R. 1315 seriously weakens the CFPB and the protections it provides
for our families. Some of my specific concerns include:
The legislation requires a director be in place before the CFPB can
take any action. With Republican Senators committed to filibustering
any nominee to head the new agency, this requirement effectively stops
any action the CFPB might take, putting the financial security of
families at risk;
The legislation seems motivated by a desire to deny the history of
regulatory failure that contributed to the financial crisis, granting
these same regulators the power to block CFPB rules; and
H.R. 1315 compromises the independence of the CFPB by expanding the
Financial Stability Oversight Council's authority to set aside CFPB
rules and regulations, significantly impeding the agency's ability to
protect American consumers.
Professor Elizabeth Warren famously remarked that it is, ``impossible
to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames
and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance an
existing home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance of
putting the family out on the street.'' H.R. 1315 badly undermines
consumer protections and allows financial services companies to
continue engaging in the abusive practices that put millions of
families on the street and threatened the global financial system.
H.R. 1315 is deeply misguided, repudiating important protections for
consumers, and I urge my colleagues in opposing this reckless bill.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1315, the
Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of
2011.
Today is the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act. It is also the first official day of work
for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
For the first time, the United States will have a financial regulator
whose sole purpose is to protect consumers. From now on, there will be
a cop on the beat watching out for predatory lending practices and
unfair fees. Scam artists taking advantage of seniors, young people,
and our men and women in uniform will be stopped. And, it will prevent
honest businesses from having to compete with unscrupulous ones.
It will help consumers across the country get a fair deal.
I recently spoke with a young man in Hawaii who this agency's work
would have helped. He was sold a $700,000 home at age 19. He
[[Page H5326]]
worked in construction and, at the time, business was booming. He was
told by his lender that he qualified for the loan and that everything
would be fine. He was inexperienced in purchasing real estate and
trusted that the lender had his interests in mind. He was wrong. He no
longer has that house, and today that young man's credit is so damaged
that it will take him years to rebuild it.
This happened all over the country, and our economy is still reeling.
But you wouldn't know that based on the legislation we are considering
today. In fact, this bill seeks to limit the independence and
effectiveness of the CFPB before it ever gets up and running.
First, it gives the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC),
which is primarily made up of the heads of the federal financial
regulatory agencies, significant authority to block CFPB regulations.
The FSOC's role is for the heads of these agencies to work together to
identify and address serious risks to the whole economy--their primary
responsibility is not consumer protection. This bill would reduce the
threshold of votes required to overturn a CFPB rule from two-thirds to
a simple majority and prevent the CFPB's director from voting.
Second, it replaces the single, independent CFPB director with a
``collegial'' commission. According to the Committee's report on this
bill, such a structure is necessary for a better functioning agency.
However, the Committee report fails to point out that the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve Board, and other financial
regulators are ``collegial'' commissions. Before the economic crisis
these ``collegial'' bodies all had consumer protection responsibilities
in their portfolios--but too often, those responsibilities fell to the
bottom of the to-do list. The Federal Reserve was given the authority
to regulate mortgages in 1994--but it took them 16 years to rein in
risky loans.
Last, in a prime example of Washington double-speak the bill prevents
the CFPB from taking over the consumer protection authorities of these
other agencies until it has a Director. That is odd given that this
very bill eliminates the Director position in favor of a commission.
Proponents of this measure say these changes are for the ``safety and
soundness'' of the financial system. ``Safety and soundness'' in this
case is really code for ``what's good for Wall Street's profitability
is good for consumers.''
We all know that's not true.
Congress gave the CFPB sole responsibility for consumers so that
other regulators will be able to focus on their primary jobs. The
simple fact is that this bill would help reinstate regulatory gridlock
and silence the voices of consumers--the opposite of what Dodd-Frank
intended.
We have to remember that the cause of the crisis wasn't too much
regulation--it was too little. I strongly oppose this legislation, and
urge my colleagues to vote against it as well.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I don't think it's lost on anyone in this
House that today is both the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform law, as well as the first day the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) created by that law officially begins its work
on behalf of American families. And so it is disappointing--although
not very surprising--that the majority would choose to bring a bill to
the floor designed to undermine and delay this vitally important
independent watchdog for American consumers.
Specifically, H.R. 1315 would invite gridlock at the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau by replacing its current Director with a
less accountable five-member commission. It would make it easier for
other regulators to interfere with and overturn the Bureau's proposed
consumer protections. And it would delay the CFPB's core functions
until the Senate confirms the Chairman of the legislation's proposed
Board of Directors--something the Senate Republican leadership has
publicly and repeatedly announced it is unwilling to do.
Mr. Chair, although not the only cause, it is at this point beyond
dispute that insufficiently regulated predatory lending practices
targeting consumers with abusive financial products like subprime
mortgages helped create the housing bubble that precipitated the
financial crisis. Had the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau been in
existence during the early 2000s, we could have protected individual
homebuyers from these marketplace abuses--and ultimately protected the
Nation from the financial meltdown that ensued.
Mr. Chair, we have an obligation to learn from history. Rather than
take the referee off the field, we should insist on a referee that
enforces clear and understandable rules of the road so that American
consumers can make informed decisions about the financial products that
are right for themselves and their families.
I urge a no vote.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1315,
which would fundamentally-weaken the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB) and leave consumers unprotected from the predatory
lending practices that helped cause the Great Recession.
This week marks one year since President Obama signed the Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) into law and provided
long-overdue protection for consumers. Instead of building on the
reforms and making them stronger, House Republicans are delaying and
defunding parts of the Wall Street Reform law that will protect
consumers the most. H.R. 1315 is just the latest example of House
Republicans siding with Wall Street lobbyists over the best interests
of their constituents.
This misguided bill would further delay the core functions of the
CFPB and undermine its structure by replacing its director with a five-
member commission. H.R. 1315 also threatens the independence of the
CFPB by making it easier for the Financial Stability Oversight Council
(FSOC) to override the CFPB's regulations. This is the wrong approach.
In order to effectively oversee the $3 trillion consumer finance
industry, the CFPB must be able to operate independently from other
regulatory agencies.
H.R. 1315 would do nothing but prevent the CFPB from carrying out its
duties of curbing abuses by big banks, credit card companies, and other
financial institutions. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes,
life savings, and pensions because of the recklessness of some on Wall
Street. Now is the time to strengthen consumer protection laws, not
weaken them.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1315.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
1315, the ``Consumer Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act''
because it is an undisguised attempt to undermine the critical reforms
we worked to put in place following the economic disaster which cost
this country 8 million jobs and $17 trillion in Americans' net worth
and retirement savings.
I cannot support legislation that would take us back to a time when
the people charged with regulating the financial industry were so
intertwined with its interests that they purposefully looked the other
way while unscrupulous firms conjured up dangerous and self-defeating
schemes that brought our nation to the brink of economic disaster.
My friends on the other side of the aisle, aided by the army of
banking industry lobbyists, all seem to have forgotten everything that
happened in the past three years, so let us review the record.
Years without accountability for Wall Street and the Big Banks under
President Bush and Congressional Republicans led to what most
economists consider to be the worst financial crisis since the Great
Depression.
The official explanation was that the crisis was not a natural
disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products;
undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the
credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses
of Wall Street.
Major financial institutions began to fall like dominoes, and we had
to step in and bail them out. I voted for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act because it ended any possibility of
another taxpayer bailout and put in place measures to ensure that such
insanity should never again threaten the livelihoods of innocent
Americans.
H.R. 1315 is designed to slow down the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB), replacing its single leader with a 5 member commission,
which is likely to lead to internal gridlock.
Simply put, this legislation is an attack on the landmark Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform Act passed by the Democratic-controlled 111th
Congress and an attempt to return to the bad old days of the Wild West
of Wall Street.
Weaken, delay, and erode--these are the tactics being employed
through this legislation by those who choose to side with some reckless
Wall Street bankers over millions of American families.
Mr. Chair, the financial crisis of 2008-2009, which we have come to
call the ``Great Recession,'' saw millions of Americans pay the price
of abuses committed by big banks, credit card companies, and other
financial institutions on Wall Street.
They paid with their homes, their savings, their pensions and their
jobs.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was established under the
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which President Obama
signed into law last year. Since then, opponents, backed by an army of
banking lobbyists, have tried to restrict and cripple parts of the law
that will do the most good for American consumers, the CFPB being the
prime target.
H.R. 1315 replaces the Director of the CFPB with a 5 person
commission, which will make it easier for other banking regulators, who
failed to protect consumers in the past, to overturn its rules and
delay its core functions until its leadership is confirmed by the
Senate.
[[Page H5327]]
Mr. Chair, despite the claims made by supporters of H.R. 1315, the
CFPB is far from being some all-powerful government bureaucracy subject
to the whims of a single person, as new rules and initiatives it
generates can at any time be overturned by a two-thirds vote from the
Financial Stability Oversight Council. This ensures that the Director
of the CFPB is held to account to the overall safety and stability of
U.S. financial institutions.
The CFPB is intended to oversee the $3 trillion consumer finance
industry and prevent unfair and deceptive lending practices such as
those that caused the economic crisis we find ourselves in today.
H.R. 1315 would delay the transfer date for the CFPB until there is a
Director confirmed by the Senate--a distant prospect since Republican
Senators have vowed to filibuster any person nominated by President
Obama. Thus, this provision in the bill would leave the CFPB with no
meaningful consumer protection authority when it officially opens its
doors.
The same federal banking regulators who failed us the first time will
remain in charge, leaving consumers unprotected from the abuses that
brought our country to the brink of collapse and led to the loss of
more than 8 million American jobs.
Mr. Chair, since its creation last year, the CFPB has made
considerable progress which hints at its full potential as a valuable
and necessary component of our regulatory framework.
The CFPB has established a new consumer complaint process and
consolidated the authority of seven other agencies in policing abuses
in consumer financial products such as mortgages and credit cards,
pushing their providers to simplify their forms so consumers fully
understand the costs and fees associated with their products.
The CFPB also provides special guidance to members of the armed
forces and has taken steps to police unfair practices employed by
certain payday lenders and debt collectors.
H.R. 1315 throws a wrench into these accomplishments with the
ultimate goal of destroying the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
and turning back the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act.
Mr. Chair, I believe that strong consumer protections are essential
to stabilizing the economy, promoting competition and transparency, and
bringing confidence back to the financial marketplace.
For these reasons and for the protection of my constituents'
livelihoods, I will vote against this legislation and I encourage my
colleagues to do likewise.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in unreserved opposition to H.R. 1315,
the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act.
H.R. 1315's short title is ironic, given the bill's thinly veiled
purpose of eviscerating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
and continuing to allow unchecked consumer abuses by the financial
institutions responsible for the crash of 2008. This is cynical
legislating, Mr. Speaker, and ugly proof positive that my friends on
the other side of the aisle care more about Wall Street banks than Main
Street families.
H.R. 1315's provisions show that Republicans clearly have not learned
the lessons of our ongoing Great Recession. Today's bill weakens the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's ability to devise protections to
protect the American public Not only does H.R. 1315 allow for consumer
financial protection rules to be overturned more easily, but it also
strips the time limit within which the Financial Stability Oversight
Council (FSOC) must review and vote on petitions against them. H.R.
1315's perilous net effect is the crippling of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau and its ability to protect Americans from all manner
of deceitful Wall Street rascality.
As if reducing consumer protections were not enough, my Republican
friends also feel the need to use H.R. 1315 as a vehicle to play wild
games with the legislative process. The rule to bring H.R. 1315 to the
floor mandates that when passed, H.R. 1315 will include H.R. 830, an
unrelated bill to terminate the Federal Housing Administration's
refinance program. I opposed H.R. 830 when it was originally considered
on the House floor because I believe it hastily terminates a promising
program tailored to benefit responsible homeowners. Wrapping H.R. 830
into the text of H.R. 1315 is Republican leadership's irresponsible
ploy to appear fiscally austere at any cost, all while violating their
own vaunted ``three-calendar-day'' and ``72-hour'' rules. Republican
leadership might as well come on to the floor and announce, ``Do as I
say, not as I do.''
Mr. Chair, H.R. 1315 and the ongoing debt limit debate have shown
that the House Republicans are more concerned about the needs of their
fat cat friends on Wall Street than American families that are living
paycheck to paycheck. It is for all of these reasons and more that I
strongly oppose H.R. 1315. I urge my colleagues to do the same so they
can sleep at night with the peace of knowing they voted their
conscience to protect the very people they were elected to represent,
not the banks that crippled our country's economy.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
1315. This bill reeks of financial irresponsibility under the disguise
of protecting the American consumer. H.R. 1315 weakens and not
strengthens the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act.
H.R. 1315 would grant the same regulators who failed so spectacularly
to protect consumers and stop the financial crisis broad leeway to
block CFPB rules. Bank regulators did not bother to stop dangerous
mortgage lending and credit card practices because they were not
independent of the lenders they regulated. They put near-term
profitability ahead of consumer protection.
If we have learned anything from our current financial crisis is that
strong consumer protections would have reduced, rather than increased,
systemic financial risk. Consumers would have had less unsustainable
debt. Banks would have fewer losses and been more financially stable.
The real estate market would not have gone belly up. Families would not
be finding themselves homeless. The economy would not have been pushed
to the brink of collapse. Nonetheless, that did not stop the financial
regulators like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
from claiming that protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive
practices would harm bank ``safety and soundness.''
Mr. Chair, what about consumer ``safety and soundness''?
H.R. 1315 would ensure that bank regulators who want to block the
CFPB from preventing abusive but lucrative practices--like unjustified,
burdensome credit card interest rate increases or exploding ARM loan--
have an easy excuse and a very good chance of succeeding. Less than one
year after historic financial reform legislation was signed into law,
Republicans are now trying to undermine the new CFPB. At a time when
our economy is close to defaulting, we cannot continue to protect those
who were responsible for our present economic situation.
And Mr. Chair, I would be remiss if I did not use this opportunity to
applaud and commend Professor Elizabeth Warren for being our
inspiration on behalf of the people of this country and for her
excellent and dedicated work in standing up the Consumer Financial
Protection Agency.
I urge my colleagues not to support this legislation.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to
the bill before us today.
In 2008, this country experienced the worst economic crisis since the
Great Depression.
Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes, life savings, and
pensions because of the recklessness of some on Wall Street.
For too long, financial institutions were allowed to solely look out
for their bottom line, instead of the hardworking American consumers
they served.
Our economic system was dominated by greed, irresponsibility, and
lacking oversight.
And now, exactly one year after we enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
and Consumer Protection Act, a comprehensive package of financial
reforms, my Republican colleagues have brought to the floor a bill that
severely restricts one of the main components of the bill--the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau.
For the first time in our history, we constructed a government agency
that will look out for the American consumer first and foremost.
Yet instead of applauding this movement and supporting the efforts of
consumer protection, my colleagues are working to cripple its authority
and limit its effectiveness.
H.R. 1315 does nothing to protect American consumers. Instead it
delays the transfer of authority to the CFPB and adds several levels of
bureaucracy to the bureau's leadership which will only work to delay
any decision, rulemaking or enforcement action the bureau engages in.
Finally this bill makes it easier for the other banking regulators,
who failed to protect consumers for years, to overturn the Bureau's
rules.
Equally appalling is the source of funds being used to pay for this
bill.
Republicans have taken the savings gained from H.R. 830, a bill that
eliminates the FHA Refinance Program to pay for the cost of the bill
before us today.
This means that Republicans are taking money away from a government
program aimed at helping homeowners struggling to keep their home, and
using it to weaken the CFPB--ultimately making it easier for big banks
to skirt consumer protection regulation.
Our economy is still struggling to recover from the economic collapse
of 2008.
Millions of Americans are still struggling to find jobs and figure
out how they are going to keep their homes.
It has been 28 weeks since the Republicans took control of this
chamber, and time and
[[Page H5328]]
time again, we are forced to consider bills that do nothing to solve
the problems that Americans are facing today.
Instead we debate bills like this that eliminate protections for the
American middle class and serve as handouts to the ultra rich and
corporations that ship jobs overseas.
We should be focusing our attention on getting our economy back on
track.
We should be focusing on bills that create jobs and help the middle
class recover.
We need to bring back financial security for Americans, and one of
the ways to do that is to allow for a strong and independent Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau.
Democrats are standing with American families to help get our economy
back on track, and calling for strong consumer protection and effective
accountability to prevent another financial crisis for Wall Street.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Financial Services printed in the bill, it shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-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 shall be considered read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 1315
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Financial
Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. COUNCIL VOTING PROCEDURE.
Section 1023(c)(3)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act is amended--
(1) by striking ``\2/3\'' and inserting ``a majority''; and
(2) by inserting before the period the following: ``,
excluding the Chair of the Commission of the Bureau''.
SEC. 3. REVIEW AUTHORITY OF THE COUNCIL.
Section 1023 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''; and
(B) by striking ``regulation or provision would put the
safety and soundness of the United States banking system or
the stability of the financial system of the United States at
risk'' and inserting ``regulation which is the subject of the
petition is inconsistent with the safe and sound operations
of United States financial institutions''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (3)(B)(ii), by striking ``would put the
safety and soundness of the United States banking system or
the stability of the financial system of the United States at
risk'' and inserting ``is inconsistent with the safe and
sound operations of United States financial institutions'';
(B) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(ii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);
(C) by striking paragraph (5);
(D) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) as
paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively; and
(E) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Public meetings.--Any time the Council meets pursuant
to this section to decide whether to issue a stay of, or set
aside, any regulation, every portion of such meeting shall be
open to public observation.''.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION.
Section 1011 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010 is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d);
(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (j); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsections:
``(b) Establishment of the Commission.--
``(1) In general.--There is hereby established a commission
(hereinafter referred to in this section as the `Commission')
that shall serve as the head of the Bureau.
``(2) Authority to prescribe regulations.--The Commission
may prescribe such regulations and issue such orders in
accordance with this title as the Commission may determine to
be necessary for carrying out this title and all other laws
within the Commission's jurisdiction and shall exercise any
authorities granted under this title and all other laws
within the Commission's jurisdiction.
``(c) Composition of the Commission.--
``(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of the
Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Federal Reserve System
and 4 additional members who shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
from among individuals who--
``(A) are citizens of the United States;
``(B) have strong competencies and experiences related to
consumer financial protection; and
``(C) should want to protect service members and their
families who are sacrificing their lives for this country
from abusive financial practices.
``(2) Staggering.--The members of the Commission appointed
under paragraph (1) shall serve staggered terms, which
initially shall be established by the President for terms of
1, 2, 4, and 5 years, respectively.
``(3) Terms.--
``(A) In general.--Each member of the Commission appointed
under paragraph (1), including the Chair, shall serve for a
term of 5 years.
``(B) Removal for cause.--The President may remove any
member of the Commission appointed under paragraph (1) only
for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
``(C) Vacancies.--Any member of the Commission appointed
under paragraph (1) appointed to fill a vacancy occurring
before the expiration of the term to which that member's
predecessor was appointed (including the Chair) shall be
appointed only for the remainder of the term.
``(D) Continuation of service.--Each member of the
Commission appointed under paragraph (1) may continue to
serve after the expiration of the term of office to which
that member was appointed until a successor has been
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate,
except that a member may not continue to serve more than 1
year after the date on which that member's term would
otherwise expire.
``(E) Other employment prohibited.--No member of the
Commission appointed under paragraph (1) shall engage in any
other business, vocation, or employment.
``(4) Roles and responsibilities of commissioners.--One
member of the Commission shall have as their primary
responsibility the oversight of the Bureau's activities
pertaining to protecting consumers, with a focus on consumers
who are older, minorities, youth, or veterans, from unfair,
deceptive, and abusive lending practices. The designated
commissioner shall be responsible for--
``(A) ensuring the Bureau conducts regular outreach to
consumers regarding industry lending activities;
``(B) researching and reporting to the full Commission, on
a regular basis, the impact of new loan and credit products
and services on consumers; and
``(C) ensuring the Bureau coordinates with State-level
consumer protection agencies on enforcement measures that
protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive lending
practices.
``(d) Affiliation.--With respect to members appointed
pursuant to subsection (c)(1), not more than 2 shall be
members of any one political party.
``(e) Chair of the Commission.--
``(1) Appointment.--The Chair of the Commission shall be
appointed by the President from among the members of the
Commission appointed under paragraph (1).
``(2) Authority.--The Chair shall be the principal
executive officer of the Bureau, and shall exercise all of
the executive and administrative functions of the Bureau,
including with respect to--
``(A) the appointment and supervision of personnel employed
under the Bureau (other than personnel employed regularly and
full time in the immediate offices of members of the
Commission other than the Chair);
``(B) the distribution of business among personnel
appointed and supervised by the Chair and among
administrative units of the Bureau; and
``(C) the use and expenditure of funds.
``(3) Limitation.--In carrying out any of the Chair's
functions under the provisions of this subsection the Chair
shall be governed by general policies of the Commission and
by such regulatory decisions, findings, and determinations as
the Commission may by law be authorized to make.
``(4) Requests or estimates related to appropriations.--
Requests or estimates for regular, supplemental, or
deficiency appropriations on behalf of the Commission may not
be submitted by the Chair without the prior approval of the
Commission.
``(f) No Impairment by Reason of Vacancies.--No vacancy in
the members of the Commission shall impair the right of the
remaining members of the Commission to exercise all the
powers of the Commission. Three members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business,
except that if there are only 3 members serving on the
Commission because of vacancies in the Commission, 2 members
of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business. If there are only 2 members serving
on the Commission because of vacancies in the Commission, 2
members shall constitute a quorum for the 6-month period
beginning on the date of the vacancy which caused the number
of Commission members to decline to 2.
``(g) Seal.--The Commission shall have an official seal.
``(h) Compensation.--
``(1) Chair.--The Chair shall receive compensation at the
rate prescribed for level I of the Executive Schedule under
section 5313 of title 5, United States Code.
``(2) Other members of the commission.--The 3 other members
of the Commission appointed under subsection (c)(1) shall
each receive compensation at the rate prescribed for level II
of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5,
United States Code.
``(i) Initial Quorum Established.--During any time period
prior to the confirmation of at least two members of the
Commission, one member of the Commission shall constitute a
quorum
[[Page H5329]]
for the transaction of business. Following the confirmation
of at least 2 additional commissioners, the quorum
requirements of subsection (f) shall apply.''.
SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.--
(1) In general.--The Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010 is amended--
(A) in section 1002, by striking paragraph (10);
(B) in section 1012(c)(4), by striking ``Director'' each
place such term appears and inserting ``Commission of the
Bureau'';
(C) in section 1013(c)(3)--
(i) by striking ``Assistant Director of the Bureau for''
and inserting ``Head of the Office of''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``Assistant
Director'' and inserting ``Head of the Office'';
(D) in section 1013(g)(2)--
(i) by striking ``Assistant director'' and inserting ``Head
of the office''; and
(ii) by striking ``an assistant director'' and inserting
``a Head of the Office of Financial Protection for Older
Americans'';
(E) in section 1016(a), by striking ``Director of the
Bureau'' and inserting ``Chair of the Commission'';
(F) in section 1017(c)(1), by striking ``Director and other
employees'' and inserting ``members of the Commission and
other employees'';
(G) in section 1027(l)(1), by striking ``Director and
the''; and
(H) in section 1066(a), by striking ``Director of the
Bureau is'' and inserting ``first member of the Commission
is''.
(2) Global amendments.--The Consumer Financial Protection
Act of 2010 is amended--
(A) by striking ``Director of the'' each place such term
appears, other than in--
(i) subparagraphs (A) and (E) of section 1017(4);
(ii) section 1043;
(iii) section 1061(b)(3);
(iv) section 1062;
(v) section 1063(f);
(vi) subparagraphs (E) and (G) of section 1064(i)(2); and
(vii) section 1065(a); and
(B) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears
and inserting ``Bureau'', other than in--
(i) section 1063(f)(2); and
(ii) section 1065(a).
(b) Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act.--The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act is amended--
(1) in section 111(b)(1)(D), by striking ``Director'' and
inserting ``Chair of the Commission''; and
(2) in section 1447, by striking ``Director of the Bureau''
each place such term appears and inserting ``Bureau''.
(c) Electronic Fund Transfer Act.--Section 921(a)(4)(C) of
the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, as added by section
1075(a)(2) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010,
is amended by striking ``Director of the Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection'' and inserting ``Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection''.
(d) Expedited Funds Availability Act.--The Expedited Funds
Availability Act, as amended by section 1086 of the Consumer
Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended by striking
``Director of the Bureau'' each place such term appears and
inserting ``Bureau''.
(e) Federal Deposit Insurance Act.--Section 2 of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended by section 336(a)
of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, is amended by striking ``Director of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau'' each place such term appears
and inserting ``Chair of the Commission of the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection''.
(f) Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act
of 1978.--Section 1004(a)(4) of the Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C.
3303(a)(4)), as amended by section 1091 of the Consumer
Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended by striking
``Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau'' and
inserting ``Chair of the Commission of the Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection''.
(g) Financial Literacy and Education Improvement Act.--
Section 513 of the Financial Literacy and Education
Improvement Act, as amended by section 1013(d) of the
Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended by
striking ``Director'' each place such term appears and
inserting ``Chair of the Commission''.
(h) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975.--Section 307 of
the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, as amended by
section 1094(6) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010, is amended by striking ``Director of the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection'' each place such term appears
and inserting ``Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection''.
(i) Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act.--The
Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, as amended by
section 1098A of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010, is amended--
(1) by amending section 1402(1) to read as follows:
``(1) `Chair' means the Chair of the Commission of the
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection;'';
(2) in section 1416(a), by striking ``Director of the
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection'' and inserting
``Chair''; and
(3) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears
and inserting ``Bureau''.
(j) Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.--Section
5 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, as
amended by section 1450 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act, is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Director of the Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection (hereafter in this section referred to
as the `Director')'' and inserting ``The Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection''; and
(2) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears
and inserting ``Bureau''.
(k) S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008.--The S.A.F.E.
Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, as amended by section 1100 of
the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended--
(1) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears
in headings and text and inserting ``Bureau''; and
(2) in section 1503, by striking paragraph (10).
(l) Title 44, United States Code.--Section 3513(c) of title
44, United States Code, as amended by section 1100D(b) of the
Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended by
striking ``Director of the Bureau'' and inserting ``Bureau''.
SEC. 6. CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION REQUIRED BEFORE TRANSFER.
Section 1062 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) Chair of the Commission Required Before Transfer.--
Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, the
single calendar date for the transfer of functions to the
Bureau under section 1061 shall be the later of--
``(1) the date that would have been designated, but for the
application of this subsection; and
``(2) the date on which the Chair of the Commission of the
Bureau is confirmed by the Senate.''.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112-
172. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Maloney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 112-172.
Mrs. MALONEY. I have an amendment at the desk on behalf of the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), who is recovering from a knee
injury.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 1, strike line 5 and all that follows through page 3,
line 2 (and redesignate succeeding sections accordingly).
Page 10, after line 21, insert the following new
subparagraph (and redesignate succeeding subparagraphs
accordingly):
(G) by striking section 1023;
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you.
Today is the 1-year anniversary of Dodd-Frank. It is also the date of
transferring authority to the CFPB so it can protect consumers in one
single place.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a critical part of last
year's financial reform bill. It will ensure that there is a cop on the
beat protecting consumers from predatory products and misleading
information. But instead of supporting the CFPB on its first day, House
Republicans are pushing forward with a bill to weaken this important
agency, to derail, delay, and de-fang it.
I want to point out that many of the people on the other side of the
aisle that are supporting the Republican change are the exact same ones
who voted against Dodd-Frank in the first place, opposed the consumer
protections, and opposed the creation of the CFPB.
The bill sets out to change the CFPB so that it is less independent
and instead is more bureaucratic. House Republicans want a five-person
commission instead of a single director, but the single director
structure is exactly like the OCC, the OTS and other financial
agencies. A single director promotes more accountability, allows
quicker reaction and change to market conditions. A five-person board
would be slow, indecisive, and more expensive.
The Office of Management and Budget estimates that this new form will
[[Page H5330]]
cost $71 million. And where do they propose to get this money? From a
program that was helping consumers who lost their mortgages, their
mortgages were underwater, but if we had had a CFPB in place, we could
have prevented the subprime crisis in the first place.
One of the problems is that no one in the whole regulatory structure
was looking out for consumers. Consumers were an afterthought, a third
thought, or were not thought about at all, and this agency will be the
first time that someone is looking out for the consumer.
They also want to make it easier for bank regulators to override the
CFPB rules so that they can go back to the status quo that led up to
the financial crisis in the first place that has cost the American
public trillions and trillions of dollars.
The Ellison amendment would delete the section of Dodd-Frank that
created the FSOC override. The other body included it as a way to
provide a check on a single director, but if they're going to change
the entire structure to a five-person commission, then there is no need
for that additional check, and the override power of the FSOC would be
entirely eliminated.
{time} 1640
So I ask my colleagues to support the Ellison amendment.
Most importantly, Americans favor a strong CFPB. In a poll this last
week, it showed that 73 percent favor a strong and independent CFPB
protecting consumers. As the chart behind me shows, they overwhelmingly
support the critical functions of the bureau, including better
disclosure for credit cards, making it harder for lenders to offer
loans which are confusing and with confusing teaser rates and other
features, allowing them to come forward with simplified forms so that
they could compare prices and get the best price and product for them.
It would make risks clear and prices clear.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing everything
they can to defang and delay it.
I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from the great
State of North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I know that the
Republicans' political consultants have said that they need to argue
because Americans really do like this agency that is huge and that has
dictatorial powers and unchecked accountability. The problem with that
argument is that it is completely untrue.
This agency has all of the oversight, more than every other agency
has. Before they adopt a rule, they have to let everyone know they're
thinking about adopting a rule; they have to take public comment; then
they have to propose the rule; then they have to take more public
comment. After all that, they can then be taken to court. If the rule
is arbitrary and capricious and if there is no evidence to support it,
it can be overturned by a court.
There is ample protection in the law already. We do not need the
additional check of having the regulators, the supposed watchdogs who
did such an abysmal job in the last decade, having a veto over
everything they do. There are protections enough already.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to just start by saying I am absolutely
amazed at this amendment and that my ranking member is in favor of it,
considering that she voted for the bill and that she is voting to
strike the section of the oversight, of the FSOC, that she and others
who wrote the bill put in there, because that's basically what this
amendment does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
Mr. DUFFY. I think it is important to note the reason that oversight
of the CFPB wasn't included in the original legislation, that being
that the CFPB doesn't have to consider safety and soundness when
they're making rules. Safety and soundness is the gold standard when we
look at our banking industry and how it effectively works within our
society. Because that was not included--we just looked at consumer
protection--I think the rationale was that, well, we should have an
outside group review each rule that comes out to make sure it will not
undermine our financial sector.
I have to tell you I am quite amazed, though. My friends across the
aisle drafted a bill that includes a review process, a review process
that only gives a voice to big banks on Wall Street, that only gives a
voice to those banks that are too big to fail. So I come out with a
commonsense reform. I say, Listen. Let's just not give a voice to your
friends on Wall Street. Let's give a voice to the small community banks
in rural Wisconsin, to small credit unions in rural Wisconsin. Let's
give them a voice, too. Then when we do that, when we make that
proposal, Mr. Chairman, it seems like they want to take their ball and
go home. They say, Well, if you want to give a voice to small community
banks, then no one should have a voice to express their concern for a
rule that could be harmful.
I mean, when you look at small community banks that are already
overregulated, small community banks and credit unions which had
nothing to do with the financial crisis but are going to be stuck
dealing with over 2,000 pages of rules from Dodd-Frank, let's give them
a voice to come here and say, This is how these rules will impact and
affect us.
So I would say to my friends across the aisle, don't take your ball
and go home. Let's actually work together and find a way in which we
can give a voice to those banks and those credit unions that don't
currently have one.
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 112-172.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 1, strike lines 5 through 12 (and redesignate
succeeding sections accordingly).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank Mr. Frank, and I thank the ranking
member, and I thank the managers of this legislation as well.
Mr. Chairman, I have become friends with my two poster pictures here
because I do think they symbolize sort of the composite of America. My
amendment, I think, focuses on making sure that the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, which is something that consumers asked for--
sometimes under the Christmas tree or during the gift-giving season,
you get a gift that you may not have asked for, but you know there's a
problem or you know you want something, and all of a sudden that gift
shows up. That's what the Dodd-Frank bill did with the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau.
Now my friends want to defang, derail and delay this very important
legislation. The bureau is one of the strongest provisions of the Dodd-
Frank bill, and it was created to consolidate the authorities
responsible for consumer protection. It is an important bill because,
American consumers, you need to have strong protection: credit cards,
buying a car, student loans. We're not trying to undermine businesses.
We're simply trying to create an even playing field.
My amendment empowers the consumer board and ensures that it will be
able to issue the rules that will protect the average financial
consumer. The bill that we're speaking of, as written, empowers the
Financial Stability Oversight Council to overrule a consumer victory by
a simple majority vote. This will literally turn the authority of the
CFPB around and weaken consumer authority.
My amendment restores the two-thirds responsibility, or the two-
thirds
[[Page H5331]]
vote, that is needed to overrule a good vote for the consumers--a good
vote for this nurse who may be buying a car; a good vote for this
little one whose parents may be overburdened with credit card debt
because they signed on to credit cards with enormous interest rates of
which they are unaware; or it may be able to help these military
families, many of them suffering because of the sons and daughters,
husbands and wives who are overseas--to be able to say to these
families, you can get a home without being defrauded.
So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, number 4 to H.R.
1315, the Consumer Financial Protections and Safety Act. My amendment
will ensure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will be
able to make effective decisions on behalf of the public by restoring
the two-thirds majority vote in order for the Financial Stability
Oversight Council (FSOC) to overturn a CFPB ruling.
The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is
one of the strongest provisions in the Dodd-Frank legislation passed
last year. The Bureau was created to consolidate the authorities
responsible for consumer protection.
American consumers need a strong independent CFPB to police credit
and payment markets and to put consumer protection first. The
widespread economic crisis has threatened consumer wealth. The impact
has reached consumers worldwide. Many Consumers lost their assets,
incomes, and ultimately confidence.
Consolidating these regulatory authorities allowed the bureau to
exert its influence and enforce consumer protections. With this newly
defined power afforded to the CFPB came a new era of oversight. The
CFPB has stopped unfair practices, protected the average consumer from
fraud and abuse, and held big business accountable to prevent bailouts
at the expense of the taxpayers.
The CFPB's Functions
The CFPB will look out for people as they borrow money or use other
financial services by:
Implementing and enforcing Federal consumer financial laws;
Reviewing business practices to ensure that financial services
providers are following the law;
Monitoring the marketplace and taking appropriate action to make sure
markets work as transparently as they can for consumers; and
Establishing a toll-free consumer hotline and website for complaints
and questions about consumer financial products and services.
My amendment empowers the CFPB and ensures that it will be able to
issue rules that will protect the average financial consumer. H.R. 1316
as written empowers the Financial Stability Oversight Council to
overrule regulatory measures passed by the CFPB with a simple majority,
instead of the two-thirds majority in current law, this change to a
majority vote will make it easier to weaken consumer protections for
the CFPB. This will literally return control of rules governing
financial products back in the hand of the very agencies that were not
able to neither foresee nor offset the financial crisis we are
currently recovering from. My amendment restores the 2/3's vote to
overturn regulations of the CFPB and it restores the rights of the
consumer.
A strong and independent CFPB is the only way to ensure that the best
interest of the consumer is protected. This bureau was designed to
increase transparency and equality in mortgage practices, credit card
procedures and other consumer services.
Allowing the CFPB to set and enforce clear and consistent regulations
is a fair and cohesive way to safeguard against the type of practices
that contributed directly to the financial meltdown of 2008.
Cities and towns across the nation are still struggling to recover
from the collapse of the housing market, and subsequent financial
crisis. According to study of 20 metropolitan centers throughout
America conducted in 2010 by the National League of Cities, Houston,
where I represent the 18th Congressional District is still suffering an
unemployment rate of 8.3%, and a foreclosure rate than has risen more
than 60% since 2007.
I seek to restore the two-thirds majority needed to overturn a
regulation issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to
safeguard hardworking Americans from fraudulent practices, and
predatory loans. This amendment will protect people like Chris from
McKinney, Texas.
STORIES
Chris: Chris and his family had a modest home, and they were able to
afford their mortgage payments until he lost his job. After a year of
unemployment, the family's savings were depleted, and there was no
money with which to pay their mortgage. Chris still tried to be
responsible; he tried to work with the mortgage company to reach a
solution, to refinance. Without ever sending him a Notice of Sale, the
mortgage company removed his property from the home, changed the locks,
and sold the home where Chris and his wife raised their two children.
Chris spent his savings. He tried to work with the mortgage company
to save his home. Chris and his family demonstrated good faith; until
Chris lost his job, they paid their mortgage each month, and when they
reached out for help in order to save their home, there was no help to
be found.
Michelle, Houston: Chris' story is similar to that of Michelle, a
resident of Houston, who told her story to a local news station.
Michelle's home was severely damaged by Hurricane Ike, and she and her
husband had difficulties rebuilding. During the construction process,
Michelle and her husband had to take wage cuts, and the cost of the
home repairs, coupled with the unexpected reduction of income caused
them to default on their mortgage.
Michelle was four months behind on payments, and had just moved back
into her home, the damage from Hurricane Ike finally repaired, when she
received a notice of foreclosure. Desperate and panicked, Michelle
contacted a private company that had sent her a letter alleging they
could save her home for a fee. After sending the company $1,400,
Michelle was told there was nothing they could do.
Michelle and her husband, like Chris and his wife, were forced to
vacate their home due to circumstances beyond their control. Michelle
tried everything--she attempted to work with Bank of America, the owner
of the mortgage, to modify her loan, or establish a payment plan--to no
avail.
ADDITIONAL STORIES
Jacob (56) a retired mechanic wanted to purchase $70,000 CD. He was
referred to speak with a financial advisor. Jacob was talked into
buying a high risk mutual fund and to pay a $3,157 up front fee. This
man only makes $25,000 and worked hard to save his money. He ended up
losing $12,000 and was told he would make more money. This man had no
experience in stocks, bonds, or mutual funds.
A retired court clerk went to her local bank to discuss a financial
matter. She entered the bank and spoke with a bank teller. She asked
the bank teller for information about opening an IRA account. The
teller directed the customer to speak with a bank advisor. The customer
believed she was going to speak with an employee of the bank. Her
confusion was understandable as the person that she was directed too
did have a desk within the confines of the bank's premises; and the
teller stated the individual was a bank advisor. However, as it turns
out the advisor was not an employee of the bank. The customer ended up
losing thousands of dollars and ended up winning a lawsuit against
bank.
Martha: The Home Foreclosures crisis has hit every part of our
country. For example, in Oregon, a 62 year old woman named Martha now
faces losing her home. Martha owned her three-bedroom house for 20
years and had built up significant equity. She fell behind making
payments after quitting her job answering customer service calls for
credit card companies at her home. Since then, she's lived off
unemployment, social security and a small business incubating and
selling quail eggs. She sought a modification but could not get the
bank to agree, despite repeatedly submitting documents. ``Even though I
couldn't afford an attorney, I thought, `What's the harm?' '' Flynn
said. ``Most people just give up.''
Martha finally did end up suing and winning her case. A judge has
blocked the bank from evicting Martha, whose home it purchased in
foreclosure. The court concluded that her lenders had not properly
recorded mortgage documents. Although, this is a great legal win for
Martha, she is still in limbo, as there's no clear choice for her and
there's no big money at the end of this rainbow, either because even
with the victory, Martha may very well end up losing her home. Martha
was not a woman who wanted to get rich quick by buying and selling
homes. She did not buy her home during the bubble. She has paid her
mortgage for 20 years! There are hundreds of other stories of
hardworking Americans having to fight big banks on their own. That's
why there needs to be this Bureau to protect consumers like Martha.
According to Lisa, Executive Director of a coalition, ``Deceptive and
abusive mortgage lending--allowed to continue by the existing
regulators--was a fundamental cause of the financial crisis, and of the
worst recession since the Great Depression. In response, Congress
created the consumer bureau, so we will have a cop on the beat with
fair play and the public interest as its first priority.''
FORECLOSURE PRACTICES AND MORTGAGE SERVICING
The Dodd-Frank Act instructed the new agency to replace the Truth in
Lending form and the Good Faith Estimate with a single integrated
mortgage disclosure.
[[Page H5332]]
We learned a series of valuable lessons during the financial crisis.
One of the lessons we learned is that it is very easy for lenders to
mislead consumers about the true, long-term costs of their loans.
According to Alys, a Staff Attorney in Washington, D.C., the rules
need to be fixed to handle loan modifications in a strong, clear manner
that can help avoid more foreclosures. ``The core requirement that is
needed is to stop the practice of pursuing foreclosure at the same time
that someone is being reviewed for a loan modification,'' she said.
Consumers continue to receive conflicting information, are required to
resubmit the paperwork and can be foreclosed while waiting for word on
a loan modification.
The fact is that if you take a good look back at the financial crisis
that began in 2008 and continues today, most of it is attributable to
predatory and irresponsible mortgage practices that were deplorable but
not illegal. In other words, I believe that the most important role of
the CFPB in this regard is the creation of new policies and rules to
protect individual borrowers and consumers, not only to enforce
existing laws that were and are in some cases woefully inadequate.
The mortgage crisis makes it clear that no one had to break the law
to con us . . . the American People. The vast majority of those
creative option-ARMS was perfectly legal, terribly innovative and
clearly, as they have now been labeled, weapons of mass destruction. So
while it is obviously very important to enforce the law, it is more
important to make effective laws and rules that can then be efficiently
enforced. The CFPB is the government's watch dog to protect consumers.
We must ensure the Agency has the power to do its job.
Additionally, one of the other root causes of our current financial
malaise was the lack of financial literacy among the general population
in this country. The victims of what I will call a legal con game . . .
were the citizens who were convinced that they could buy houses that
they could not afford by looking at the current mortgages of ARMS.
These loans were all run by those avaricious bankers and brokers who
had excellent targets, because most buyers really didn't know much
about money, or mortgages, or borrowing in general--but unfortunately
now they're getting a crash course in foreclosure. There is no law,
however wise and rigorously enforced, that can substitute for a
financially educated populace. Knowledge is, after all, power. In sum,
in order to prevent a repeat of recent financial history, the CFPB must
ensure that Americans know as much about financial matters as they do
about Kim Kardashian, and it must make and enforce new rules that
protect consumers within every financial strata, not just the folks who
buy the bonds issued by firms.
Not only did the effects of the housing market collapse force
millions from their homes, it reverberated across various financial
markets. Access to credit, on which our economy depends, was limited,
making it difficult for families to secure affordable loans.
Restoring the two-thirds majority will foster debate and compromise
among members of the FSOC, and ultimately lead to more productive
solutions between the FSOC and CFPB.
We must ensure that the CFPB is able to advocate for the best
interests of the consumer. As we continue on the path to recovery in
the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it is not corporate giants, but
average Americans who are still suffering.
In order to bring this country out of its economic downturn, there
must be hope, optimism and we must come together in the resilience and
enduring legacy of the American Dream. The legacy that has for years
past, and will for centuries to come, send the message to the world
that on our shores, from sea to sea, anything can be achieved.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to restore the two-
thirds majority and give the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection
real oversight capabilities. We must protect consumers; we must put the
interest of our constituents before those of corporations.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPITO. I oppose the amendment because I am in support of the
bill, Mr. Duffy's bill, which puts a workable and a more reasonable
standard that could actually look at consumer rules and regulations
that, as he has said, and I think very eloquently, takes in
consideration Main Street, the community bankers and the credit unions.
I would like to remind the gentlewoman from Texas, as we were
reminded by the gentleman from Massachusetts, that car loans are
exempted from this, so we don't have to worry about car loans in terms
of their being part of the rule and regulation. That is part of the
Dodd-Frank bill. Anyway, I think that a simple majority makes a lot of
sense.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
Mr. DUFFY. I think one of the reasons we modified the rule is that
right now, with the two-thirds majority, you basically need seven out
of 10 votes to overturn what would be a harmful rule. In the way the
law is currently written, one of the voting members is the director of
the CFPB, making the standard that much more difficult.
{time} 1650
If we're talking about harmful rules to our community banks and our
credit unions, let's make sure we have a simple majority that can step
in and overturn those rules. Why do we want to set a standard so high
that it can't be overturned? It's nearly impossible to overturn it.
And I would commend my friends on the other side of the aisle to make
sure there was a review process in the CFPB. But no law is ever
perfect, and with that, I think we should come forward today and say
how can we better perfect this rule to work for our consumers? And
having a simple majority to overturn a rule that could be harmful
coming from the CFPB does exactly that.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me just say as I yield to the
gentleman, the ranking member and chairman at the time of passage of
this bill, I was given a litany of ills that can attack consumers. I'm
glad we have this board, and I'm glad that we are looking to restore
the two-thirds oversight to protect these individuals and the nurse and
the child. I ask support for the amendment.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First of all, let's resolve one
contradiction in the Republican amendment. Some have said, why are you
now opposing what you originally supported? Well, this is a clear
example. We never supported anything like this. We always thought it
had to be two-thirds. And here's what happened.
There is no comparable banking agency which can be overruled by the
other agencies. But the Republicans got very nervous about this and
their banker friends were in a bit of a twitter. And they said, Save us
from this horrible notion of consumer protection. I say it doesn't
speak well for banks if they think consumer protection undermines
safety and soundness.
So we said, okay, here's what we'll do. To lower these fears, we will
say if it does threaten the whole system, two-thirds can overturn it.
We didn't think that was very likely. It was to try to calm people
down. They transform it with this amendment into saying that five
regulators, because the consumer bureau couldn't vote, five regulators
who have overlapping terms who may have been appointed by previous
Presidents, regulators who represent the very regulatory agencies that
have not been good about consumers can overturn the consumer bureau.
This amendment canceled the fundamental reason for having a consumer
bureau.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Duffy).
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, this is remarkable.
My friends across the aisle actually include and voted for a review
process of the CFPB, and now they come in today and say, Listen, we
want to do away with that review process. I mean, how last year did we
come into this House and say we're going to vote for a review process
of harmful rules coming from the CFPB because it doesn't include the
standard of consideration for safety and soundness, but today with my
bill, they come in and say, We don't want any review process. That to
me, Mr. Chairman, does not make sense.
I don't think it works for the American people, and it doesn't work
for small community banks and credit unions who support a review
process. Not only that, but they support a voice in that review
process. And that's what my bill does.
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H5333]]
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 112-172.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 1, line 6, strike ``Section'' and insert the
following:
(a) In General.--Section
Page 1, after line 12, insert the following:
(b) Conflict of Interest.--Section 1023(c)(3) of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Conflict of interest.--No member of the Council may
vote on the decision to issue a stay of, or set aside, any
regulation under this section, if such member has, within the
previous 2-year period, been employed by any company or other
entity that is subject to such regulation.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Hopefully, this will be an amendment which can be
accepted. It's quite simple.
And what I'm addressing is what The Washington Post has called the
revolving door that spins at a dizzying pace here in Washington, D.C.
The New York Times has said that Goldman Sachs is ``Government Sachs''
for all the employees who bounce back and forth between the Nation's
Capital, the regulatory bodies, administrative branch, and its
Manhattan office tower.
All my amendment simply does is prevent potential conflicts of
interest. Remember, a board here has been created in the original bill
which can overturn any regulation, fairly unique among independent
agencies if there is a board which can overturn the administrative
procedures or rules that they adopt on the financial services industry.
But in any case, that was in the original bill. This bill would reduce
from a two-thirds majority to a 50 percent majority of this 10-member
board.
And my amendment just says if there's 10 people sitting on the board
and it's potentially a close vote and this is something that's going to
affect, say--not to pick on Goldman Sachs--but let's just say Goldman
Sachs and a member of the board is a former employee of Goldman Sachs
within the last 24 months, that member would have to sit out the vote.
Plain and simple. It is a conflict-of-interest rule.
I would hope that this would prove to be noncontroversial.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to tell the gentleman I really see what
he's getting at here. And I do think that some of his ideas have merit
because of the revolving door appearance of--and in reality probably in
some cases preconceived opinions. But I think that if a person is
qualified to lead an agency, if a person is qualified to be the
Secretary of the Treasury, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Director of
the CFPB, Chair of the FDIC, Comptroller of the Currency, Chairman of
the SEC, and there are 10 members on this board, that if we agree to
this amendment, we might be narrowing the scope of really talented and
qualified people.
I think the vetting process--all of these folks have to be nominated
and confirmed by the Senate. I think that any conflicts of interest or
possible conflicts of interest could be vetted through the confirmation
process.
I think by disqualifying some folks, I think that it, as I said, I
think we might miss some good talent. We might chase away folks that
have good ideas and vibrant ideas in the area of finance.
With that, I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I think there is a misunderstanding.
They can serve on the board. It's just that if a proposal comes up
that directly affects their previous employer and they have been on the
board less than 2 years, they would have to sit out that particular
vote. They can serve and vote on any and every other procedure, but
just not on that particular thing. It's a very restrictive conflict of
interest rule.
Mrs. CAPITO. I thank the gentleman for the clarification. I didn't
address that in my statement, and you're absolutely right. But I would
just continue to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, obviously we've straightened out that
misunderstanding, that the folks could serve.
Now let me just harken back to something where I think many of my
Republican colleagues agreed with me. I voted against the TARP bailout.
Hank Paulson, as I said at the time, I think he was Goldman Sachs's
executive standing in as Secretary of the Treasury and meting out
justice to some of his competitors in terms of who lived and who died
on Wall Street.
So I would think there would be agreement on that side that for
future conflicts of interest that these people would be restricted only
on that one vote, only as it affects their former employer, only within
the last 24 months.
{time} 1700
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, the gentleman is correct. I would
just note my disagreement with his statement on Secretary Paulson.
But more important, I was struck by the fact that the gentlewoman
from West Virginia stood up and opposed the amendment. The gentleman
from Oregon then pointed out that her basis for opposing the amendment
was incorrect; whereupon the gentlewoman from West Virginia said, Never
mind, but I still oppose it, with a less than eloquent explanation. So
I think that's unfortunate.
And part of my problem is, I didn't get a chance to talk fully about
this rule. This is a terribly unfair rule. I asked the chairman of the
Rules Committee yesterday if we could have more time to debate. Not all
the amendments were of equal importance. We had the very important
amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas to talk about two-thirds versus
a majority. This is an important amendment about conflict of interest.
We had a very important amendment coming up from the gentlewoman from
New York about the powers.
It is outrageous that the Rules Committee said, You only get 5
minutes on each side on each amendment. And the chairman of the Rules
Committee--he's a magnanimous fellow--he said to me when I asked, he
said, Well, you know what, you can go get a unanimous consent agreement
to extend it, which meant he was not suspending the rules of the House.
I approached the other side, and I was told--not by the chairman, who
has been very gracious in all of this--that the Republican leadership
wanted to hurry this bill up.
So we have very fundamental issues not being adequately debated, and
this is one of them. I have some differences with the gentleman from
Oregon about what I think happened during the TARP. But to have only 10
minutes on this?
And then, frankly, for the chairman of the subcommittee to be so
dismissive of a valid amendment, to say, Here's why I am against it,
because her staff probably didn't read it before they wrote it, and
they gave her the wrong reason, and then she just said, Well, I'm
against it because I'm against it. That's an inappropriate way to deal
with this serious issue. And it
[[Page H5334]]
reinforces my view that what we have here is this:
Last year, every single Republican opposed an independent consumer
agency, in principle. They now come forward with efforts that would
substantially weaken it, that everybody who does support it opposes.
And they say, Oh, no, we're not opposed to it. We're just trying to
change it.
The gentleman from Oregon has a perfectly reasonable point. I cannot
understand, other than simple partisan rigidity, why it would not be
accepted. So I thank the gentleman, and I'm sorry we do not have a more
civil atmosphere in which to discuss this.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Paulsen
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 112-172.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 1, line 6, strike ``Section'' and insert the
following:
(a) In General.--Section
Page 1, after line 12, insert the following:
(b) Petition by Nonvoting Members; No Restrictions on
Petition Subject Matter.--Section 1023 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection act is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Petition by Nonvoting Members.--Notwithstanding any
other subsection of this section, the provisions of this
section shall apply to a petition by a nonvoting member of
the Council to the same extent that they apply to a petition
by an agency represented by a member of the Council.
``(h) No Restrictions on Petition Subject Matter.--
Petitions made under this section may be made by an agency or
a nonvoting member of the Council on any subject matter,
regardless of the areas of particular expertise of such
agency or nonvoting member.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment really to
help ensure that we maintain prudent regulation of the financial
services industry. Under current law, there are five nonvoting members
of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, including a State
insurance regulator and a State bank regulator.
This amendment really seeks to ensure and clarify that these
regulators on the Financial Stability Oversight Council, who do not
have voting rights, still have the authority to challenge any
regulations that are put forth by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau. For example, while it's clear that the CFPB does not have the
authority to regulate insurance, it could put forth a regulation that
actually negatively impacts the industry and the economy. So it just
makes sense that all the members on the council have the ability to
consider the impact that these new rules may have.
Therefore, by clarifying that any member of the Financial Stability
Oversight Council may question any regulation and bring that up for
clarification and clarify the rights of the nonvoting members, I am
seeking to improve the oversight on the CFPB.
I ask for adoption of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I rise to claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and reserve the right to close.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I rise in strong
opposition to this bill.
This misguided legislation seeks to destroy the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau on its birthday, before it even has time to take its
first breath, out of fear that the interests of consumers--our
constituents, by the way--may finally have a voice here in Washington.
I would note that the CFPB is the only Federal agency that can have its
regulations vetoed by other banking regulators serving on the Financial
Stability Oversight Council, and this bill would make that veto process
even easier.
Among other destructive provisions, H.R. 1315 would exclude the
director of the CFPB from serving as a voting member of the FSOC, which
would make the director the only banking regulator without a seat on
the council.
The CFPB is one of the most important creations of Dodd-Frank because
it is the very agency focused on ensuring that the consumer protection
products made available in the marketplace will not lead families into
economic ruin. Rather than attacking this agency, which is intended to
defend the rights of consumers and protect them from predatory
practices, we should be standing with the consumers, our constituents,
and protecting them from financial entities that would take advantage
of them.
Last week, I convened a forum to examine the abuse that
servicemembers are suffering at the hands of mortgage servicers.
Thousands of U.S. military servicemembers and their families have lost
their homes, been charged millions of dollars illegally, and have been
subjected to other abuses in violation of Federal law. The CFPB was
created precisely to help Americans such as these, our constituents.
I urge the Members of Congress to stand on the side of their
constituents by supporting CFPB, and I urge Congress to vote for their
constituents by voting against this bill.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman was speaking earlier
in opposition to the bill, and perhaps there is no opposition to the
amendment.
I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is indicative of
why we are in opposition to much of what is being said today. This
amendment assumes that there is some sort of onerous regulation or some
sort of invidious discrimination that has taken place within the CFPB
when, in fact, the CFPB has not issued one regulation, not one. And
because it has not issued one regulation, one can only assume that much
of what is happening today is onerous speculation and invidious
prognostication because there seems to be this notion that this agency
is going to be harmful, but it hasn't done one thing. There is this
concept of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but there is no
bathwater. There is no bathwater to throw out because the baby hasn't
done anything.
The CFPB has done absolutely nothing, and we are now trying to
overregulate it before it has an opportunity to pass a single
regulation. It was not the CFPB that created the crisis. It did not
create 3/27s and 2/28s. It did not create prepayment penalties that
coincide with teaser rates. It did not create negative amortization. It
did not create the dastardly yield spread premium which allowed people
to qualify for prime mortgages and be forced into subprime mortgages.
The CFPB has done nothing. It is an effort on our part to make sure
that many of the onerous actions that took place, that caused us to be
in the position that we're in, that these actions cannot happen again.
I stand in opposition to this amendment. I also stand in opposition
to the bill because the bill would weaken the CFPB to the extent that
it can't do what it is intended to do, and that is protect consumers.
Somebody, some agency ought to stand there for consumers. This agency
is that agency. It's the watchdog. We do not need a watchdog without
any bite. Let's keep the bite in the CFPB. Let's make sure that it can
protect consumers and make sure that we don't get the products back on
the market that we had before.
This amendment would allow persons who are on the board, who do not
have a vote to petition, in a sense, they
[[Page H5335]]
would become empowered by this ability to petition, even if it doesn't
impact the industry that they happen to represent. I stand in
opposition to it. I think the CFPB, as presented, is the best way for
us to proceed.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1710
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Miller of North Carolina
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 112-172.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 1, line 14, strike ``Section'' and insert the
following::
(a) In General.--Section
Page 3, after line 2, insert the following:
(b) Specific Disclosures Required.--Section 1023(b) of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Specific disclosures required.--With respect to the
regulation or provision that is the subject of a petition an
agency files with the Council under this section, the agency
shall publicly disclose, at the time such petition is filed--
``(A) an analysis of the practice that is the subject
matter of such regulation or provision; and
``(B) a list of any specific financial institutions whose
safe and sound operation the agency believes would be placed
in jeopardy due to such regulation or provision.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, it is simply not true that
we all here want to protect consumers; we just have an honest
disagreement about the best way to do it.
This bill really cripples the ability of the CFPB to be an effective
watchdog for consumers. And the way that it does it, probably the most
harmful part of the bill, is the veto power, the greater veto power it
gives the Financial Services Oversight Council and the way that that
council has to exercise that veto.
Here is what the CFPB has to do to pass a rule in the first place.
First of all, they cannot require any financial institution to do
anything. They can't say, You have to give people this mortgage or this
credit card contract. They can just forbid. They can say, You can't use
this contract, this mortgage, this credit card contract because this
cheats people. They cannot require; they can only forbid.
And before they forbid, before they pass a rule that says, You can't
do that because it cheats people, it abuses people, they have got to
consider all the benefits to the consumers that might come from that,
as well as to the financial institutions that offer it. They've got to
consider whether it really reduces the ability of consumers to get
credit, and they've got to consider the effect on the financial
institutions, and they've got to consult with all the other regulators
whose business it is to make sure that the financial institutions don't
go broke. And then they've got to publish it. They've got to let people
comment. They've got to build evidence. And if they don't have support
for the rule, it can be turned over by a court.
But even before it goes to a court, it goes to this panel, this
Financial Stability Oversight Council, and it can be vetoed if they
decide that it threatens the stability of the financial system or the
safety and soundness of the banking system.
This bill changes it and says, not just that they can overturn it,
but they have to overturn if it threatens the safety and the soundness
of financial institutions; in other words, if it would make specific
banks go broke.
Some banks, I agree with what the gentleman from Wisconsin has said
repeatedly, most small banks, most credit unions have had honest
business practices. But there are some sleazy ones out there, and we
saw what they did in the last decade.
Under the bill, as it is written, if one of those banks comes forward
and says, Unless we can do this sleazy thing, we're going to go out of
business, the Financial Stability Oversight Council has to disallow it
if it would put them out of business.
Mr. Chairman, some of those banks, some of those sleazy, scuzzy banks
need to be out of business. If the only way they can stay in business
is by cheating consumers, they should be out of business. But this bill
would not allow that to happen. A consumer protection rule could not go
into effect if it put specific banks out of business. That's an
enormous change, and it cripples the ability of the CFPB to be an
effective watchdog for consumers.
What this amendment does is, if any one of those prudential
regulators, those watchdogs that are supposed to make sure the banks
don't go broke is going to challenge any rule of the CFPB, they have
got to say exactly how they think it would threaten the safety and
soundness of the financial institutions, make a bank go broke, and
they've got to say who they are, who is this rule going to put out of
business. Because the American people are entitled to know if this
agency, this FSOC, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, is acting
on behalf of the American people and on behalf of the consumers or if
they are protecting sleazy banks that stay in business whose whole
business model is cheating consumers.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I think I understand the gentleman from
North Carolina's amendment. But I would like to just start, in the 5
minutes that I have, to remind everybody who is on the council that is
going to be able to allow sleazy financial products to go forward to
save the safety and soundness of an institution. That's what the
gentleman said.
So we've got the Secretary of the Treasury. We've got the Chairman of
the Federal Reserve, the Director of the CFPB, who is the person who is
making the regulations, Chairman of the FDIC, Comptroller of the
Currency, Chairman of the NCUA, Chairman of the SEC, Chairman of the
CFTC, Director of the FHFA, and an insurance representative. That's 10
people, professional regulators that are working in certain areas of
the financial markets overseeing our financial stability. It's not Tom,
Dick, and Harry off the street trying to figure out if a certain
provision, sleazy provision should be allowed to go forward. And I
think, in order to convince these folks, or to put your argument
forward as to why the rule or regulation would harm the safety and
soundness of an institution, I would imagine that these professionals
would require much due diligence and proper background work, probably
touching on some of the things the gentleman's already talked about,
who would be influenced and an analysis of the practice that is the
subject matter of the regulation or provision.
I think that the standard is high in any scenario. Certainly, it's
impossible in the existing bill. But in Mr. Duffy's bill, which brings
the standard down more in line with protecting community banks and
credit unions and other institutions on Main Street and the consumers
that so rely on them, that, I think, really this amendment just further
complicates, places in jeopardy, I think, makes it more cumbersome,
more impossible to meet a standard where the FSOC would be able to
oversee a certain rule and regulation.
So I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, one of the changes that
doesn't sound like it does much but really does is when you change the
word ``may'' to ``shall.'' Not only can this FSOC overturn a rule when
they think it might affect the safety and soundness of the system, they
have to overturn it. They have to overturn it if they think it's going
to put a specific bank out of business. That's not a small change.
That's not a high standard. That is a very low standard, and it is one
that completely cripples the bill.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
[[Page H5336]]
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would say to my friend, and I thank
him, if somebody had put Countrywide out of business, we'd have been in
good shape.
But the bias of the Republicans here against consumers and for the
banks is very clear. A later amendment will require the consumer bureau
to submit very much this kind of information to the Financial Stability
Council. So it's not reciprocal.
If the consumer bureau, under their amendment, has a rule or
regulation that it has to give all this information to the council but
nobody else does, it is one more example of how the consumer bureau is
not at all that favored.
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
{time} 1720
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 112-172.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 12, after the semicolon insert ``and''.
Page 2, strike lines 13 through 20 (and redesignate the
succeeding subparagraph accordingly).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. My friends are back again, those that we
have a great deal of respect for. And I am reminded of my colleague,
Congressman Cummings, who mentioned the enormous amount of foreclosures
that our military families experience.
Maybe we're not clear on what our new board really does, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau. Let me make it clear. It makes prices
clear; it makes terms and conditions clear; it ensures that mortgage
disclosures are short, relevant, and understandable by consumers and
lenders and military families; it lets consumers shop for the best
product of that price; and it helps consumers understand the true cost
of a financial transaction. It acts like a cop on the beat for our
consumers. The Financial Stability Oversight Board has its role--to
review the actions.
But let me tell you what this bill has just done. In the Dodd-Frank
bill, it has been a defined time schedule for the review to take place.
So if you are, in essence, hanging with a bad foreclosure or some bad
actions, this oversight board can review quickly the decision that the
consumer board did to protect you. But you know what has happened now?
They have given the oversight board an indefinite amount of time. This
is in the backdrop of undergraduates carrying record-high credit card
balances, $3,173.
What my amendment does--it restores reality. It restores a definitive
time, a time certain that the oversight board can review the regulation
that has given you relief so that you can benefit from the consumer
protection. Is that not a simple premise?
I ask my colleagues to accept this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, number #3 to H.R.
1315, the Consumer Financial Protections and Safety Act. My amendment
will improve certainty with respect to Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection (CFPB) regulations by restoring current time limits in which
the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) must review and act on
a petition to overrule a CFPB regulation, and restores a provision
allowing a petition to expire if the FSOC fails to act within 45 days
of the filing of the petition or upon expiration of a temporary stay.
Under my amendment the FSOC chair may stay the effectiveness of a
regulation at the request of a single FSOC member for 90 days. If the
FSOC chair does not stay the rule, the FSOC must vote within 45 days of
the date the petition is filed. If the FSOC stays the rule, the vote
must be taken before the stay elapses. If a vote is not taken within
these time frames, the petition is deemed to have been dismissed. This
is a basic and reasoned approach to ensure that rules issued by the
CFPB are reviewed in a timely fashion by the FSOC and will not result
in an endless delay and an endless issuance of stays which would
thereby render any CFPB rule ineffective.
Providing the FSOC with unlimited time to review CFPB regulations is
yet another way in which this legislation undermines the authority of
the CFPB and the necessity for consumer protection standards.
CFPB regulations enacted by the bureau are designed to protect the
average consumer from fraud and abuse, and prevent financial
institutions from employing unfair practices. This legislation would
allow the Financial Stability Oversight Council to review regulatory
measures passed by the CFPB without any time constraints. Under H.R.
1315, the FSOC can avoid making decisions, suspending CFPB regulations
in the process, providing the FSOC with a method to circumvent the
authority of the CFPB without being held accountable.
A strong and independent CFPB is the only way to ensure that the best
interest of the consumer is protected. This bureau was designed to
increase transparency and equality in mortgage practices, credit card
procedures and other consumer services.
The collapse of the housing market in 2008, and the financial crisis
that followed proved how intertwined our financial system is. When
securities collapse, due to failing mortgages, credit becomes scarce
and companies lay employees off. Losing a job and prolonged
unemployment can lead to the loss of one's home. In order to truly
safeguard against the irresponsible practices that led to the financial
crisis of 2008, we need an agency, such as the CFPB, to ensure that
consumers are protected.
It will protect consumers like Charles, who was forced to seek a loan
from a small, private lending company he had never heard of. The
company required a cosigner for the loan, and stipulated the cosigner
had assets worth far more than the loan.
When Charles defaulted on the loan, the company went after his
cosigner and his assets from the successful small business he owned.
Despite efforts to modify the loan based on Charles' unexpected
economic circumstances, the lender targeted his cosigner, resulting in
devastating effects to his credit rating.
The predatory loan company went as far as to assign Charles a new
loan to cover his debt, using the same cosigner, despite knowing that
Charles had no way to pay either of the loans, effectively ruining the
credit of both Charles and his cosigner.
If the FSOC is able to indefinitely delay the implementation of CFPB
rulings, it greatly reduces the effectiveness of the bureau, and
weakens the Dodd-Frank mechanism for consumer protection. We need this
Bureau to safeguard the interests of consumers like George, a disabled
veteran from Texas, whose doctor helped him apply for loan discharge,
under the Disability Act.
A 100% disabled veteran, extenuating circumstances caused George to
default on his loan; regardless, his request for loan discharge was
denied. As a result of being denied a discharge, George, a registered
nurse was not able to renew his nursing license. Which left George
without a nursing license and thereby without a license he lost his
ability to maintain a nursing position. A job as a nurse would have
allowed George to have an income in order to pay back the loan. George
found himself in a viscous cycle. George, a man who has honorably
served his nation. A man who was wounded in battle . . . that George
now a man who cannot pay his loan, cannot attain a license, and cannot
find a high paying position. If George was educated on the
consequences' of taking out a loan . . . he might have made a different
choice. The Bureau gives financial consumers a frame of reference
before agreeing to often confusing and convoluted loan schemes.
The CFPB would also prevent predatory companies from taking advantage
of people like Carol. One day, while cleaning her home, Carol received
a phone call from a debt management company. This company told Carol
that they would be able to get her creditors to lower their interest
rates, which would allow Carol to pay off her credit card, mortgage and
car loan debt in a shorter frame of time.
Carol was told she would save at least $2,500 and would save much
more. Carol was skeptical, especially when she heard the price was
$499, but the salesperson assured Carol she would see lower interest
rates within the first 30 days of the program and that these
[[Page H5337]]
savings would more than cover the fee. The company kept the initial
fee, and drove her further into debt by doing nothing to attempt to
find solutions to pay her existing debt. She had fallen victim to a
scam.
I offer this amendment to ensure that the CFPB exists to enforce
regulations to protect consumers, rather than an ineffective body that
is used as a tool for political grandstanding. If we are serious about
providing the American people with a protection mechanism, we must do
so by way of action, not by telling the public what they want to hear.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPITO. What we have done in our bill, as the gentlewoman said,
is to give the FSOC as much time as necessary to evaluate the effects
of the CFPB rule.
It's easy to imagine, under any scenario, that some of the effects,
good effects or bad effects, take more than 3 months to really surface.
I mean, we saw what happened with the subprime issue. It didn't bubble
up in 90 days. It bubbled up over a period of time. Should it have been
stopped? Absolutely. Were people asleep at the switch? Absolutely. And
that's why we think that you should have not constraints on the time,
but you should have an open-ended time period to find out any different
pitfalls that may occur from a certain rule and regulation. And so
that's why I would oppose the gentlelady's amendment going back to the
90 days.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have great respect for my friend from
West Virginia, but I'm so glad she said 90 days. My friends, that is 3
months. They want to take away 90 days and put it forever. Almost like
Dorothy, we're going to the Wizard of Oz, land of Oz, forever and ever
and ever.
And so individuals like Michelle, whose home was damaged during the
hurricane, who got costly repairs but had wage cuts and then found that
their house might be in foreclosure, they sent a company $1,400. The
company told them there was nothing they could do and they were
foreclosed on. The Bureau, being able to protect them from that now,
has oversight over positive regulation, and that oversight to review it
or to eliminate it goes on and on and on while Michelle and her husband
walk the streets.
Or Jacob, who wanted to just come as a retired mechanic to buy a CD.
He wanted to speak to a financial advisor. He was talked into buying a
$3,000 up-front fee. The man he talked to wasn't even in the bank. He
only made $25,000. He wound up losing $12,000. They want Jacob to wait
forever and ever and ever.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I appreciate the gentlelady's passion for this. And I
would like to say that as the 90-day rule stands right now, it doesn't
say that the rule can't go forward. It simply says that the ability to
have a look back to what consumer rules or regulations are put forward,
it widens the window there.
So some of the effects of rule and regulation that may, as I said
earlier, may not bubble up for a year or two, it may have a cumulative
effect, it may have a regional effect. I mean, we have friends in
Georgia right now who have had a lot of bank foreclosures. It's more
regionally placed, all the foreclosure problems.
I live in a place, actually, where we avoided a lot of the
foreclosure problems, but I understand my fellow Members from
California and Florida and Texas and Michigan and Ohio, they have
regional issues. This doesn't say that you can't allow the rule to go
forward. It simply says that it allows you to look back for a longer
period than 90 days.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady.
I'm asking my colleagues to support this amendment, which restores a
3-month review. There are people in America that don't even know what
their interest rates are on their credit card. The Consumer Protection
Bureau will help that. We need oversight that is refined and defined to
be able to protect the consumer.
With that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Once again, we see this pattern.
The gentleman from New Jersey objected before and said I am imputing
motives to them. Yes, I was imputing to them the notion that they knew
what they were doing last year when they overwhelmingly, unanimously
opposed an independent agency. I don't know who's kidding whom. They
don't like the idea of an independent agency. They do know that
politically it's kind of popular, so the tactic is to chip at it here
and chip at it there and to do a series of nonreciprocal requirements.
It is clearly the stepchild, the Cinderella of the financial
regulators. It's the only financial regulator that can be overruled by
the other financial regulator.
They say, How can you have an individual entity? But Members have
been here 20 years, and comparable times they have never moved to make
the Comptroller of the Currency a commission. They've never moved to
subject the Comptroller of the Currency to the appropriation. The
consumer chief is just like the Comptroller of the Currency, but that's
a banking agency. That's one of those agencies that the chairman of the
committee says is there to serve the banks. And as he said in his
statement today, they don't worry about the Federal Reserve and the
FDIC--with the terrible record the Federal Reserve has had on consumer
protection. He said, the chairman of the committee from Alabama, we are
worried about an agency whose sole goal is to protect consumers.
So this is one more thing. When it comes to other agencies, my
colleagues on the Republican side want to impose deadlines, want to
require speed, don't have it hanging over. But, no, the consumer agency
is treated differently.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Quigley
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 112-172.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 2, after ``servation.'' insert the following:
``The Council shall provide live online streaming or
broadcasting of the meetings.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
{time} 1730
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to
H.R. 1315.
The underlying bill requires that when the Financial Stability
Oversight Council meets to deliberate on a CFPB ruling, those meetings
would be open to the public.
My amendment takes that one step further and would require that the
meeting be live-streamed over the Internet. If what we are concerned
about here is transparency and openness, it makes sense that the entire
American public have access to these meetings over the Internet, not
just people in one city.
This is important to both supporters and critics of the CFPB. If a
CFPB ruling is challenged by the FSOC, Americans should be able to
observe the proceedings. My amendment will do just that. It makes the
proceedings more open, transparent, and accessible. Transparency will
help ensure that all parties--banks and consumers--get a fair hearing.
[[Page H5338]]
It is also important in terms of regaining the public trust,
especially in these times. According to a Pew poll, only 22 percent of
Americans trust government to do the right thing. What does that mean?
That means that eight out of 10 people in this country think that
government will do the wrong thing. The real cost of corruption is the
deficit of trust. It is almost impossible to lead without the public's
trust. What we need to focus on first and foremost is regaining that
trust, principally through transparency. Therefore, I ask that this
amendment be supported by both sides.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am
not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to congratulate the gentleman on an
amendment that provides for sunshine and transparency. When we did the
markup, we actually had another amendment along the same lines. I would
support the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Chu
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 112-172.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, line 17, strike ``and''.
Page 6, line 22, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 6, after line 22, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) researching and reporting to the full Commission
about ways to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or
abusive lending acts or practices, including how language
barriers contribute to lack of understanding in lending
activities.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Chu) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would give additional
responsibility to the Commissioner who is already in charge of
oversight of the Bureau's activities pertaining to the protection of
older consumers, minorities, youth, and veterans. It would require
research on how language barriers can lead to unfair and abusive
lending practices, and a report to the full Commission on ways to
protect consumers from potentially unfair and deceptive practices.
Take the case of Ms. Huang, who went to a car dealership and
negotiated a car sale with a salesperson in Chinese. But then when she
went to sign the contract, it was totally in English, and she didn't
understand it. When she got it translated later, she discovered that
she bought a different car with an extremely high interest rate. She
went back to the car dealership for redress, but they refused. She was
so upset that all she could think of to do was go back to the
dealership and wrap herself in a white sheet and hold a sign that said
``Cheaters'' and walk up and down in front of the dealership in
protest. Well, that gained attention. It turned out that many other
immigrants had been cheated in this manner as well, so I sponsored a
bill in the California State Assembly to address these deceptive
practices. But that is just one State and one small fix.
Now I know that the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and
Soundness Act does not include oversight of automobile loans, but Ms.
Huang's story highlights how persons with language barriers can be
victims of deceptive practices. We need someone on a national level
looking out for people like Ms. Huang and staying on top of ways people
are being duped because of language barriers. And that is just what my
amendment will do.
I urge support of my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I am not
opposed to the gentlelady's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank the gentlewoman for her amendment.
I would like to also highlight, in the Dodd-Frank bill, and I'm sure
she is well aware of some of the provisions that are already being made
through the CFPB for multilingual outreach and understanding.
During a conference call with a large number of bipartisan
congressional staff, the senior officials at the CFPB indicated that
the Bureau would have the capacity to translate into 180 languages.
That is a very broad reach, I think. And there are other foreign
language disclosures outreach by the Secretary of the Treasury to help
persons facing language barriers and other aspects around the same
issue that the gentlelady is speaking about.
I am delighted that she wants to amend the Commission because, as we
know, and I have spoken more than a few times on this in just the last
several hours, about my ardent support for the Commission. There is one
Commissioner who is charged with overseeing some special segments of
our population, and certainly ones who have language barriers would be
included in this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentlelady from West
Virginia making a very important point, seriously, talking about the
multilingual aspects, because an important bipartisan part of our
committee's work over the years, and we've had some differences, but
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hinojosa) and a number of others have stressed an important part
of this Agency's mission is financial literacy.
We all agree that if people were better educated, they could defend
themselves better. This is an ongoing, joint effort on our committee.
And obviously, if you're trying to do financial literacy, it has to be
in a language that the people understand. So I appreciate the
gentlelady highlighting that, and it does help us do it.
I would note, and I think the gentlewoman from California is quite
correct in wanting to do this, but you don't need a commission to do
it. If there wasn't a commission, we could do it with various agency
heads. For example, there has been some concern about making sure that
veterans are taken care of and people in the military. One of the
things that Elizabeth Warren did, and she did a number of extraordinary
things, and I don't know if people are aware of the head of the
military Bureau that protects members in the services, a very
experienced woman from the military named Holly Petraeus, the wife of
General Petraeus. That's an example of how you can do these things.
So the principle that the gentlewoman from California advocates is a
very good one, and I'm sure we'll find a way to accommodate it. I thank
her.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that this does not create
any overly burdensome responsibility. Instead, it supports the goal of
the legislation. It protects those persons who might be the victims of
such unfair and deceptive practices.
What this does is clarify that this specially designated Commissioner
would take into account how language barriers might be impacted by such
abusive practices, and it makes sure that that is done.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Maloney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 112-172.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 15, line 17, after ``section,'' insert the following:
``except for subsection (e),''.
Page 15, line 23, strike the quotation marks and following
period and insert after such line the following:
[[Page H5339]]
``(e) Functions to Temporarily Be Carried Out by the
Secretary.--Notwithstanding subsection (d), if no Chair of
the Commission of the Bureau has been confirmed by the Senate
as of the single calendar date designated for the transfer of
functions to the Bureau under section 1061, then until such
time as the Chair of the Commission of the Bureau has been so
confirmed, the Secretary of the Treasury shall have the
authority to carry out the following functions:
``(1) All rulemaking authority with respect to unfair or
deceptive acts or practices that would have been conferred
upon the Bureau on the designated transfer date, but for the
application of subsection (d).
``(2) All authority to carry out examinations of
nondepository covered persons that would have been conferred
upon the Bureau on the designated transfer date, but for the
application of subsection (d).
``(3) All functions of the Bureau under this subtitle that
would have been conferred upon the Bureau on the designated
transfer date, but for the application of subsection (d).''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R.
1315, which will transfer all authority that the CFPB would receive to
the Secretary of the Treasury if no Commission chair is in place by
July 21 until such time as the confirmation by the other body.
There is no more blatant effort to derail the consumer protections
than the section of this bill that delays the full transfer of
authority that the CFPB would have to protect consumers until a
Director is in place.
Under the Republican bill, the Bureau would not be able to do
anything starting today, even write rules under the existing consumer
laws as Dodd-Frank envisioned. As we know, there are 44 Republican
Members of the other body that have indicated in writing in a letter to
the President that they will not vote to confirm anyone unless
President Obama bends to their demands that would weaken the CFPB.
The Republican bill is not about improvements; it's about preventing
the CFPB from effectively operating. This week, the President nominated
former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to be the CFPB's first
Director. He is now the Director of enforcement there, and will bring a
voice for State AGs to enforce consumer laws. I hope that the other
body will act on his nomination as soon as possible, but we know that
there are 44 who say they will not confirm anyone. I do not believe
that consumers should have to wait for this process to go forward. They
should be protected today.
My amendment says that if they are going to delay the ability of the
Agency to protect consumers, at least give that authority to the
Secretary of the Treasury until a Director is confirmed to head the
Bureau. Now, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
indicated their concern that there is no one officially at the helm;
then let Treasury have that authority until a Director has been
confirmed so that it can begin to go forward with the protections that
Dodd-Frank envisioned.
{time} 1740
This includes the authority the bureau is set to receive today as
well as the new supervisory authority for nonbank financial
institutions and new rulemaking under unfair, deceptive, and abusive
practices. Consumers should not have to wait any longer. My amendment
will ensure that work can begin to advance the important mission of the
CFPB.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPITO. I am opposed to the amendment offered by the gentlelady,
my ranking member. We work really well together, I think, on the
subcommittee. We obviously have differences, and this is one.
The portion of the bill that she's talking about is actually the
portion that I created. It was really a creation of a couple of months
ago. Probably in April, I began to think to myself: The President
hasn't made an appointment to the marque bureau to protect consumers,
and he's had almost an entire year to do this. The handwriting was
going to be on the wall in terms of trying to get a Senate
confirmation. Certainly, you're not going to get one in 4 days, which
is what he tried when he nominated somebody on Monday, finally.
So the thought for me is that we have enormous powers vested in one
individual. The bill was written to have them. The minority leader was
down here saying the oversight that is provided by Senate confirmation
is the Congress's stamp of approval of the direction this individual
wants to take this bureau. Yet, we have a situation where we have a
President who's waited an entire, let's see, 361 days before making an
appointment, and we're in a position where we're going to have an
acting or recess appointment with a very powerful position without any
input or oversight in the nominating process that moves forward and is
vested in the United States Senate.
I just think that's a problem. I think that the President had had due
time to accomplish this, and we're going to say to the Treasury
Secretary, We're going to give it to you. Quite frankly, I think the
Treasury Secretary is pretty busy right now dealing with debt limit
issues and trying to solve other problems that we have in front of us
financially. Our economy, we have 9.2 percent unemployment. We've got
to get the wheels turning here, and I'm sure that's where the Secretary
is putting his energy, appropriately so.
I just think that this is an agency that's starting with one hand
tied behind their back because of the fault of the chief executive who
has not appointed a person that could seek and get Senate confirmation,
and I think that without that person, with the oversight of a Senate
confirmation, taking the reins of this very powerful bureau that's just
been created, we would be getting off on the wrong foot.
I would oppose the gentlelady's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MALONEY. May I inquire as to how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mrs. MALONEY. Well, first of all, the President has made an
appointment, and he confronts a threat by 44 Members of the other body
who say they won't confirm anyone unless the powers of the CFPB are
diminished and it's de-fanged and weakened. Consumers should not have
to wait for a political confirmation process that the Republicans in
the other body have vowed that they're going to hold up. They should be
able to move forward with these critical protections and go forward.
I must tell you that the American public is fed up with the delays
and the efforts by the other body to prevent consumer protections. If
we had had a CFPB in place, we could have prevented the financial
downturn in 2008 which caused the high unemployment that the gentlelady
is concerned about.
The CFPB is carefully constructed, urgently needed, and should be
allowed to go forward to protect consumers. My amendment will allow
that to happen. I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Being lectured by a member of the
Republican Party on the importance of confirmation at the CFPB is like
being lectured about birth control by the Octomom. Forty-four
Republican Senators have outrageously announced they will not do their
constitutional duty and they will confirm nobody, no matter how good,
until we agree to weaken the agency.
So what we have is a perfect double play here between House and
Senate Republicans. Senate Republicans say we will confirm nobody,
House Republicans say the agency won't function until you get a
confirmation, which the Senate Republicans have refused to do.
I wish the President had appointed someone earlier. I'm critical of
him for not doing that. But I don't want to punish the American people,
the beneficiaries of this, by that failure to appoint earlier. By the
way, with the Secretary of the Treasury having the authority until now,
a lot has been done. Holly Petraeus was put there. A lot of other
people were there. They've done some good stuff.
Let's not give in to the Republican blackmail in the Senate.
Mrs. MALONEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H5340]]
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPITO. I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my request
for a recorded vote on amendment No. 3 be withdrawn.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Oregon?
Without objection, the request for a recorded vote on amendment no. 3
is withdrawn, and the amendment stands adopted by the voice vote
thereon.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Lankford
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 112-172.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 7. INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT.
Section 1013 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(h) Inspector General Report.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than February 1, 2012, and
annually thereafter, the Inspector General of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection shall submit a report to the
Congress containing the following:
``(A) A list of all new rules, guidelines, and regulations
prescribed by the Bureau within the previous fiscal year,
with corresponding detailed descriptions of each.
``(B) A detailed list of all authority which the Inspector
General believes overlaps with the efforts of other Federal
departments and agencies.
``(C) All administrative expenses of the Bureau, including
the amount spent on salaries, office supplies, and office
space.
``(D) The current amount in the Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection Fund.
``(2) Public disclosure.--The Inspector General of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection shall make each
report submitted under paragraph (1) available to the public,
including on the Bureau's website.
``(3) Use of funds.--The Inspector General shall carry out
this subsection using existing funds.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Similar to Mr. Quigley's amendment earlier--his amendment was to
provide transparency at CFPB meetings--this amendment brings
transparency to the regulatory process decisions, cost and staff
structure.
Both parties want reliable information from the Inspectors General of
every agency and of this bureau. Congress has a responsibility for
oversight. That responsibility is not possible without good
information. This will make the CFPB consistent with other agencies in
oversight transparency.
Because this new Federal Bureau is within the Federal Reserve, we
must provide, Congress, citizen watchdog groups and the general public
with the tools for proper oversight.
The Lankford amendment will put in place a mechanism for bureau
transparency. Specifically, this amendment would require the Inspectors
General of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to post online and submit an
annual report to Congress each February 1 illuminating four key
elements in the bureau's operations during the previous fiscal year:
Number one, a list of all new rules, guidelines, regulations
prescribed by the bureau within the previous fiscal year with
corresponding descriptions of each.
Number two, a detailed list of all authority that the Federal Reserve
Inspector General deems in conflict with other Federal departments and
agencies.
Number three, administrative expenses of the bureau, including the
amount spent on salaries, office supplies, and office space.
Number four, the current balance at the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, their fund itself.
As lawmakers, we have to have quality information at our disposal to
conduct our constitutionally required duty of oversight. The report
required by this amendment would provide Congress and the public a
broad look into the operations of the bureau.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in tentative
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I could be persuaded as I would like to
be, but I am the only speaker, and since I am defending the committee's
position, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANKFORD. I yield to the gentlelady from West Virginia.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would just like to tell the gentleman I support his
amendment. I think it lends itself, again, to transparency and full
accountability. I thank him for bringing it forward. Good work from the
gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1750
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the amendment. I've had a chance to think
about it, and I am persuaded by its merits. I think this is a genuinely
helpful amendment.
But I do want to take this opportunity in this 5 minutes to talk
about broader issues, and I do so, I will say--I would not
extraordinarily have done this, to take this 5 minutes in this way, but
the rule was so outrageously stingy in refusing adequate debate time on
some central issues that we have no option but to use this perfectly
reasonable amendment as an opportunity to say what we were prevented by
the rule from saying.
By the way, there's one part of the rule that should be mentioned
that I didn't have time to talk about earlier. The regular order that
my Republican colleagues promised has been beat up pretty good
recently, and certainly by this rule.
The Congressional Budget Office says that their effort to expand the
head of the consumer agency to a five-member commission will cost $71
million over the 5-year period. Now, that violates their CutGo rule,
but they don't care that much about violating their rules when it suits
their ideology. But they found an offset. What's the offset? The offset
is a bill that the House already passed to save money from the Federal
Housing Administration, the FHA.
So here's what they're doing. They're reaching back, and the rule
retroactively merges the two bills. How's that for the regular order?
It's a rule that retroactively takes a bill that already passed, saves
money within the FHA, and instead of using that either for deficit
reduction entirely or for easing people's ability to get housing, they
use it to offset their extra bureaucracy here in this bill.
Beyond that, I want to talk again about the fundamental issues. Some
on the Republican side have apparently undergone a conversion. I don't
want to not take ``yes'' for an answer. Apparently they are now in
favor of an agency that they vigorously opposed last year and the year
before.
We had a special markup. The gentleman from Alabama incorrectly said
he never voted against this. Well, someone claiming to be the gentleman
from Alabama attended a markup when we voted on this in committee and
voted against it, as did the gentlewoman from West Virginia, as did
virtually everyone on the Republican side. Instead, they supported a
substitute from the gentlewoman from Illinois which did nothing--well,
I take it back.
[[Page H5341]]
It said that all the regulators could get together, plus the Secretary
of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury--I don't know who else--and
they could set up a hotline for consumers and have a Web site, but any
information taken in would go back to those same regulators.
So they have consistently opposed it, and that's why they're so
wounded. How dare we say that they're not in favor of this agency?
Because we were there when they tried to kill it, we there when they
voted against it, and we understand that they don't want to see it go
forward. They are prudent, however. They understand that it would not
be a good idea to attack it head-on, so they're trying a sideways
attack, most importantly by saying that the bank regulators--they
wanted to leave consumer protection with the bank regulators. That was
the Biggert substitute.
The FDIC, the Federal Reserve more than anybody else, because they're
the key bank regulator of consumer affairs--I don't know who came up
with that--they would put the bank regulators back in charge of this
agency by letting them overturn by majority vote anything the agency
does. They say, Well, we're just going back to where you were. No, we
were never for that. In fact, we're totally reversing.
And now we have the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York, and
the gentlewoman from West Virginia--you know, there's a children's book
where somebody says, I can believe 10 impossible things before
breakfast. Well, I'll give the gentlewoman credit for moderation. She
only said one impossible thing before dinner. She said we must have a
confirmation. Confirmation is important. She should tell that to her
Senate colleagues. Forty-four Republican Senators, not the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Brown) or the Senators from Maine, Ms. Collins and
Ms. Snowe, 44 of them, enough to filibuster, have said, We wouldn't
confirm anybody.
So I hope someone will explain to me: How can the manager of the bill
get up and say confirmation is important, we can't allow this to go
forward unless there's confirmation, we won't allow the powers to go
forward unless there's conformation, knowing that there can't be
confirmation, not because the President was late, as he was--and I was
critical of him for doing that--but because the Republican majority
says they won't confirm?
And then they complain there might be a recess appointment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Rigell
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 112-172.
Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the of the bill the following new section:
SEC. 7. ANALYSIS OF REGULATIONS.
Section 1022 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e) Analysis of Regulations.--
``(1) In general.--Each time the Bureau proposes a new rule
or regulation, the Bureau shall--
``(A) carry out an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
for such proposed rule or regulation, which shall be carried
out as closely as possible to those initial regulatory
flexibility analyses required under section 603 of title 5,
United States Code, but which shall analyze the financial
impact of the proposed rule or regulation on all financial
entities, regardless of size; and
``(B) carry out an analysis of whether the proposed rule or
regulation will impair the ability of individuals and small
business to access credit from financial institutions.
``(2) Report.--The Bureau shall issue a report to the
Council on the analyses carried out under paragraph (1), and
make such analyses available to the public.
``(3) Use of existing resources.--The Bureau shall use
existing resources to carry out the requirements of this
subsection.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, Americans across this great land are
hurting. Families are being hurt by excessively high unemployment. It
is right now at 9.2 percent. In the Second District, it's high, and my
wife, Teri, and I have dear friends who have lost their family
businesses because of, I think, policies that have come out of this
very institution, a hyperactive Federal Government.
So I rise today to offer an amendment that would directly address one
of the principal reasons that I believe that our small businesses are
having such a difficult time--and I know this firsthand because I am a
small business owner--and that's a lack of credit.
My amendment would require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
to submit a financial impact analysis on each proposed rule or
regulation that it intends to layer upon our Nation's lenders. It would
expand the cost analysis to include financial institutions of all
sizes, not just the smaller ones that are currently under the cost
analysis portion of the bill. Most importantly, though, the amendment
would require the bureau to submit an analysis to the council on how
the proposed regulation would impair the ability of individuals and our
small businesses to access credit.
I've spent a lot of time, Mr. Chairman, in our district listening to
small business owners and our local community bankers, not the big
banks up in New York but the local banks. They've given me a clear
indication of the struggle that our small business owners are having
when it comes to acquiring credit. They're saying, Scott, we're not
hiring account executives to go out and meet with our small business
owners. We're hiring regulatory analysts to figure out and sort through
Dodd-Frank, and now there's just yet another layer that's coming upon
our local lenders. They're really struggling.
Mr. Chairman, what I've done in this amendment is to offer a
reasonable solution that just would require that bureau to pause and to
calculate and to distribute to the public a clear indication of the
impact that the regulation would have both on the lending institution
and on credit for our small business owners and individuals.
I believe this is a very prudent amendment. Given the hyperactive
nature of our Federal Government, it continues to grow, it continues to
reach out and, I think, choke out the life of the small business
entrepreneur.
I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It really is
about confidence. The hardworking folks that I know in the district,
they want to know that we really are going to start in a reasonable and
responsible way to contain this ever-expanding Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, I close with this. I am not an advocate for no
regulation, I'm an advocate for smarter and lighter regulation, and I
think this amendment meets that test. I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Himes).
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, I was moved to come to the floor to argue in
opposition to this amendment and in opposition to the underlying
legislation. I was moved because the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
are both about reports and analyses that this new agency will be
required to produce. And it's odd, because to give my friends on the
other side credit, they usually stand for more streamlined and
efficient government, sometimes to the point that government ceases to
function; but they are about efficiency and streamlining, and yet here
we're hearing about more reports and more analyses, for the simple
reason that this is part of a larger strategy to weigh down, to
underfund, and to decapitate an agency they have no interest in seeing
survive, an agency that would protect consumers, that would protect
that group that was badly and most severely harmed in the disaster that
we just went through.
Why? One can speculate. Perhaps it's to stand for the industry, for
the financial concerns. But why do that? Why do
[[Page H5342]]
that when it has been proven time and time again, not just in the last
3 years but over hundreds of years, that financial services is a very
volatile and very risky pursuit that if not adequately regulated will
do what it has done in the last 3 years, will do what it did in the
late 1920s, what it has done hundreds of years prior, collapse in upon
itself.
{time} 1800
This is regulation that is smart, that is commonsense, and that will
protect the American family from products that could destroy that
family. So let's not weigh down this agency. Let's not decapitate it.
Let's not underfund it. Let's let it survive to protect American
families.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Sometimes it really is helpful, when
you want to amend the law, to read the law. This amendment is almost
completely redundant, and where it is not redundant, it is annoyingly
pointless.
This is what the law already requires:
Before the CFPB can adopt a rule, it has to consider the potential
benefits and costs to consumers and to the financial industry. It has
to consider the impact of the rule. It has to consider whether it
constricts credit, whether it makes it harder for small businesses or
individuals--households--to get credit. All this amendment would
require is already in the bill.
The CFPB's rulemaking requires that they give notice that they're
going to consider a rule, and then they've got to take comment. Then
they've got to propose a rule, and then they've got to take comment
again. They know that, if anybody is against it, they've got to be
prepared to defend it in court, and they've got to show that they
developed the evidence that supports the rule and supports what the
benefits are and what the costs are and whether it keeps people from
getting credit.
What this amendment would also do is to make the CFPB prepare this
report when nobody is against it, when everybody is perfectly fine with
it, when it doesn't hurt anybody, when it doesn't bother anybody. It's
minor. It's procedural. It would still require this silly, pointless
report for a rule that nobody is against.
I understand that most Members do not want to make government
unwieldy and filled with red tape. This amendment would just make
government more unwieldy and filled with more red tape. So I oppose the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112-172 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 9 by Mrs. Maloney of New York.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Rigell of Virginia.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 239, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 615]
AYES--170
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
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
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--239
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
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)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
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
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
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
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
[[Page H5343]]
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--23
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blumenauer
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Costa
Denham
Ellison
Giffords
Griffith (VA)
Hinchey
Hoyer
Landry
Larson (CT)
Lynch
Pelosi
Pence
Rogers (AL)
Schock
Scott, Austin
Wilson (FL)
Young (AK)
{time} 1829
Messrs. BENISHEK and CRITZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. ALTMIRE, PALLONE, CLEAVER, CARNEY, Mrs. DAVIS of California,
Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, LARSEN of Washington, GRIJALVA, and
GARAMENDI changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 615, had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 615 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Miller of North Carolina
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175,
noes 238, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 616]
AYES--175
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
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
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
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
NOES--238
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
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)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
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
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
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
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
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--19
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blumenauer
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Costa
Doggett
Ellison
Giffords
Griffith (VA)
Hinchey
Hoyer
Landry
Payne
Pelosi
Schock
Scott, Austin
Young (AK)
{time} 1834
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175,
noes 240, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 617]
AYES--175
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
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
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
[[Page H5344]]
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
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
NOES--240
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
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
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
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
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
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
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
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
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--17
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blumenauer
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Costa
Ellison
Giffords
Griffith (VA)
Hinchey
Hoyer
Landry
Pelosi
Schock
Scott, Austin
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute left in this
vote.
{time} 1837
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Maloney
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168,
noes 244, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 618]
AYES--168
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
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
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Terry
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
NOES--244
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
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)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
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.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
[[Page H5345]]
NOT VOTING--20
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blumenauer
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Clarke (MI)
Costa
Ellison
Giffords
Griffith (VA)
Hinchey
Hoyer
Landry
Mack
Pelosi
Schock
Scott, Austin
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1841
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Rigell
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Rigell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246,
noes 167, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 619]
AYES--246
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
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
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
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
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
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
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--167
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
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--19
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blumenauer
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Costa
Ellison
Giffords
Griffith (VA)
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Hoyer
Issa
Landry
Pelosi
Schock
Scott, Austin
Young (AK)
{time} 1845
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, and, pursuant to House Resolution 358,
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. MICHAUD. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Michaud moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1315 to the
Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 1, after line 4, insert the following new section (and
redesignate succeeding sections accordingly):
SEC. 2. PROTECTING SENIORS FROM ABUSIVE, PREDATORY, UNFAIR,
AND DECEPTIVE FINANCIAL PRACTICES.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act, or the amendments
made by this Act, shall limit the authority of the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection with respect to a rule or
regulation issued by the Bureau, where the primary purpose of
such rule or regulation is the prevention of abusive,
predatory, unfair, or deceptive acts or practices that prey
on the financial security of seniors, including fraud
relating to their Social
[[Page H5346]]
Security and Medicare benefits, foreclosure, robosigning and
reverse mortgages, and pensions or other retirement savings.
(b) Senior Defined.--For purposes of this Act and section
1023(c)(3)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, the term ``senior'' shall have the
meaning given the term ``older individual'' under section
102(40) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3002(40)).
Page 1, line 12, insert the following before the quotation
marks: ``, except that the affirmative vote of \2/3\ of the
members of the Council then serving shall be required if the
primary purpose of the regulation is the prevention of
abusive, predatory, unfair, or deceptive acts or practices
that prey on the financial security of seniors, including
fraud relating to their Social Security and Medicare
benefits, foreclosure, robosigning and reverse mortgages, and
pensions or other retirement savings''.
Mr. MICHAUD (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maine?
Mr. DUFFY. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
{time} 1850
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Maine is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I offer this final amendment today for two
reasons. First, to improve the bill one last time before we vote on
final passage. And second, to provide Congress an opportunity to come
together on an issue that all of us can agree on: protecting our
seniors.
In the last 8 years that I have been a Member of Congress, I have had
the opportunity to work with Republicans and Democrats alike to ensure
that older Americans have the security and the quality of life that
they deserve.
I am hopeful my amendment today will present another chance for my
friends on both sides of the aisle to vote for something because it is
good policy, regardless of our different politics.
This final amendment would ensure that nothing will prevent the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from issuing rules or regulations
that protect our seniors.
Specifically it makes sure that the bureau is fully able to protect
seniors' Social Security and Medicare benefits, mortgages, pensions,
and other retirement savings from fraud.
In my State of Maine, seniors are frequent targets of predatory
practices intended to cheat them out of their money. Our Republican
Governor Paul LePage recognized this disturbing reality when he
announced new efforts to guard seniors from these scams just last month
on Elder Abuse Awareness Day. The governor's efforts and my amendment
are badly needed to protect our seniors. A 2010 survey of 7.3 million
older Americans found that one out of every five citizens over the age
of 65 has been a victim of a fraudulent scheme.
Even more are at risk of becoming victims, 37 percent of seniors are
currently being contacted by people calling them asking for money,
lotteries, and other scams.
I think we all can agree that Congress needs to act now to stop
people from preying on seniors' finances and to protect their Medicare
and Social Security benefits from scams. My final amendment to this
bill will do just that.
I want to highlight two stories of fraud targeted at older Americans
in my State of Maine. These heartbreaking examples show why it is so
important for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be able to
protect our seniors.
Carolyn and Ray Thompson live in Brewer, Maine. And like many
Mainers, they are big advocates of green energy and like a good
opportunity when they see one. So when they heard from their friends
about a man who owned a patent for a new form of windmill technology
and was looking for investors, Carolyn and Ray were excited about the
possibility of investing in windmill projects. So they did invest, to
the tune of $30,000, thinking they were putting their money in an
investment that would provide a secure future for their children.
But on a trip to view the windmill technology, they were not
impressed by what they saw and became suspicious. Their suspicions were
justified, and the opportunity proved to be a scam that took tens of
thousands of dollars of their savings. Thankfully, the scammer was
convicted of fraud earlier this month, but the Thompsons are unlikely
to get their money back.
The second story is about Lucianne, a retired teacher from Caribou,
Maine, who passed away last year from breast cancer. Three years before
she died, she met with an insurance agent from Maine who took advantage
of her age and repeatedly gave her bad financial advice for his
financial gain. He convinced her to buy and finance a snowmobile for
him to use. He got her to buy a long-term life insurance policy that
she couldn't afford. And he advised her to cash out some of her stock
portfolio to make financial expenditures that were bad and that really
caused her Medicare premiums to skyrocket.
Lucianne passed away in November and did not live to see the agent
lose his license. But her story lives on today as compelling evidence
that Congress needs to protect our seniors from fraud.
So I ask my colleagues to join me today to support my amendment. We
all have constituents like Lucianne and like Mr. and Mrs. Thompson.
This final amendment will not prevent this bill from moving forward.
If it is adopted, it will simply be incorporated into the bill, and the
bill will be immediately voted on.
I offer this final amendment today to protect our seniors, and I hope
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting it.
I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this final amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in
opposition to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, this motion on the floor today is just a
political stunt that is going to undo the goodwill of my bill. Let's be
clear, after nearly 20 hours of hearings and debates in our
subcommittee and in our committee, this issue specifically has not been
raised by my friends across the aisle. And then today, we spent nearly
3 hours on the floor and not once was this specific issue raised. This
is no more than political theater.
But I have good news for my friends across the aisle, because in our
committee we dealt with a similar issue, one where I made a motion to
designate one of five commissioners to specifically deal with the
protection of our seniors. The bad news is that every Democrat voted
against that amendment.
Let's be clear. Everybody in this House wants to make sure their
friends, their family members, their neighbors and constituents, when
they deal with banks, their transactions are fair and transparent. We
want to make sure of that. But I want to specifically talk about one
very important issue that is raised in my bill that fixes the
underlying law, because when you look at the CFPB as currently written,
there is the ability to have rules reviewed, but the only way a rule
can get reviewed is if you are a big bank on Wall Street. If you are
one of those banks that participated in the financial crisis, if you
are a big bank that is too big to fail, the way the underlying law has
been written, Mr. Speaker, you have a voice with the way the current
law is written with the CFPB.
What my bill does is it actually gives a voice to small community
banks and credit unions who deal with families all across America.
{time} 1900
Mr. Speaker, my bill doesn't just give a voice to Wall Street banks,
the big banks. What my bill does is it gives a voice to small community
banks, gives a voice to credit unions. So if a rule comes out that
affects negatively the small community banks and the credit unions,
they have a voice to ask that it be overturned. And it's those very
small banks and credit unions that our families across this country
look to when they want to get a loan for a car or mortgage for their
home. Not only
[[Page H5347]]
that, it's those small banks and credit unions that give capital to
small businesses that expand and grow and create jobs for our
hardworking families right here in America.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is commonsense reform. This is reform that
is going to do justice to the CFPB. I would ask that you join with me
and Main Street America and vote against this motion to recommit and
vote for the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 232, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 620]
AYES--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Boren
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)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
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
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
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
NOES--232
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
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)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
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
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
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--17
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blumenauer
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Costa
Ellison
Giffords
Griffith (VA)
Hinchey
Hoyer
Landry
Pelosi
Schock
Scott, Austin
Young (AK)
{time} 1919
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CUELLAR and Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241,
noes 173, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 621]
AYES--241
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
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
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
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)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
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
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
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
[[Page H5348]]
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--173
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
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
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
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--18
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blumenauer
Butterfield
Castor (FL)
Costa
Ellison
Giffords
Griffith (VA)
Hinchey
Hoyer
Landry
Pelosi
Schock
Scott, Austin
Speier
Young (AK)
{time} 1927
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________