Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 25 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1731-H1739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3193, CONSUMER FINANCIAL FREEDOM
AND WASHINGTON ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE
PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 13, 2014, THROUGH FEBRUARY 24, 2014; AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 475 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 475

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3193) to amend the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010 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. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial
Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 113-36 modified by the amendment printed in
part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from
February 13, 2014, through February 24, 2014--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 4. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of February 12, 2014, providing for
consideration or disposition of a measure relating to the
public debt limit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Boulder, Colorado (Mr.
Polis), my colleague and my friend, pending which I yield myself such
time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 475 provides for a
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3193. This rule makes in
order every amendment that complied with House rules, giving House
Members of the majority and the minority ample opportunity to
participate in today's debate.
The legislation before us today takes important steps to restore
transparency, accountability, and effective oversight in our Federal
regulatory process. Established in 2010 under the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, known as CFPB, is granted the authority to regulate
the financial services industry in an effort to limit bad actors and
protect consumers from fraud and abuse.

[[Page H1732]]

Unfortunately, by design--no mistake--the CFPB has virtually zero
congressional oversight, limited judicial review, and the unilateral
ability to promulgate any rule or regulation it deems appropriate. In
essence, it is wholly unaccountable to the American people and to the
United States Congress, the men and women who, by the Constitution of
the United States, have the authority and the responsibility to
represent the American people through elected office.
This is not how our government was meant to operate, but this is what
former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats desperately wanted,
control of the financial services industry by one person, one person
who answers solely to the President of the United States.
I have heard from numerous community bankers in Texas. Madam Speaker,
I am from Dallas, Texas, and am proud to say that Dallas, Texas, is
home to community bankers who understand that they are on the front
lines of a new regulatory regime, and that is not just community
bankers, but all bankers and those covered under financial services
regulations. Their accounts of the impacts stemming from the new CFPB
rules are startling. Specifically, they have told me that the CFPB's
new regulations regarding ``qualified mortgages'' will significantly
increase borrowing costs and considerably reduce the number of
available mortgages.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Sounds like something that the Democrats
concocted to make sure that health care was in trouble so they could
show up with the answer of the Affordable Care Act, which is nothing
that is implied in its name.
They are doing exactly to financial services what the Democrats did
to health care in this country, and bankers and the financial services
industry understand this.
In a time when Americans are looking to the Federal Government simply
to promote increased private sector investment in our economy and to
allow the free enterprise system to flourish, up to and including
offering more jobs, stable opportunities for meaningful capital,
instead, we see one person at the head of the organization who can make
all these decisions handing down new rules and regulations which, I
believe, do the exact opposite of making it easier, safer, and better
to grow jobs and to have Americans be competitive in the marketplace.
The bill before us today is not about deregulation. It is about
appropriate balanced regulation with ideas that come from not just the
Committee on Financial Services, led by our great young Chairman Jeb
Hensarling, but perhaps, more importantly, ideas that coincide with
other government agencies, where it is a bipartisan effort, not by a
particular head of one organization.
While the American people do need protection from bad actors in the
financial services industry, they also need protection, I believe, from
an activist government that unilaterally dispenses burdensome and
needless regulations which negatively impact not only our economy but
the industry that helps provide needed capital, jobs, and enrichment of
the American financial services industry, which is a part of the free
enterprise system.
Madam Speaker, I am sure you are familiar with ObamaCare's
Independent Payment Advisory Board, known as IPAB. Yes, it is the one
body of unelected bureaucrats which rations health care and makes
decisions, once again, without judicial or congressional oversight on
America's seniors.
Just as IPAB restricts choices in the health care sector, so too do
unelected bureaucrats at the CFPB. They restrict choices in the
financial sector. They are trying to choke off the free enterprise
system as a result of rules and regulations that become burdensome, and
so people quit offering their services.
By regulating the types of credit cards, mortgages, or loans that
Americans can get, the CFPB makes unilateral decisions regarding what
types of financial tools Americans can use. The American people, I
believe, deserve something better from Washington, as opposed to this
which they are getting, which is a one-size-fits-all approach from
Washington, D.C.
That is why I support H.R. 3193. It brings much-needed balance to the
CFPB by replacing the lone director with a five-member commission to be
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, similar to
other financial regulators, so that no one person can unilaterally
determine regulations which impact millions of Americans and has little
oversight by our courts or by Congress.
Additionally, as an independent agency housed in the Federal Reserve
today, the CFPB is not subject to appropriation. They are a mandatory
spending item as a result of what President Obama and House and Senate
Democrats have done.
By restoring this important check and balance, Congress needs to make
sure that we appropriate the money that they should use. It will ensure
that the CFPB acts as intended and does not continue to impose
economically devastating regulations on the American economy.
To have no oversight and no authority for the money that they spend I
believe is a misuse of the way we would want a government agency to
work. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, we should be for
understanding they should serve at the pleasure of the American people,
not the reverse therein.
Finally, this legislation takes important steps. It protects
Americans' personal nonpublic information. Yesterday, up in the Rules
Committee, we heard testimony from Chairman Jeb Hensarling of Dallas,
Texas, that the CFPB currently maintains over 900 million credit card
records. That is right: the NSA of financial services, that is exactly
what the CFPB is, and such an immense amount of private data held by
the Federal Government presents ample opportunity for misuse.
Madam Speaker, I do not believe that they should have this
information, and I believe they should immediately recuse themselves of
gaining this information.
H.R. 3193 will ensure that Americans are protected by requiring
express written consent from the CFPB before they can obtain, access,
collect, use, or disclose any personal nonpublic information.

{time} 1245

I think it is dangerous to have a government agency with this type of
power, information, and, as we have seen from the IRS, a misuse of
personal information and data that has become an abuse of power. This
bill will require that the CFPB assert in writing how that information
will be used and to request it.
Madam Speaker, the American people are tired of the Obama
administration's blatant disregard for the laws which govern our great
Nation. Just yesterday, we witnessed, once again, President Obama's
willingness to do whatever he wants when he unilaterally delayed the
employer mandate of the health care bill by 1 year. Instead of giving
all Americans relief from the Affordable Care Act, known as ObamaCare,
the administration is single-handedly picking winners and losers--by
the way, on behalf of business as opposed to individuals. Just as the
President has done with health care, there is nothing to prevent the
CFPB from following suit and unilaterally deciding who will be subject
to crushing regulation and who will not. That is why H.R. 3193 is so
important.
Madam Speaker, we are on the floor today because we are talking about
what literally is a Big Government action that was done several years
ago by the President of the United States, by the former Speaker of the
House, Nancy Pelosi, and by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Republicans understand that Big Government not only is costly and
expensive but that some people want them to control our lives. Freedom,
in fact, Madam Speaker, is worth fighting for, and so Republicans are
here today on the floor to balance that tilt in favor of freedom,
opportunity, and for the right of their own person, an individual in
this Nation, to know if your government is collecting your financial
records.
And you have a right to know that. That is another reason why
Republicans are pleased to say today we are talking about very, very
important issues to every single American. It is more than freedom. It
is rule of law.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the
underlying legislation.

[[Page H1733]]

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill, H.R. 3193. This package of bills was brought under a restrictive
process that prevented efforts by Members on both sides of the aisle to
improve the legislation.
H.R. 3193 would gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Now, a
lot has been said by the gentleman from Texas that I believe has
mischaracterized what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau actually
does. It in no way restricts our freedoms, Madam Speaker. In fact,
banks aren't the only entities that have freedom. American consumers
have freedom, too. American consumers want to be protected from
predatory practices, Madam Speaker.
How many of us have signed a credit card agreement with a font size
that is too small to even read? We want to make sure that people aren't
giving away their home and their livelihood when they enter into a
credit card agreement, a simple loan, or other financial transactions.
The American people want that certainty.
When we are talking about making sure that markets operate well, that
competition exists in the consumer financial marketplace, that people
have different financial options that empower themselves, there needs
to be a referee on the field. This bill effectively blindfolds and
handcuffs that referee, takes her off the field, and let's the banks
have their day with the American people.
That is why I oppose this bill. This bill will not advance a
constructive economic agenda. This bill will not address our broken
immigration system. It won't secure our borders that hundreds of people
enter our country illegally every day, and it won't reunite shattered
families.
Earlier today, I spoke of how, under President Obama's
administration, over 2 million people have now been deported from this
country. This bill will not end that. Instead of moving forward, it
blindfolds the referee and ensures that predatory financial
institutions can take advantage of the American people without a
watchdog.
This bill has serious flaws. It would add additional bureaucracy to
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by replacing its Director with
a commission. The gentleman from Texas said somehow this bill meant
that there wasn't Big Government. This bill establishes more Big
Government, more commissions, rather than having--guess how most
private companies are run, Madam Speaker? There is usually a CEO in
charge. They don't have some directorate or commission. I mean, that
sounds more like the Soviet Union than the United States of America
what the Republicans are proposing in this bill.
This bill would also prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
from offering salaries and benefits to employees that are competitive
with other financial regulators. Guess what, Madam Speaker? The
financial industry pays well. The big banks pay well. That is
wonderful. That is the beauty of the capitalist system. If they are
creating value working for a big bank and they are earning hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year in our market economy, that is wonderful.
Well, guess what? If you want somebody who understands that business to
be able to work on behalf of the American people as a watchdog, you
need to pay a competitive salary to make sure that they are able to
then use their expertise that they have developed in the private sector
to protect their fellow Americans from predatory or scrupulous
activities.
This bill would impede the ability to attract and retain qualified
and experienced people that have to handle very complex regulatory
issues. It would also eliminate the Consumer Financial Protect Bureau's
independence and parity with other regulators by subjecting it to the
appropriations process.
Sadly, last night during the rules debate, one of my colleagues on
the Rules Committee equated the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
with the gestapo. That is insulting to our civil servants who work for
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, consumers that it serves, and
it is extremely offensive to the true victims of Nazi Germany. It is
inappropriate to even compare the intentions of the U.S. Government,
whether it is led by Democrats or Republicans, to those of Adolph
Hitler and Nazi Germany.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has played a crucial role in
helping millions of Americans become more informed and empower them to
make financial choices that benefit them and their families. For
instance, at a time that we know that higher education and college are
more important than ever, the cost of higher education continues to
skyrocket. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has developed a Web
site that helps students understand their borrowing options before they
take on substantial debt and make sure they are aware of the lowest
interest rates that they can use to finance their education. Their
user-friendly tools allow families to compare financial aid and college
costs, choose a loan with a low interest rate, and select repayment
terms that are most favorable to them. As the largest student loan
lender, the Federal Government should help make sure that students have
the information they need to help take control of their financial
destinies.

I was honored to work with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
on my Know Before You Owe Act, which would provide students and
families with information about their eligibility for Federal loans
before they take out more costly, higher interest rate, private loans.
While I hope that Congress would pass this bill, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau also hopes to advance this important cause even
without legislation. This bill on the floor today would hamper their
ability to prevent students from paying more than they need to for
their college education.
Now, Democrats are open to improving the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau through bipartisan proposals. Unfortunately, the
House majority has shunned bipartisanship in favor of these bills. We
can do better, Madam Speaker. The American people want to make sure
there is a referee and that there is a watchdog. We want to make sure
that our banking industry and financial services industry can continue
to grow and flourish in this country. One of the most important factors
in the success of that industry is the confidence that the American
people have in the financial services industry to be fair and honest.
The establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau helps
ensure that the American people are confident in the financial products
that are being marketed by banks across the country and will lead to
continued job growth in the financial services industry, which America
is a leader in, both here and abroad.
Let's talk for a moment about what we are not discussing under this
rule, Madam Speaker. We are not taking one step, 1 inch, towards fixing
our broken immigration system--a huge drag on our economic growth. Many
residents of our country that are living here illegally in the shadows
of the underground economy simply want to work. They want to pay taxes.
They want to raise their American kids here. They want to raise a
family. They want to participate in the same American Dream that
welcomed my great-grandparents when they came to this country.
The House Republicans' principles on immigration reform were an
important step forward. I applaud them. They were promising. There was
nothing in those principles that was mutually inconsistent with a
Democratic desire to secure our borders, create a law enforcement
environment where we know who is here, and make sure that we can have a
compassionate approach to uniting families.
Nearly a year ago, the New Democrat Coalition Immigration Task Force
released detailed principles, as well, on comprehensive immigration
reform. I am proud to say that, last October, Democrats and Republicans
joined together to introduce a bipartisan bill, H.R. 15, on
comprehensive immigration reform. The bill creates jobs, reduces our
deficit, secures our borders, and reflects our values as Americans.
Yet, to date, the only immigration vote in this Congress that the House
has had was a vote to defund the deferred action, or

[[Page H1734]]

DACA, program, which allows DREAMers to finally get to work and pay
taxes to make our country stronger, and instead subjected DREAMers to
deportation at taxpayer expense.
We can and we must do better, Madam Speaker, and this rule and this
bill simply don't do it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 7 minutes to the
gentleman from Weston, Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), a member of the Financial
Services and Budget Committees. He is not just the author of the bill;
he is an awesome and outstanding new Member of Congress.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding.
Madam Speaker, just to be clear, the bill that is before the House
today is not a repeal bill of the CFPB. It is a modification, a reform
package to the CFPB. So when my colleagues and friends across the aisle
talk about how there will be no consumer protection, that is absolutely
false. We just want to make sure the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau works better and is more responsive to the American people.
So I want to talk about a few of the things that this bill does. The
first thing is it moves the Director of the CFPB over to a bipartisan
commission of five. Now, I know my friends across the aisle have taken
issue with this. However, when, under Dodd-Frank, the CFPB was
originally envisioned by House Democrats and the former chairman Barney
Frank, they didn't have a single director; they actually had a
commission. When Elizabeth Warren, now Senator Warren, envisioned this
package, it wasn't a director; it was a commission. So now that my
friends across the aisle take issue with the reform package that has a
commission and not a director, it was their original idea. So let's not
play partisan politics. Let's join together on points of agreement, and
this is one of them.
Another concern, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is not
responsive to Congress because it doesn't get its funding from
Congress. It doesn't go through the appropriations process, which gives
us great oversight here in the House. Their funding comes from the
Federal Reserve. We think it is appropriate, when you have an agency
that is so powerful and so unaccountable, that we give the elected
Members of the American people power to say how much money they should
have and how they should use it. We don't have that ability right now.
And who on God's green Earth says that we should take power away from
Congress and let them set their own budgets?
Going to the point of unaccountability, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau sets their own pay. Where in the free-market system
does any employee tell the employer, This is what you are going to pay
me; I am setting my own pay? That is what they do at the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau. And all we say is we, the Congress, the
elected representatives of the American people, we should set the pay
of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
These are commonsense reforms that actually work for the American
people, and, frankly, it will work for the CFPB to make them far more
accountable.

{time} 1300

The way this bill is set up, not the bill, the law, the way the law
is set up, big banks on Wall Street, the very big banks that caused the
financial crisis, they are actually able to go and have consumer
financial protection rules reviewed by FSOC, and if FSOC thinks that
the rule as petitioned by big banks can create systemic risk, the rule
can be overturned. So big banks on Wall Street, they get a voice. They
get to go: This is bad for us; overturn the rule.
If you come from rural Wisconsin, where we only have small community
banks and credit unions, and you see one of our small financial
institutions going to FSOC and saying, Hey, this rule is bad for us,
the small banks and credit unions, please overturn the CFPB rule, they
are going to laugh them out of FSOC. They don't have a voice. Small
financial institutions, credit unions, and small banks don't have a
choice to go to FSOC and have a ruled overturned by the CFPB.
The way the law was written and the way it has been implemented, they
have given a big, loud voice to Wall Street banks but have shut out the
small community banks and credit unions that are all over America, the
very banks and institutions that lend money to our families, the very
institutions that our small businesses on Main Street America, they go
to and ask, Will you give me a loan so I can expand my business, maybe
create an extra job or two in America? Those are the ones that have
been shut out in the review process by the CFPB.
That doesn't work for consumers. That doesn't hurt consumers. That
actually helps consumers, and that helps small town America.
I think one of the most important portions of this reform bill--and
again, it is a reform bill; it is not a repeal bill--is what we do in
regard to data. America has recently learned that the NSA is collecting
phone data and information on them and keeping it. Now Americans have
said, Listen, I am okay with AT&T or Verizon, whoever my phone company
is, that they have my records. But the American people have never given
the American government permission to take their phone records, and
when they heard about it, they were outraged. They were outraged.
I know my friends on the other side of the aisle are supportive of
this expansive NSA, they are supportive of a big government taking
information on Americans, but most Americans say, no, we don't want
that kind of relationship between the American citizenry and our
government. Just like the NSA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
is collecting financial data on the American citizenry. They are
collecting information on almost 1 billion credit cards. I will say
that again. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is collecting data
and information on almost 1 billion credit cards, and I would ask, Do
you think they have asked permission of the American people to take
their financial data? Absolutely not.
All we ask for in this reform bill is, if you want to take America's
financial information and you say that you are here to protect the
American citizenry, why don't you ask them? Ask if you can take it
because I guarantee I know what they are going to say. They are going
to say: No way. I am okay with my bank having this information, my
credit union having this information, but I will be darned if I want
some agency that says they are here to protect me to collect my
financial information and my financial records.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ribble). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 4 minutes to the
gentleman.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, collecting information from the American
people and their phone records is one thing, knowing who you call and
when you call them. It is something far different, Mr. Speaker, when
you see how they spend, where they spend, when they spend. If you want
to know about America, take their financial records.
So all we say in this reform package is give them a choice. If you
are here to protect them, ask them and say, We want to take your
financial data information; are you okay with that?
If you are here to protect the consumer, why wouldn't you ask them?
We mandate, we require the CFPB to make that ask, and there is an
important reason behind it, because, as many folks in this body
understand, in politics, you can get a good representation of the whole
by sampling data, taking a small, small segment of the whole and
getting a representation of the whole body.
That is what the CFPB could do if they wanted good market data on how
things are working because I do think they need data, they need
information, but that is not what they are doing. They are not
sampling; they are taking almost a billion credit cards and information
from those.
Mr. Speaker, they don't keep that information for a month, they don't
want to keep it for a year; they want to keep your financial data for
over 10 years. They want to keep your financial data for over 10 years.
This is unacceptable, and for my colleagues across the aisle to say
that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is only protecting
consumers and there is no need for reform is a misstatement. There is
plenty of room for reform in a very powerful, very unaccountable agency
that is

[[Page H1735]]

accessing financial information from Americans in a way that they would
find unacceptable.
So as we debate this rule, I hope that my friends across the aisle
will see the pure-hearted, spirited effort that has been made to
actually make the CFPB more effective and more accountable to the
consumer.
Mr. POLIS. Before I further yield, I want to clarify: the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau is already prohibited from collecting
personally identifiable information in the course of its market-
monitoring responsibilities to make sure that American consumers are
not taken advantage of.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, how quickly some forget. When Congress
created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we did so on behalf
of every constituent unfairly defrauded during the financial crisis.
As a Cook County commissioner in 2007, I remember the financial
crisis and the damage it did to Chicago's community. I remember when
your credit card rate was about how well you could read fine print, not
how regularly you paid your bill. I remember when auto loan financing
could be based on a whim, not on your credit history, and when home
buyers were pushed into loans no one could ever expect them to repay. I
remember when it was open season on our veterans, when a whole industry
was made out of defrauding our returning sons and daughters.
I also remember how many of my colleagues characterized the creation
of the CFPB, calling it a bureaucratic behemoth that would devastate
credit markets and make lending impossible. Yet here we are today, with
a growing economy and a vibrant credit market. Only now, we do it with
fair practices, protecting American consumers and treating them with
dignity.
So I reject this attempt today to undermine the CFPB and the progress
we have made. We simply cannot afford to return to the free-for-all
that existed pre-crisis. H.R. 3193 is either a bad case of
congressional amnesia or an attack on the most important financial
reform of a generation. Either way, it is ill-sighted, and I urge my
colleagues to defeat this effort.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding me this time.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3193. Congress created the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in response to a regulatory system
that couldn't keep pace with the needs and the entities that it
oversaw. The system was neither agile enough nor properly equipped for
protecting consumers. The financial crisis exposed subprime lending
practices that preyed on the most vulnerable consumers. It uncovered
obscene credit card contracts that put working families underwater. It
found student loans that left our next generation more worried about
their interest rates than about changing the world.
The list goes on.
The CFPB was our answer to these and prospective concerns. It is the
only independent agency that is tasked with protecting consumers, our
constituents. Free from the political melee, this watchdog focuses on
making sure that markets are fair and players follow the rules.
The CFPB may not be perfect. Undoubtedly, missteps may occur. That is
why the agency is subject to regular audits and why the government
maintains ways of addressing flawed rules.
I am willing and eager to work with my colleagues to improve the CFPB
to ensure that the American people are properly protected, but that is
not what this bill does. This bill scraps the intention of the agency
and re-exposes our families and our students to the same unfair and
undue risks which necessitated the agency's creation in the first
place.
I urge my colleagues to use this agency to help protect their
constituents and to address their concerns. Remember your constituents
when you vote today. I ask my colleagues to join in opposition to this
measure and the underlying bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding
to me.
I am hearing the arguments from across the aisle about how the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is protecting consumers and
protecting America from unfair practices and risks in the financial
sector, but I would challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle
to tell me how is that mission of protecting consumers diluted if we go
from a single payer to a commission, which was originally their idea.
How is this diluted if we go to a pay scale set by Congress and not by
themselves? That doesn't impact their ability to work on consumer
protection issues.
Why are consumer protection issues impacted if we give a similar and
same voice to small community banks and credit unions, the same that
they have given in this bill to big Wall Street banks? You are still
protecting consumers. There is nothing in here that prohibits the
CFPB's ability to do their job.
Finally, how are we hurting consumers by making sure that the CFPB
asks them first before they get their information?
I guess I haven't heard those comments being made. I am hearing a lot
of platitudes, a lot of comments at 30,000 feet that have nothing to do
with the reform package that is here in the House today. I would enjoy
hearing my friends across the aisle talk about what is actually in the
bill. It is not immigration; it is protecting consumers from the CFPB,
and they are bringing up issues that aren't relevant.
One other issue I want to clarify, which is in regard to personally
identifiable information. Two points: information has been very clearly
made to us that, one, the CFPB is not following the directive of the
statute; and, number two, the amount of information that the CFPB has,
the quantity, the amount, it is easily reverse engineered, simply re-
engineered to find out who the individual is. So if I have your ZIP
Code plus four, your date of birth, your age, all this information, I
might not have your name, but in an instant I can get your name because
I have all the data I need to do just that. That is not protecting
consumers.
If you want to have a debate about protecting consumers and having an
agency that is accountable to Congress, I would love to have that
debate, but when we bring up issues that aren't in the bill, it is
pretty hard to have an honest and fair conversation about that.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Duffy is correct that immigration reform
is not in the bill or the rule. It should be, but it is not. We have
another motion for something that should be in the bill, but is not.
Mr. Speaker, last week we provided the House two opportunities to
consider flood insurance reform, a bipartisan measure that now has
almost 200 cosponsors, but unfortunately, it was denied. Not only does
this bill not have immigration reform, it also does not have flood
insurance reform.
Today, we are offering Members another chance to put aside party
politics and do something that is important for the American people. If
we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule
to bring up the bill that would delay flood insurance premium hikes and
provide relief to thousands of American families.
To discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from
Colorado for yielding me the time. I rise to encourage all of our
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, ``no'' on the previous question,
and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

{time} 1315

It has been 2 weeks since the Senate passed a bipartisan fix to the
exorbitant rise in flood insurance rates across the country, but it has
been particularly dismaying that in the past 2 weeks the GOP-controlled
House has not taken up the Senate-passed bill or the House version to
provide some relief for hardworking families across the country.
Because there has been no action, we are asking today that all Members
come together to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can take up
the flood insurance fix bill.

[[Page H1736]]

Many of us have been working in a bipartisan way for much longer than
2 weeks. For many months, we have had bipartisan proposals here in the
House, but for some reason the GOP leadership has been resistant to
bringing up this bipartisan solution.
I have offered an amendment on every piece of legislation passing
through the Rules Committee since November for a flood insurance fix,
but, again, the Republicans refused to make it in order. So, without
any scheduling of a bill yet, we have to resort to going to the
previous question.
If you take a step back, flood insurance reform was very well-
intentioned. The reform bill was passed in 2012, intended to make the
flood insurance trust fund solvent. Especially after Superstorm Sandy,
the flood insurance trust fund that is the backstop to economic
security for many families was insolvent, so we came together and
passed a reform bill. The problem is it hasn't been implemented in the
right way.
FEMA has actually implemented it in an irrational way. It is not
affordable, and they have problems with mapping. What this does is it
creates a very troublesome path to eventual solvency of the trust fund.
People are not going to be able to pay into the trust fund like they
should.
So what is happening? Families are facing exorbitant, unconscionable
increases, depressed home values, an inability to buy or sell a home.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Here is another concern. You remember how
difficult it was for the GOP House to actually provide emergency aid
when Superstorm Sandy hit? 179 Republicans voted against the emergency
aid. So that makes it even more important that we fix the flood
insurance trust fund so that it is there for families who need it.
Last week, I pointed out that many are very skeptical that the
Republicans in Congress will act in support of the middle class, in
support of small businesses across America. Well, I ask my friends on
the other side of the aisle to prove them wrong. Let's come together.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question, and let's move the flood
insurance fix.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on my good
friend and colleague from Florida's comments on behalf of homeowners in
south Florida and around the Nation who are trying to maintain
affordable flood insurance coverage, and I urge the House leadership to
bring the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act to a vote today.
Through the National Flood Insurance Program, millions of homeowners
benefit from the ability to purchase affordable coverage, including
thousands of south Florida families.
While I understand the need to keep the national flood program
financially stable, we must do so while ensuring that these families
can afford the coverage on their homes or they won't have coverage.
Surging premiums destabilize our recovering housing market and they
cause uncertainty for homeowners. The system cannot withstand these
increases, and we must act to fix it.
I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate who, in a bipartisan way,
passed this legislation, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
who make up the 207 bipartisan cosponsors here in the House of
Representatives who want to pass this bill into law. This is essential.
We can't allow this to go on.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation's homeowners can't afford to wait any longer.
We need to defeat the previous question and vote on this bipartisan
agreement today.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentlewomen from Florida who bring up this issue again.
We spoke about this issue last week, how it is actually a $24 billion
problem to the taxpayer. It is also equally a very difficult lift
financially on the problems that it is creating to homeowners who live
in flood areas.
As was noted last week, FEMA did not complete their job. We have
known about this. This is not a new issue. The numerous Members of
Congress, Republicans and Democrats, are trying very diligently to work
on this and have been.
I want to acknowledge the work that has been put in by both these
Members and others--including the gentleman from Florida, Judge
Hastings--who sit on the Rules Committee, including the gentlemen and
gentlewoman that sit on the Rules Committee from Florida. There are a
total of 4 people out of 13 on the Rules Committee that live in
Florida.
This is a nationwide problem wherever those people live,
predominantly along coastal areas. We are working on it. But it is a
$24 billion problem that was not addressed by the Senate--not
addressed. What we are trying to do is to work with the chairman of the
Financial Services Committee, Mr. Hensarling, as well as the ranking
member and the committee on getting an answer.
As I have stated to people numerous times, I do appreciate not only
them keeping this issue in the forefront, but it is something that we
must address in the Rules Committee. We intend to do that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding. I thank my colleagues from Florida for being on the floor,
and I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
that instead we can call up a bipartisan bill to alleviate the anxiety
of millions of homeowners in flood-prone areas that their flood
insurance premiums won't become simply unaffordable.
Should we do any less? Twice already we have had the votes in this
House to bring up this bill, a companion of which passed the Senate
with a bipartisan vote of 68-32 on January 30. There is no reason why
this bill wouldn't pass overwhelmingly.
Once again, partisan politics has wedged itself into Congress' best
intentions and the potential for achieving results. It is surprising
that Republican Members from flood-prone districts have twice voted to
block this bill from coming to the floor and to deprive their
constituents of the assistance they need and the reassurance they
deserve.
Sometimes party asks too much. Sometimes party asks for votes which
will hurt your constituents. Rise above party and vote for your people.
We should not repeat the overwhelming delay that occurred in supplying
assistance in response to Superstorm Sandy. After that storm, the
Republican leadership blocked Congress from taking action on emergency
disaster funding for more than 90 days.
The continued obstruction of this bipartisan flood insurance bill is
an unfortunate continuation of that same trend of letting partisanship
get in the way of doing what is right. I know there are many of our
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that want to do what is
right for their constituents. Do not let party regularity dissuade you
from doing the right thing.
I appeal to them, Mr. Speaker, to support their constituents, not
their party, by setting partisanship aside, working with us to defeat
the previous question, and allowing the House to vote on the Grimm-
Waters legislation, a bipartisan piece of legislation that will make
sure homeowners don't find themselves under water in more ways than
one.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the previous question, what does that
mean? Our constituents, Mr. Speaker, must be watching. What is Mr.
Hoyer talking about the previous question? What is all this talk about
the previous question?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
It is simply a vote by which it says that, if the previous question
is not approved, we can offer the bipartisan legislation to give the
relief that is so desperately needed now, not 90 days from now--now. So
defeat this previous question.

[[Page H1737]]

And my Republican colleagues, if you care about your flood-ravaged
and flood-risk constituents, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I do appreciate the distinguished gentleman from Maryland coming
down. Once again, I would tend to not just acknowledge what the
gentleman is asking for, but I will speak to it.
The problem is that we have to worry about the solvency of the
program. The program is some $24 billion in the red right now. Not
addressing its solvency just to give some new program life rather than
fixing it correctly is where we politely disagree.
We believe that the ability we have in this Congress with this issue
is to do it right where it is in the best interest of the people back
home that I care about, that every Member of this body cares about, but
also the financial integrity to the taxpayer. The national debt is a
tremendous national embarrassment, and we are not going to just waive a
$24 billion that will become a $50 billion problem. That is why we are
trying to address it the way we are.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I share my friend's view that we need to be worried about the
solvency of our Nation. We haven't done such a good job at that. We
are, by the way, going to have a bill on the floor pretty soon which
won't do much for that either, somewhat irresponsibly, in my view.
But the solvency that I am worried about right now is the guy who
lives in a $190,000 home with his family and has got a $25,000 premium
facing him yearly, annual premium. It is going to make him move out of
his home. But the problem he is going to have is nobody is going to buy
his home. We need to act.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Garcia).
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from
Colorado for yielding.
I want to recognize precisely what the gentleman from Maryland was
talking about.
I would like to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so we can get to this important issue.
I appreciate the gentleman from Texas' understanding of this. But I
want to talk about the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act,
which is a bipartisan bill that would delay crippling premium increases
that are affecting people throughout south Florida and throughout the
country, and I want to talk about specific people.
Mr. Speaker, because of rising flood insurance rates, people are
literally walking away from their homes. I recently spoke to Derek and
Robin Menard. They had an increase because the property owner of where
they rent put it on their bill, and so they could not afford to remain
in south Florida because it just got too expensive. After 9 years of
calling south Florida home, they were forced to move away. They were
forced to find jobs where they had moved to in Pennsylvania. They had
to pull their little daughter, Millie, out of school, and she had to
change friends and neighborhood.
Mr. Speaker, this is not right. While I recognize the gentleman from
Texas wants to solve this, we have a bipartisan bill that was passed
out of the Senate. We can pass this out now and then get to working on
this problem before we hurt more people, before we force more people to
move away from their community, their friends, their loved ones, due to
these exorbitant insurance rates.
So, for this reason, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous
question so we can pass a bipartisan bill that makes common sense and
provides a solution and much-needed relief to policyholders.

{time} 1330

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I don't consider common sense or the right
thing to do a $24 billion irresponsibility, which is, once again, what
the Democrat Party is pushing today on the floor of the House of
Representatives.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I have to acknowledge that I am a little
disheartened that my friends across the aisle are encouraging the
defeat of a rule that would bring a vote to protect consumers from
having the CFPB collect financial data on them. I know my friends want
to talk about flood insurance, and we are, no doubt, going to have that
day to have that conversation, and it is important; but the bottom line
today--the conversation today--is that we protect consumers from having
their information collected on them just like the NSA is collecting
phone records on Americans.
Let's stand together. Let's protect the middle class. Let's protect
small community banks and financial institutions. That is the vote
today. Stand with us. Let's move the ball forward for hardworking
middle class families who want to keep their information and their data
to themselves, and let's move forward at a date soon to be acknowledged
on flood insurance.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this great country of ours has
weathered hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and fires. Now our
families in Florida and across the Nation are confronting a man-made
crisis, created unintentionally by past acts of this Congress.
An economic storm is brewing. Just ask my constituents, the Woodlaws,
who live in a modest home in Lauderdale-By-The-Sea. They have paid off
their mortgage and pay $2,400 a year in flood insurance. Because of
Congress' past actions, they now face a $12,000 bill for the same
coverage that they cannot afford and are one flood away from financial
disaster. Our constituents like the Woodlaws are facing skyrocketing
jumps in flood insurance premiums unless we act now and take up the
bipartisan Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.
Mr. Speaker, a storm is brewing.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Rules
Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to first say and credit the chairman of the
Rules Committee for having addressed this problem. He has spoken about
it to me and to others. The same holds for my cochair of the Florida
delegation, Vern Buchanan. All of us on the Florida delegation, minus
one person, are supportive of this particular measure.
Here is an opportunity then for us to defeat the previous question
and bring this matter up now. Enough already of continuing to discuss
it. We have had ample time to deal with this problem. Don't forget:
Florida, among other States, is a donor-state in this business.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
am prepared to close.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Colorado and the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Speaker, what we can do is really do our work and pass
comprehensive immigration reform to deal with the pain of so many in
this country.
I do believe that we should defeat the previous question so that my
constituents in Texas, along the coastline, can stop paying $8,000 in
flood insurance. It is absolutely absurd. A bill has passed. We are
ready to go.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we discuss H.R.
3193, which wants to undo the corrections that we made to save
America's jobs, homes, life savings, and pensions when we reformed Wall
Street. We believe in the capitalistic system. We just don't believe in
the abuse of the capitalistic system. The Consumer Protection Agency
that has been put in place to help consumers with credit, credit cards,
and other matters dealing with their financial needs is now being
imploded by this legislation.
What do we have to say to speak for the people of the United States?
This bill effectively defunds the CFPB.

[[Page H1738]]

What we want to do is to continue the consumer protection board,
continue the leverage that it has given to protect consumers. I have
actually heard from consumers who have said, Thank you; we now have a
board that will hear our voices and that will express our concerns with
what kind of treatment we are getting from financial agencies.
Let's move on behalf of the American people now, not on behalf of
special interests.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it has been clear--and we actually have some
bipartisan agreement here--about what this bill lacks. This bill does
not do anything about hundreds of people sneaking across our southern
border every day. It does nothing to reunite American families. It does
nothing to end over 2 million deportations that have occurred during
the Obama administration. It also does nothing to address the imminent
hikes in flood insurance that many Americans face, including Americans
in my home State of Colorado, if Congress fails to act.
So what does this bill do that has preempted Congress instead of
dealing with illegal immigration? instead of dealing with flood
insurance?
It creates additional Federal Government bureaucracy. It takes one
person's job and turns it into a commission of five people who will
endlessly debate things rather than decide things.
What if one is sick and what if there are four at work and it is
deadlocked 2-2, and then the other one comes in and one is missing
because the appointment is held up? Do we really need to have more
government regulators in charge of this Federal agency, Mr. Speaker?
That is exactly what this bill does. One person can do the job.
How many companies in this country are run by a panel of five co-
CEOs? I don't know of a single one. Why would we want to run a Federal
agency like that?
The gamesmanship that we are doing in this House, while there are
important issues like illegal immigration and flood insurance, is at a
serious cost to the American people. The Senate passed a bipartisan
immigration reform bill last June. The House hasn't dedicated a single
minute of legislative floor time to an immigration reform bill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question so we can deal with one of these pressing
issues that my colleagues from Florida and other States have made a
compelling case for here on the floor of the House today in order to
address flood insurance. I also urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues from the Democratic Party
for coming and for, once again, offering their ideas about flood
insurance. That is not part of the bill. I would simply reply to them,
as I have previously, that the Senate-offered compromise or the Senate-
offered language spends $900 million more but does not take care of the
$24 billion problem, which is red ink that the taxpayer would pick up,
which harms the solvency of the program.
Why have a government program that runs in the red $24 billion and
then goes to $50 billion?
That is not what we are going to do. We are going to come up with an
answer in the House of Representatives, and I expect it to be done
quickly.
Today, we are talking about the CFPB, and Americans have witnessed
firsthand the negative effects of the CFPB. We have looked at how this
administration and one agency cannot only gather records but literally
control a marketplace. I believe that what you have heard today lends
us to understand that a balance of the CFPB is what is important. We
have brought five distinctly different bills to bear here, one of them
saying that we should not have employees of the CFPB who are paid well
outside of normal government standards, where even an intern who serves
for this CFPB makes over $51,000.
Mr. Speaker, what Republicans are trying to do is to balance the
piece of legislation that passed this House with President Obama, with
Speaker Pelosi, with Senator Reid. We are trying to offer a balance to
that on behalf of the consumer, on behalf of a legislative process
where Members of Congress and the Financial Services Committee have an
opportunity to work with any administration, not just with the
Democrats, on what the policy of the CFPB would be. Secondly, we think
it is wrong that 900 million financial records are taken without notice
given to a consumer. We think that is not just an overreach; we think
that is an abuse of power. When the government unilaterally has 900
million records, I would have to ask why.
So I support the rule. ``Yes'' on the rule. ``Yes'' on the underlying
legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 475 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 5 Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3370) to delay the implementation of certain provisions of
the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3370.

THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated,

[[Page H1739]]

control of the time passes to the Member who led the
opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member,
because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to
the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________