[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12406-12416]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1487 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1487

       Resolved, That 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 July 3, 2010, providing for consideration 
     or disposition of any of the following:
       (1) A conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4173) 
     to provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect 
     consumers and investors, to enhance Federal understanding of 
     insurance issues, to regulate the over-the-counter 
     derivatives markets, and for other purposes.
       (2) A measure that includes a subject matter addressed by 
     H.R. 4213 or any amendment pertaining thereto.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of July 3, 2010, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker or her 
     designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his 
     designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this section.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing 
     for adjournment during the month of July.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1487.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1487 provides for consideration of a rule that 
allows for the same-day consideration of a conference report to 
accompany H.R. 4173 and a measure that includes the subject matter 
addressed by H.R. 4213. Additionally, this rule allows for legislation 
to be considered under suspension of the rules through July 3, 2010, 
and allows for the consideration of concurrent resolutions providing 
for adjournment during the month of July.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a simple and straightforward rule. It allows the 
rules for the Wall Street reform conference report in either the tax 
extenders jobs bill or subject matters related to the jobs bill, such 
as unemployment insurance, to be considered on the same legislative day 
that they report it out of the Rules Committee. This is an important 
step that must be taken if we are to pass these bills before the Senate 
adjourns for the funeral of Senator Byrd.
  This bill allows for clear actions, up-or-down votes on the 
conference report to prevent Wall Street from melting down like it did 
2 years ago and a bill

[[Page 12407]]

to provide unemployment compensation to people who have lost their jobs 
who cannot find work in this economy.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. Speaker, these are clear-cut choices. Either you support fixing 
Wall Street or you don't. Do you believe unemployed Americans looking 
for work should receive unemployment benefits to help them pay for 
their mortgages, utilities, and food for their families or do you not?
  So far my Republican friends have been on the wrong side of these 
issues. I can only hope that they change their minds and decide to put 
everyday Americans first instead of continuing to play politics with 
these issues.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me time, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule we are discussing today allows for martial law 
authority for any bill pertaining to the extenders package as well as 
what is called the Dodd-Frank bill, which is a 2,300-page government 
takeover of the financial sector.
  Mr. Speaker, this is as much about saving the financial industry as 
the health care bill was about health care, and it's as much about jobs 
as the jobs bill supposedly was. It was about the diminishment of jobs, 
and this is about the diminishment of the financial sector of this 
country.
  Additionally, this rule gives suspension authority through the end of 
the week for the fifth straight legislative week. Mr. Speaker, it seems 
like every time I come to the House floor that I point out that my 
Democratic colleagues are using an unprecedented restrictive and closed 
process. I think the American people want and need transparency, 
accountability, and solutions.
  I remember just a few short years ago when our Speaker said that she 
would run a House that was the most honest, open, and ethical Congress. 
I have yet to see evidence of that these last few years. As a matter of 
fact, week after week after week I see closed rules, unprecedented 
shenanigans related to bringing legislation to the floor, and a closed 
process. I know where it is. Democrats left it out on the campaign 
trail. It was an empty promise when they made it, and the emptiness of 
this promise has been fulfilled the past few years by an unprecedented 
amount of restrictive rules.
  Since this Congress has managed to rack up a record $1.4 trillion 
deficit since 2009, more than three times the size of the deficit in 
2008, and are on target to once again hit a $1.3 trillion deficit again 
this year, my Republican colleagues and I are going to use this time to 
talk about excessive borrowing, excessive spending, and excessive 
taxation that seems to be the Democrat majority's agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, in an effort to address some of this wasteful government 
spending that's happening here in Washington, Republicans created 
something called YouCut. This is an online voting tool for Americans to 
vote on what wasteful government spending programs they would review, 
and they can make the decision on what to eliminate.
  Today, I have the opportunity to call for a vote on the previous 
question for this week's YouCut winner, which, of course, I am proud to 
cosponsor. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have voted this week 
alone.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people are looking for people who 
can come to Washington, D.C., to make tough choices, and this Democrat 
majority is not even bringing a budget to the floor of the House of 
Representatives for the 2011 budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I've worked in business, small business, been around 
lots of people who, every single organization I've ever been a part of, 
started their year with a budget. I'm shocked and dismayed that this 
Democrat majority will not bring a budget to the floor, so Republicans 
will spend their time talking about how we believe we can better the 
circumstance we're in, talking about YouCut and the American people 
being engaged in helping to move this country forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to eliminate this wasteful 
spending by voting against the rule and previous question.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends have consistently 
been against reining in the excesses of Wall Street. I'm not shocked 
that they have that view because they've always had that view. I am 
dismayed.
  But the American people want us to pass a regulatory reform bill. 
They also want us to extend unemployment benefits to those who are out 
of work. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have been blocking 
that. So that's what this rule does, allows us to actually do 
something, and do many things, quite frankly, that the American people 
want us to do.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. As one who has repeatedly and vigorously opposed all 
bank bailouts, whichever President proposed them, I view this bill as 
modest but very important progress. I'm voting ``yes'' because I stand 
with working families against big banks, for transparency in the 
financial markets, with small businesses and family farmers and 
ranchers for tougher Wall Street oversight, and for progress toward 
preventing future bank bailouts.
  The AARP said, this bill offers ``new tools to combat investment 
scams targeted at older adults'' and will hold ``scam artists 
accountable.'' The Consumer Federation of America says these reforms 
will ``improve the marketplace for consumers and investors.''
  If you're mugged on the street, you could lose your wallet. But if 
you're mugged by Wall Street, as too many Americans have been, you can 
lose a lifetime of savings.
  This bill arms families with more ways to protect themselves with the 
information that they need for informed financial decisions. It 
addresses protections for questionable, often outrageous, financial 
industry practices, preventing onerous hidden fees that have plagued 
credit card holders and borrowers, and it creates a new hotline to 
report misconduct.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will offer help against 
unscrupulous mortgage promoters, foreclosure scam operators, and payday 
and student lenders.
  This bill should have done more, much more about those Wall Street 
interests that are paid too much, taxed too little, and whose immense 
power continues to threaten our economic stability. But with stubborn 
opposition from Republicans, both here and especially over in the 
Senate, as well as rejection of some reform by the Treasury Department, 
we lack the more complete reforms, but we are making significant 
strides forward in offering consumer protection that Americans really 
deserve.
  Restoring discipline, supervision, accountability, and transparency 
will only be opposed by those who unfairly profit at the expense of 
working and retired Americans. Whether it's savings for a soon-to-be 
college student, or an investment in a home or a retirement nest egg, 
this bill will provide greater security and peace of mind. Let us adopt 
it promptly.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Republican whip, 
the gentleman from Virginia, the favorite son (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this question of the 
previous question because today we should be voting and will be voting 
on the sixth YouCut proposal. And well over 1 million Americans have 
sent a clear message to Washington: Stop the wasteful spending.
  I say, Mr. Speaker, to the American people, Republicans hear you. And 
today I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
listen as well and join us. This week's YouCut proposal addresses one 
of the most egregious yet underreported sources of government waste. 
Taxpayers are on

[[Page 12408]]

the hook for the salaries and benefits of Federal workers who 
simultaneously work for their public employee unions to the tune of 
$120 million per year. By the way, these are the same unions that spend 
millions on political activities and lobbying, often for causes that 
hamper economic growth and private-sector job creation.
  Specifically, Mr. Speaker, the National Labor Relations Board union 
billed the taxpayers for an average of 12.18 hours for each of its 
1,104 employees. Since each hour costs $42, taxpayers are paying each 
worker $700 per year on official union duties.
  America is at a crossroads. We are not under any illusions. This cut 
alone may not erase the deficit overnight. But this cut is a reflection 
of the symptom of the virus that has put our country's economy on life 
support. Only by finally drawing a firm line on wasteful spending can 
we begin to kill the virus and preserve American prosperity for 
generations to come.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the previous 
speaker didn't talk about the Wall Street regulatory reform bill that 
my friends on the Republican side of the aisle have been trying to 
block.
  The minority leader in a recent interview said that the bill that we 
are bringing forth in Congress, this is killing an ant with a nuclear 
weapon. I find it disturbing that anyone would characterize this 
financial crisis that was brought on by Wall Street as an ant. I mean 
it impacted millions and millions of our citizens.
  I will ask to put this interview that appeared in the Pittsburgh 
Tribune-Review in the Record.
  In that same interview, and I think it's important for my colleagues 
to know, the minority leader talked about his belief that we should 
raise the retirement age for Social Security to 70. Clearly, we need to 
talk about how we keep Social Security solvent. But he then went 
further to say that we should take that money and not put it into 
Social Security but pay for the war. So our senior citizens should pay 
for this war, the rest of us don't, but the burden once again falls on 
our senior citizens.
  We know what they're about. We know what their beliefs are. And given 
an opportunity to take back control of the House, we know that they 
will try to undo Wall Street regulatory reform and try to undercut 
Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if I were not interrupted while I 
am speaking. And we know what they believe. And it is in this interview 
which we will put in the Record.

          [From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, June 29, 2010]

                   Obama's Good for GOP, Boehner Says

                 (By Mike Wereschagin and Salena Zito)

       House Republican Leader John Boehner, the Ohio Republican 
     with his eye on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's gavel, said the tide 
     is turning the GOP's way.
       ``The American people have written off the Democrats,'' 
     Boehner said Monday in an interview with Tribune-Review 
     editors and reporters. ``They're willing to look at us 
     again.''
       Boehner stopped short of predicting Republicans would gain 
     the 39 seats they need to retake control of Congress, but he 
     said a backlash against President Obama's policies has 
     energized Republican voters more than Democrats. Boehner said 
     voters are angry at a government they believe is overreaching 
     and indifferent.
       University of Virginia political scientist Isaac Wood said 
     excitement among tea party protesters might not carry over to 
     the electorate as a whole.
       ``While the enthusiasm of tea party types may drive them to 
     the polls and boost Republicans, it does not yet seem that 
     huge waves of new voters will be flocking to the polls,'' 
     Wood said.
       Boehner said the protests are emblematic of deep voter 
     anger against Washington's leaders.
       ``They're snuffing out the America that I grew up in,'' 
     Boehner said. ``Right now, we've got more Americans engaged 
     in their government than at any time in our history. There's 
     a political rebellion brewing, and I don't think we've seen 
     anything like it since 1776.''
       The health care law passed in March ``pushed most Americans 
     over the edge,'' Boehner said.
       If Republicans retake control of the House, Boehner 
     promised a vote on a bill repealing the health care law and 
     replacing it with a scaled-down package of tax breaks and 
     court reforms. Democrats likely would maintain control of the 
     Senate, and Obama could veto the proposal, all but 
     eliminating its chances of succeeding.
       ``We are going to do everything we can to make sure that 
     this law and this program never really takes effect,'' 
     Boehner said. One option would be to repeal the $534 billion 
     in Medicare cuts, which pay for more than half of the law's 
     provisions. ``They're going to need money from the Congress 
     to hire these 20,000-plus bureaucrats they need to hire to 
     make this program work. They're not going to get one dime 
     from us.''
       Boehner criticized the financial regulatory overhaul 
     compromise reached last week between House and Senate 
     negotiators as an overreaction to the financial crisis that 
     triggered the recession. The bill would tighten restrictions 
     on lending, create a consumer protection agency with broad 
     oversight power and give the government an orderly way to 
     dissolve the largest financial institutions if they run out 
     of money.
       ``This is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon,'' Boehner 
     said. What's most needed is more transparency and better 
     enforcement by regulators, he said.
       Allan H. Meltzer, a political economy professor at Carnegie 
     Mellon University, said the financial bill ``does nothing to 
     restore integrity to the mortgage market by correcting Fannie 
     Mae and Freddie Mac, and the bill does not eliminate `too big 
     to fail.'''
       Boehner said Obama overreacted to the BP oil spill in the 
     Gulf of Mexico. The spill might warrant a ``pause'' in 
     deepwater drilling, but Obama's blanket ban on drilling in 
     the gulf--which a judge overturned last week--could devastate 
     the region's economy, he said. Louisiana State University 
     scientists estimate the ban could have affected more than 
     10,000 jobs.
       Boehner had praise, however, for Obama's troop surge in 
     Afghanistan and stepped-up drone attacks in Pakistan. He 
     declined to list any benchmarks he has for measuring progress 
     in the nine-year war, at a time of increasing violence and 
     Obama's replacement of Gen. Stanley McChrystal with Gen. 
     David Petraeus.
       Ensuring there's enough money to pay for the war will 
     require reforming the country's entitlement system, Boehner 
     said. He said he'd favor increasing the Social Security 
     retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years 
     until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the 
     consumer price index rather than wage inflation and limiting 
     payments to those who need them.
       ``We need to look at the American people and explain to 
     them that we're broke,'' Boehner said. ``If you have 
     substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, 
     why are we paying you at a time when we're broke? We just 
     need to be honest with people.''

  At this point I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank Congressman McGovern from the Rules 
Committee for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of reforming Wall Street and 
this rule. Under this new Wall Street reform, consumers and middle 
class families win, and the big banks on Wall Street lose. The Wall 
Street reform bill is the toughest regulation of Wall Street in 
generations. And it comes after years of recklessness that led to the 
financial meltdown and the worst recession in our life times. That 
economy was built on a house of cards.
  Wall Street reform will provide a new foundation for our economy to 
go, one that inspires confidence and will spur new jobs. Under the new 
law, consumers and middle class families will benefit from a new 
consumer financial protection agency, a new independent watchdog that 
will be on the side of American families and consumers, because there 
always seems to be hidden charges and fees when you are applying for a 
credit card or a mortgage or some transaction. The new consumer agency 
will root out the deceptive practices. Its mission will be to protect 
homeowners and small businesses rather than the big banks on Wall 
Street.
  We will have new cops on the beat on Wall Street, new enforcement, 
transparency, and oversight. The reform measure rightfully outlaws 
future bank bailouts by taxpayers. I voted against the Wall Street 
bailout, known as TARP, because it focused entirely on Wall Street 
rather than middle class families, and it did not include safeguards on 
executive pay, bonuses, and transparency.
  The Wall Street reform bill that we will pass today now levels the 
playing field despite the opposition from the big banks and my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The reform bill is also 
designed to protect consumers from predatory lending.
  I strongly agree with the new requirements for mortgage lenders that

[[Page 12409]]

they must ensure that a person has an ability to repay a loan rather 
than what happened in the subprime market, where they peddled the 
loans, flipped them, and then pocketed the cash and left us all with 
the mess.
  So thank you, Chairman Frank, and all of my colleagues on the 
Financial Services Committee. This is a great day in Washington and all 
across America because consumers and middle class families win.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, to balance out this argument just a little 
bit, I know we have those that want to characterize what Republicans 
stand for, but I would like to also address the statements that have 
been made here on the floor and balance out the attacks against 
Republicans.
  The gentleman Mr. Hoyer on June 22 said this in regards to what our 
leader Mr. Boehner said, and I quote: ``On the spending side, we could 
and should consider a higher retirement age, or one pegged to lifespan; 
more progressive Social Security and Medicare benefits . . . ''
  Mr. Speaker, you know, just the unrelenting liberal attacks on this 
country that have diminished this country's ability to have a free 
enterprise system have brought us higher taxes, incredible debt, and a 
future that diminishes our ability for our children and grandchildren.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I do so because unfortunately the manager on the 
other side of the aisle wouldn't yield to me. And I am happy within my 
2-minute time frame to yield to him at any time when he would like to 
ask me to yield.
  Let me just say that the notion of saying that because Mr. Boehner 
argued that this bill is itself killing an ant with a nuclear weapon is 
designed to say this bill puts into place permanent bailout authority. 
Now, the American people are virulently opposed to going down this path 
that we already seem to be on of establishing bailout after bailout. 
And they know that it's a mistake. And so Mr. Boehner simply was 
arguing that while we all want to deal with the issue of regulatory 
reform to ensure that what we went through in the last 2 years will not 
confront us again, the idea of putting your hand up and saying, we know 
what they're all about--there is no one who wants to maintain the 
status quo. We all want to take steps to ensure that we don't have to 
suffer as we have for the past 2 years. But this bill establishing 
permanent bailout authority will in fact undermine our ability to get 
this economy back on track, and, as Mr. Bachus pointed out in his 
testimony upstairs in the Rules Committee a few minutes ago, will cost 
jobs. That's the reason we have great concerns about it.
  And on the issue of Social Security, the notion that somehow we are 
saying to someone who is on Social Security today that you are going to 
end up seeing the age increase to 70 is preposterous. We know full well 
that what's going to happen is we are talking about young workers today 
in their twenties and thirties who want to make sure that there is 
something there for Social Security. If we don't tackle the issue of 
entitlements, we won't be able to do what the American people have said 
this Congress should be doing, and that is reining in the kind of 
spending the likes of which--we have seen an 84 percent increase in 
nondefense spending in the last 17 months. We need to make sure we rein 
that in. And these kinds of proposals will do just that.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my objection about Mr. Boehner's 
statements with regard to Social Security was that he wanted to take 
the money from Social Security and pay for the war. Not put it into a 
Social Security trust fund, not to shore-up Social Security. That's 
what bothers me, is their continued determination to undermine the 
Social Security system.
  Mr. Boehner said in his interview that we should raise the retirement 
age to 70, take their money, and put it towards the war. For 8 years, 
they abdicated their responsibility to pay for the war. Now they want 
to pay for it on the backs of senior citizens. That's what I object to. 
That's what I object to.
  And the other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we hear time and time 
again, Well, we all want to deal with the excesses in Wall Street. We 
all want to do this; we all want to do that. But when it comes time to 
do anything meaningful, they are missing in action.
  So this is an opportunity for us to get something done, and I urge my 
colleague to support the bill.
  At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on 
behalf of taxpayers in California who will no longer be on the hook 
when Wall Street fails. This body has spent the last 3 years dealing 
with the fallout from the financial crisis. In my district in southern 
California, we've seen lost jobs, homes, businesses, and shattered 
dreams of financial security.
  These challenges were in large part the result of an ineffective, and 
in some places, nonexistent regulatory system. This encouraged risk and 
allowed financial institutions to operate in a lawless environment 
where there were no consequences for their actions.
  The legislation that we put forth today seeks to fix those failures 
and provide families nationwide with the security of knowing that 
future financial challenges will be the result of honest markets, not 
crooked traders. Honesty is what this bill is about. We all support a 
free market and the ability of each business to succeed or fail on its 
own merits. This landmark legislation allows that competition to take 
place on a level playing field. It will help prevent another crisis 
like the one we're still recovering from.
  I'm surprised that there's opposition to this legislation. After what 
our country has been through, how can anyone oppose bringing credit 
default swaps out into the sunshine? How can anyone oppose allowing 
shareholders a say on executive compensation? Or a framework that 
prevents future bailouts by allowing companies that deserve to fail 
because they're engaging in risky practices to fail?
  Families in the 39th District of California will be more secure 
because of the action that we are taking today.
  I thank our leadership, Chairman Frank, and the conferees for their 
hard work and urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Phil Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, all across the country, 
Americans are asking Congress to get our fiscal house in order. This 
desire for change and fiscal responsibility can be seen in the 1.1 
million votes for House Republican Whip Cantor's YouCut initiatives. 
Each vote is a vote to cut spending and to cut that spending now. I can 
think of no clearer message to the Democratic leadership who, 
unfortunately to date, have kept their earplugs in and they have 
refused to listen.
  Their solution instead has been more borrowing, more spending, and 
more bailouts. Indeed, that's what they recommended at the recent G-8/
G-20 conference in Toronto which was totally rejected by the other 
participating nations.
  Madam Speaker, this week, week six of the YouCut program, Americans 
chose my proposal to address the waste associated with Federal employee 
unions. In 2008, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, reported in a 
sample of 61 Federal agencies that approximately three million official 
time hours, taxpayer time hours, were used in union activities by 
Federal employees for a cost to the taxpayer of $120 million.
  Currently, some Federal employees spend up to a hundred percent--
that's right, a hundred percent--of their work day paid by taxpayers 
doing work for their unions. My proposal prevents Federal employees 
from using taxpayer-funded time to participate in

[[Page 12410]]

union activities and would save $1.2 billion over the next 10 years and 
30 million hours of taxpayer time--$1.2 billion and 30 million hours.
  So Madam Speaker, every American knows that Congress has a spending 
problem. Our national debt is simply unsustainable, and tough choices 
need to be made now to get our debt and our budget deficits under 
control. I urge you to listen to Americans across the country, to 
Republicans on this side of the aisle, and to act now. And this 
proposal is a first step.
  A worthy second step would be actually passing a budget this year, 
because as every American family knows, you can't begin to cut spending 
until you actually come up with a budget.
  Madam Speaker, the American people are tired of this reckless 
spending addiction that has resulted in a record national debt and 
record budget deficits. Like every addict knows, the first step to 
recovery is admitting that you have a problem.
  I urge my Democratic colleagues to take that step and start 
addressing the problems by saving taxpayers over $1 billion to date. 
Vote to defeat the previous question so we can amend the rule to 
include this YouCut provision of fiscal responsibility submitted by the 
American people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, my friend from Georgia's proposal 
represents less than one-tenth of 1 percent of what was borrowed to pay 
for the Iraq and Afghanistan war. Let's get serious here. And when I 
see that poster that says ``YouCut,'' what they don't show you is what 
they're cutting and what they want to cut is Social Security, and the 
minority leader made that very clear in his interview, that they're 
going to basically take money out of Social Security to pay for the 
wars. Our senior citizens who have fought in wars, who have worked in 
our factories, who have raised our families are being told to pay for 
the wars.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, this is a very emotional 
time for many Americans as they look at pending unemployment, long 
months of addressing the question of how they pay their mortgage, and 
reflecting on how we got to this place.
  That is why I stand today to support the underlying rule and this 
financial accountability complex legislation that has taken many, many 
hours and days and weeks for us to come up with a way to say to 
America, We heard you.
  And so the first point of this bill is that there will be no 
taxpayer-paid bailouts. And then for the first time the consumers of 
America will have their own personal advocacy. They will have the 
Consumer Protection Board that will look at credit card increases and 
outlandish interest rates. They will have an oversight board that will 
look at how they address the question of banking loans. Small 
businesses will be able to access credit. There will be transparency 
and accountability. What is there to be opposed to?
  Those who happen to be included in minority- and women-owned 
businesses will for the first time not be stopped at the door to access 
credit.
  Then of course we'll be able to have an oversight board that will 
forever eliminate the words ``too big to fail.'' Experts who will 
continuously look at the infrastructure of this financial system.
  We know that capitalism is strong, but it must be a strong system 
that has a heart, that can withstand the scrutiny of those who are 
seeking to find the weaknesses. We have to stand with the consumer so 
that the consumer does not fall victim to the too big to fail who were 
willing to take risks because they were padding their pockets.
  This is the right decision that is now being made, and this bill will 
provide you with the oversight and the protective coverage for the 
banking consumer. Support the underlying rule and this bill. Stand with 
the American people and make a difference.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Topeka, Kansas, Congresswoman Jenkins.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, over the past 6 weeks, more than 1 
million Americans have demanded action, and House Republicans have 
listened. Unfortunately, the majority in the House has not. While there 
are many issues that these people in this body disagree on, there are 
some issues that we should all agree on.
  We should agree that skyrocketing debt is a priority. We should agree 
that we cannot continue spending money that we don't have. We should 
agree that it is wrong for taxpayers to pay for the salaries of 
employees who answer to unions instead of to the American people, and 
we should agree on this very simple bill that says union activities 
should be funded by unions.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with the American people, to vote to 
save $1.2 billion and to end the abuse of taxpayer money.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I hope we all can agree that we 
shouldn't be cutting Social Security. I hope the minority leader will 
get on the floor and will retract his statement that we should be 
cutting Social Security to pay for this war. They have abdicated their 
responsibility for 8 years, and now they want the senior citizens of 
this country to pay for this war. I think that's wrong.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).
  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the 
gentleman from Massachusetts to engage in a short colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to confirm that all insurance companies, 
specifically mutual insurance holding companies, are included in the 
definition of ``insurance company'' that appears in the Resolution 
Authority title of the conference report.
  Further, I would like to confirm my understanding that, under title 
II of the conference report, all insurance companies, specifically 
including mutual insurance holding companies, remain subject to 
resolution under the existing State insurance insolvency and 
liquidation regimes.
  Will the chairman confirm my understanding on this point?
  I yield to Chairman Frank.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman, and I commend him 
for paying attention to a very specific but very important point.
  He is absolutely right. We have no intention here of disturbing the 
well-run State insurance regime. We respect and honor that form of the 
mutual insurance holding company. The gentleman's interpretation is 
entirely correct. They will remain subject to resolution under their 
existing State insurance liquidity and insolvency regimes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I definitely agree, in part, with some of 
this bill in that we need transparency and some accountability, 
especially in the exotic instruments, but this bill also grants some 
carte blanche power over the financial markets, not just on Wall Street 
but on Main Street, too. This bill is going to raise the costs for 
small business operators and consumers who will use financial 
institutions.
  I also find it interesting that part of the discussion here is to 
criticize or is to try to suggest that the Republicans want to cut 
Social Security. I'm curious as to how the Members who are raising that 
issue on the floor today voted on a health care bill that actually took 
$500 billion out of Medicare, which our seniors rely on. They voted to 
cut $500 billion out of it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman wants to know why I think you want to 
cut Social Security, I am referring to the article in which the 
minority leader is quoted quite extensively on that issue.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to 
consider the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Conference Report.
  For too many years, Wall Street was not properly regulated. Who paid 
for these mistakes? Unfortunately, it was our constituents on Main 
Street who paid the price, not Wall Street financial firms.

[[Page 12411]]

  According to a recent Pew survey, this result directly impacted more 
than half of working Americans, pushing far too many into unemployment, 
pushing far too many to take pay cuts, reduced hours, part-time jobs, 
or delayed retirement plans. So it is not surprising that many 
Americans have lost their faith and trust in our financial system.
  The Dodd-Frank Act will restore Americans' trust in a well-
functioning financial system. While the bill ends ``too big to fail'' 
and taxpayer bailouts, it also shields community banks, credit unions, 
and small businesses from the necessary regulatory burdens that will be 
focused on Wall Street and on others who created the financial crisis. 
Most importantly, this new law is fully paid for. Taxpayers will not 
have to pick up the tab.
  I urge my colleagues to protect consumers, investors and taxpayers by 
supporting this conference report.
  I will now turn to Chairman Frank for a brief colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you for your extraordinary leadership on this 
historic bill.
  First, do you agree the conferees did not intend to impose the 
regulatory authority of the bureau over the activities of broker-
dealers and investment advisers otherwise subject to regulation by the 
SEC and CFTC?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield to me, I 
agree.
  As the gentleman knows, our bill does give the SEC the power we 
expect them to use to impose greater fiduciary responsibilities on 
these people. The consumer protection bureau will be a very powerful 
one. It will be dealing with financial products in the lending area and 
elsewhere. It was not intended to duplicate existing regulation. So, in 
fact, as the gentleman knows, we enhance the regulatory authority of 
those entities he mentioned, and there is no intention whatsoever, nor 
is there language, I believe, that would lead to duplicate supervision 
by the consumer protection bureau.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. I thank the gentleman.

  Clarification for the Record: Consumer Bureau vs. SEC/CFTC Powers, 
 Provided by Rep. Dennis Moore (KS-03), June 30, 2010, H.R. 4173, Dodd-
                        Frank Conference Report

       It was the conference committee's intent to avoid gaps in 
     oversight, but also to avoid creating duplicative or 
     competing rulemaking and supervisory authorities, one vested 
     in the Consumer Bureau and the other in the SEC or CFTC.
       As such, the final report provides exclusive authority to 
     the SEC and the CFTC over persons they regulate to the extent 
     those persons act in a ``regulated capacity.'' If such 
     persons are not acting in a regulated capacity, their 
     activities relating to the offering and provision of consumer 
     financial products or services may be subject to the 
     authority of the Bureau instead of the SEC or CFTC.
       But to the extent they are acting in a `regulated 
     capacity', only their functional regulator--the SEC or the 
     CFTC--has rulemaking, supervisory, examination or enforcement 
     authority over the regulated person or such activities. To 
     that end, the conference report specifically states that `the 
     Bureau shall have no authority to exercise any power to 
     enforce this title with respect to any person regulated by 
     the Commission' or the CFTC.
       It was not the intent of the conference committee to impose 
     the regulatory authority of the Bureau over the activities of 
     broker-dealers and investment advisers otherwise subject to 
     regulation by the SEC and CFTC.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to one 
of the newest Members of this body, the gentleman from Hawaii, Charles 
Djou.
  Mr. DJOU. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, today, I rise and count myself among the 1.1 million 
Americans who have already voted to cut spending via YouCut, a dynamic 
idea courtesy of the Republican whip, Eric Cantor.
  These Americans are saying to this Congress that enough is enough. 
This government is spending far too much money on programs that do not 
work. Worst of all, we have no plan to pay this money back. Since the 
majority in Congress is refusing to cut spending, to exercise 
discipline or to even pass a budget, the American people are rising up 
and are standing in this gaffe.
  Today's YouCut winner, which we are going to be looking at, is a 
straightforward proposal. It would simply prohibit taxpayer funding for 
union activities. This would save taxpayers $120 million this year 
alone and $1.2 billion over the next 10 years. This is a simple, 
commonsense idea, and it is one step in the right direction to 
restoring fiscal order in our House.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people, to cut this 
wasteful spending and to make tough choices that will provide us with a 
better tomorrow for ourselves and for our families.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, again, the proposal that the Republicans 
are talking about today represents less than one-tenth of 1 percent of 
the Bush tax cuts that weren't paid for. I mean, where was the fiscal 
responsibility then?
  At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, for the purpose of a colloquy, I would like to engage 
with the chairman of the committee and the drafter of this legislation. 
I congratulate him on the great work he has done on this reform bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to call your attention to sections 726 and 765 
of the bill. These two provisions require the CFTC and the SEC to 
conduct rulemakings to eliminate the conflicts of interest arising from 
the control of clearing and trading facilities by entities such as swap 
dealers and major swap participants.
  This problem arises because, right now, 95 percent of all of the 
clearinghouses in this country are owned by just five banks. So, while 
we are relying on the clearinghouses to reduce systemic risk, we have 
the banks now owning the clearinghouses.
  The question I have is regarding the intent of the conferees in 
retaining subsection B of these provisions. It could be loosely 
construed to leave it up to the agencies whether or not to adopt rules.
  Mr. Chairman, do you agree that my reading of sections 726 and 765 
affirmatively require these agencies to adopt strong conflict of 
interest rules on control and governance of clearing and trading 
facilities?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield to me, he 
has been a leader in this important area, and he is a careful lawyer 
and understands that just saving a principle isn't enough. You've got 
to make sure it is carried out. Dealing with a conflict of interest 
that he has been a leader in identifying is essential if this is going 
to work. So I completely agree with him. Yes, we mean both of those 
subsections, and it is a mandatory rulemaking.
  I will say to my neighbor from Massachusetts that we will be 
monitoring this carefully. They can expect oversight hearings because, 
yes, this is definitely a mandate to them to adopt rules to deal with 
what would be a blatant conflict of interest in the efficacy rules, and 
we intend to follow that closely.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. 
I rise because reform is desperately needed, but the reforms needed 
most are not in this bill.
  For example, this legislation fails to reform the government-
sponsored enterprises, and when you think about it, the housing crisis 
and the meltdown that we saw in that sector, and most of the losses, 
were in the government-sponsored enterprises.
  That was not caused by a lack of government intervention. Each of 
those failed institutions had a regulator overseeing it, but it was 
Congress, especially with the GSE Act, actively tying the hands of 
those regulators in what amounted to a failed attempt, maybe for a good 
social end, the idea was to get everybody into a home. But to do that 
by putting these mandates

[[Page 12412]]

on the GSEs that 50 percent of the portfolios that they held, 50 
percent of that $1.7 trillion in portfolios that they held be in 
subprime and Alt-A, obviously, obviously created very real problems.
  The political intervention to get the 20 percent down payment down to 
3 percent and then down to zero obviously had an effect. These 
institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were at the center of the 
housing market, and they were largely responsible for some 70 percent 
of subprime and Alt-A mortgages throughout our financial system.
  In order to reach the affordable housing mandates that Congress 
enacted in 1992, Fannie and Freddie became the largest purchasers of 
these junk loans, ending up with $1.8 trillion. In essence, they made 
the junk loan market.
  Knowing of the systemic threat posed by these institutions, the 
Federal Reserve actually came to Congress, came to us a number of 
times, over a dozen times, and asked us to rein in their excessive risk 
taking. And when you hear the arguments back and forth about, well, at 
one point or another we tried to have legislation to address this, ask 
yourself this. I will remind you of this. What the Fed wanted was the 
ability to deleverage these portfolios. What the Fed wanted was the 
ability to control Fannie and Freddie for systemic risk, and that is a 
responsibility that Congress would not give them.
  In 2005, that debate came to a head, and under the leadership of 
Chuck Hagel and Richard Shelby, Senate Republicans moved a bill, 
supported by the Fed, through the Banking Committee that attacked the 
heart of the problem, the excessive buildup of leverage and risk within 
the mortgage portfolios. And, as the Wall Street Journal said, the 
White House, Treasury Department and Federal Reserve lined up behind 
Mr. Shelby. But he was never able to bring his bill to the floor 
because of opposition from Democrats. Both in the House and Senate, 
Democrats were aggressively trying to defeat our efforts under the 
guise of protecting affordable housing. Mr. Dodd and Mr. Sarbanes 
blocked those reforms in the Senate.
  Luckily, some Members from the other side have noted this failure. In 
2008, President Clinton said, ``I think the responsibility that the 
Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in 
the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and 
tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.''
  It is unfortunate that we lost that battle. Our housing market, our 
financial sector and the broader economy are dealing with the 
consequences of that very systemic shock that the Fed had anticipated 
and warned us about.
  Today, despite what some may claim, we are not advocating for the 
elimination of the GSEs tomorrow, but we want them addressed in this 
legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to correct the wholly-
inaccurate-because-of-being-incomplete history of the gentleman from 
California. He blames the Senate Democrats for not passing a bill. I 
didn't hear him infer, maybe I missed it, that the House was then in 
control of the Republicans, and the House didn't pass that bill either.
  The gentleman from California had an amendment that he liked. He was 
repudiated by his own party, overwhelmingly. Now, I am sorry he wasn't 
more persuasive with the Republicans. I am sorry that the chairman of 
the committee and the current leadership of the House and the then 
leadership of the House voted against him, but you can't blame that on 
the Democrats. And, in fact, what the Senate Republicans offered was 
the House Republican bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
the chairman, to engage in a short colloquy.
  Chairman Frank, with regard to assessments on financial institutions 
under the resolution authority title of the bill, title II, I want to 
clarify that the risk matrix criteria regarding the FDIC to take the 
scope and nature of an institution's activity into consideration when 
setting assessments means that such assessments should be made in light 
of the impact of potential assessments on the ability of an institution 
that is a tax-exempt, not-for-profit organization to carry out their 
legally required charitable and educational activities.
  Can the chairman confirm my understanding on this point?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield to me, yes, I 
absolutely can. Let me say this is consistent with the leadership the 
gentleman from Illinois has shown in dealing with risk factors. Up 
until now, and until this bill passes, we have been automatically 
assessing institutions solely on the basis of their assets or their 
amounts. We want to discourage excessive risk and make those who take 
the risk bear a fair share.
  Here the gentleman is clearly correct that to the extent you have got 
a tax exemption because you engage in charitable activity, in effect 
you shouldn't get assessed on that basis.
  The gentleman has gone further. Smaller banks in this country will be 
the beneficiaries of an important piece of this legislation, thanks to 
his leadership. The riskier the bank's activity, the higher their FDI 
assessment will be in general. That is an important piece of it, and 
this particular application of it for these charitable institutions is 
essential.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, in order to allow the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) time to rebut, I yield the gentleman 1 minute.
  Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am ready to recognize, Chairman Frank, that you were successful in 
defeating that amendment. You were successful, and certainly a majority 
of this body, including many Republicans, joined you, and I think in 
2003 you stated it well in terms of this perspective. You said, ``I do 
think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that 
we have in OCC and OTS. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in 
this situation towards subsidized housing.''
  This was an argument that gained ground on both of sides of the 
aisle, there is no doubt about it, but at the same time, it was the Fed 
that supported my amendment that I brought before this body in order to 
try to give the Federal Reserve the ability to deleverage these 
portfolios in the interest of safety and soundness.
  This is a debate we have had many times. We had a different 
perspective. But today going forward, we are expanding systemic risk in 
many ways in this legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from 
California still won't be forthright about this.
  The Republican-controlled House, chaired by Mr. Oxley in the 
committee, passed the bill that he objected to. He said I was 
successful in defeating it. No, I played a fairly minor role under Mr. 
DeLay and the Republican leadership. Mr. DeLay did not take advice from 
me. If Mr. DeLay took advice from me, he wouldn't have gone on the 
dance show. I would have advised him against it.
  The fact is that it was a Republican House that passed the bill the 
gentleman is denouncing, and I don't know why he keeps mentioning 
history and leaving that out until he has to be reminded.
  He did offer an amendment. He was overwhelmingly defeated. More than 
two-thirds of the Republicans voted against him.
  By the way, as to my own view, yes, in 2003 I said there was no 
problem. In 2004, after President Bush, while the Republicans 
controlled Congress and didn't hinder him, ordered Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac to increase their purchase of loans from people below the 
median, I changed my position. So I joined the Republican leadership of 
the

[[Page 12413]]

House as a fairly minor player in supporting legislation.
  He was against it, and I would just make that point again.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). The time of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I don't understand the purpose of giving 
such a partial history. He neglects to mention in 2007 when the 
Democrats took the majority and I became chairman, we passed the bill 
that he couldn't get passed in 2005, because we worked with Secretary 
Paulson, who acknowledges this in his book.
  So, yes, in 2003 I was not concerned, but by 2005 I was.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam, Speaker, we're sitting here arguing on the floor 
about who gets credit for what. I think we ought to give credit. We 
ought to give credit to the Democrats for taxing, spending, record 
unemployment, higher debt. And what we're talking about today, this 
bill, the financial services sector of this country will not be healthy 
if we do not turn around our economy. And that too, Madam Speaker, is 
pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.
  At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Roanoke, Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule 
on this legislation that's coming forward. But before we get to the 
vote on the rule, we're going to have a vote on ordering the previous 
question, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on ordering the 
previous question because that is the way to show your support for 
today's spending cut reduction under the YouCut program that millions 
of Americans have participated in.
  This week's spending cut, developed by Congressman Phil Gingrey of 
Georgia, addresses one of the perpetual roadblocks to American private-
sector job creation and economic recovery--Federal employee unions. The 
proposal would prohibit taxpayer funding for union activities, saving 
taxpayers $120 million a year, or $1.2 billion over the next 10 years. 
Federal employees' unions collect millions in revenue each year and 
spend significant amounts on political activities and lobbying. I do 
not believe that they should also be subsidized by the taxpayers for 
their official functions. Instead of subsidizing union activities, the 
Federal Government must work to both eliminate every cent of waste and 
squeeze every cent of value out of each dollar our citizens entrust to 
it.
  When we're facing gigantic deficits each year, the President's budget 
that he submitted earlier this year projects a 70 percent expenditure 
over top of what we're going to take in in revenues--$3.8 trillion in 
spending and $2.2 trillion in tax revenues coming in. That is 
completely unsustainable, and yet as far as the eye can see for the 
next 10 years, as far out as the Congressional Budget Office projects, 
we face deficits that are two and three times as large as they had ever 
been previously in our history, including the last time the Republicans 
were in the majority in this Congress.
  We spent too much money in 2004 when we had a $400 billion deficit. 
That looks like peanuts today compared to what we're facing. Support 
the effort to cut our government spending. Oppose the ordering of the 
previous question.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Before the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, the Chair would remind Members to be more cognizant 
of the gavel.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, just in response to the last speaker, 
this gimmick that the Republicans have brought to the floor is really 
just that--a gimmick. $120 million a year they're going to save. Let me 
just put that in perspective. Just two policies dating from the Bush 
administration--tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--
accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009, and will 
account for almost $7 trillion of deficits in 2009 through 2019, 
including the associated debt services cost.
  We need to get serious about dealing with the debt and dealing with 
our deficit. But let's make one thing clear: When Mr. Bush came to 
power, President Clinton left him a budget surplus. No deficit. We're 
paying down the debt. When Mr. Bush left office, he left Barack Obama 
with a record deficit that he is now trying to dig us out of in the 
midst of one of the worst economies since the Great Depression. So when 
they get on the floor with these gimmicks, let's understand what they 
are--they are gimmicks. If you want to get serious about reducing the 
debt, then let's get serious about it.
  I will tell you one thing I do disagree with him on very strongly. 
Again, I'll go back to the article I referred to before when Minority 
Leader Boehner talked about raising the retirement age of Social 
Security to 70 and taking that money and not putting it in Social 
Security to keep that program solvent, but then moving it to pay for 
the wars. I think that is wrong. I think our seniors deserve better 
than that.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).
  Ms. BEAN. Since the 2008 financial crisis that reduced the values of 
their homes and savings, our constituents have demanded action and 
answers. What went wrong and what will Congress do to make sure it 
doesn't happen again? This bill answers with strong protections for 
American families.
  The problems started in our neighborhoods where too many home buyers 
took out loans they couldn't afford and too many lenders approved those 
loans. This bill ends the period of no-doc loans and drive-by 
appraisals with new lending standards, with risk retention to ensure 
lenders want to keep those good loans on their books, and rating agency 
liability and reform.
  Next, derivatives were at the heart of the AIG failure. This bill 
creates regulation where it did not exist in this multitrillion market 
with required transparency, ensuring that these trades are exchange-
traded cleared and-or reported. Capital reserves will be required to 
back up the risks they take and protect the entire system. And, most 
important, it ends taxpayer bailouts. Those companies who take risk, if 
you fail, you're fired. Your shareholders will lose money and the 
financial industry is responsible for liquidation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.
  Ms. BEAN. Everyone, from home buyers in our neighborhoods to wizards 
on Wall Street to regulators in Washington, recognizes that the era of 
no regulation is over. Status quo doesn't work. It's time to act and 
protect the American people.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member 
of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. This bill has good in it. It really does. It has enhanced 
consumer protection similar to what the Federal Reserve has enacted. It 
has greater transparency and disclosure. In the field of derivatives, 
it has provisions to prevent companies like British Petroleum from 
manipulating the market, as they did last year. But there's a lot of 
bad in this bill, and there's a lot of ugly. I'm going to talk about 
the bad when I address the bill. And the bad is some capital 
requirements on companies that could cost a trillion dollars. And 
that's a greater amount than the two stimuluses put together. That 
could cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  But right now I want to talk about the ugly. And the ugly is the 
bailout of creditors and counterparties. This is a Wall Street bailout 
bill, make no mistake about it. This bill says that the FDIC can lend 
to a failing company. Now this is a company that is failing. They can't 
meet their obligations. You loan a failing company money. You can 
purchase the assets. This is the government purchasing the assets of 
the largest financial companies in America. They can take a security 
interest in

[[Page 12414]]

the assets. They can guarantee the obligations of the firm. We did that 
with Fannie and Freddie. We told the Chinese bondholders, We'll pay you 
a hundred cents on the dollar. And with AIG we did the same thing. We 
told the European banks, we told Goldman and Morgan, We'll pay these 
credit swaps off at a hundred percent. They can do that under this 
bill. They can bail out creditors and counterparties. And they can even 
sell and transfer to the FDIC the assets of a failing firm.
  Now how do they do that? Well, they have to borrow money. You can't 
buy something for free. You can't guarantee things without money. Under 
the House bill, you can borrow 90 percent of the fair value of the 
failed firm's total consolidated assets. You're going to borrow. In 
other words, the government, the taxpayers, are going to borrow 90 
percent of that amount. What are we talking about? Potentially, with 
just the largest six companies in America--Bank of America, Morgan 
Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, the so-called 
Wall Street banks, most of which, including Goldman Sachs, have said, 
We like this provision. It's a great provision. The Federal Government 
can borrow for those six firms $8.5 trillion. Yet we've not asked, 
Where are you going to borrow this money from? Are you going to go back 
to the Chinese?

                              {time}  1240

  What will it cost? How will it affect the FDIC when the taxpayers 
borrow this kind of money? How will it affect our ability to pay the 
depositors that we have guaranteed those obligations? How will it 
affect our ability to meet our commitments today, Medicare, Medicaid, 
Social Security? How will it impact the deficit? What will it do to 
interest rates? Is there an exit strategy?
  The largest bailout which is not addressed in this bill, the largest 
bailout in the history of this country was of Fannie and Freddie. We 
still haven't gotten out of that. In August of 2008, every Republican 
in this body said, Reform them before you bail them out. We've bailed 
them out. We guaranteed $400 billion of their assets over our protest. 
And then last December 31, the President guaranteed all their 
obligations; and just this week, we hear that that could amount to $1 
trillion.
  A trillions dollars there, $2 trillion here, $2 trillion here, $2 
trillion here, $1 trillion here, almost $1 trillion there. How do we do 
it? How do the taxpayers get paid back?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I think it's pretty obvious that Republicans today have come down and 
debated the substance of this rule and the bill. The rule, as it 
relates to the conference report, is straightforward. It puts in order 
on the floor of the House of Representatives today a bill which will be 
a monstrous spending bill for financial institutions, $18 billion that 
will be passed on to consumers. It's all done for bigger government. 
This bill empowers the Federal Government not only to get larger, but 
it gives them raw power. It gives them the opportunity to be the 
decision-maker in literally all parts of financial services. I think 
that's a mistake. I think that the balances and the opportunities that 
we had had as we have spoken in the last few years, we should aim for 
safety and soundness, not for overbearing government rules and 
regulations.
  This bill, once again, is as much about the financial services 
industry as the health care bill was about health care. It's about 
diminishing the free enterprise system. It's about diminishing people 
who really should take the role and the responsibility for that which 
they do. And it's about creating a larger government that will encroach 
upon every single one of us and ultimately crush us. The Republican 
Party disagrees with this bill because we think that the time should be 
spent on this floor to encourage job creation, not to diminish job 
creation. And that's what this bill does today also: it diminishes job 
creation. Taxing, spending, bigger government. Of course, I guess it 
depends whether you are working for the government; you want the 
government to win or the free enterprise system.
  We've looked at the numbers over the last 4 years since Speaker 
Pelosi's come into office, and we know what that agenda is--taxing, 
spending, more debt, bigger government, rules, regulations and using 
every single excuse they can to say, Well, you guys could have done 
this when you were in. Well, we don't want to do that. We don't want to 
do this. We don't want the taxing. We don't want the spending. To say 
that we could have done this, that now we're opposed to it, that's 
crazy. We don't like this.
  We want to be about the free enterprise system, job creation, and the 
opportunity for people back home to have confidence in this body. We're 
at the lowest level ever that people have confidence in this body. And 
no wonder. Taxing, spending, rules, regulations, blaming things on 
former Presidents. My gosh, grow up. Madam Speaker, no wonder the 
American people are worried about our country, because the Mickey Mouse 
still goes on and is going on even today.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and 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 Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the American people are frustrated. 
They're frustrated that we haven't passed a Wall Street regulatory 
reform bill sooner. I think my friends on the other side of the aisle 
just don't get it. I don't think they understand that an unregulated 
Wall Street with no checks and balances will produce another economic 
crisis like the one we are trying to dig ourselves out of right now. 
The Republican minority leader, Mr. Boehner, said, This is killing an 
ant with a nuclear weapon. An ant? It was the worst financial crisis 
since the Great Depression.
  America has lost 8 million jobs and $17 trillion of retirement 
savings and net worth. The irresponsible fiscal policies of the 
previous administration--and a lot of my friends on the other side--
were much more than an ant to the American workers and their families 
and small businesses. They have suffered greatly because of Wall 
Street's excesses. And this notion that somehow we should just let Wall 
Street continue unregulated I think demonstrates that my friends on the 
other side of the aisle just don't get it.
  Madam Speaker, this rule would also allow for the same-day 
consideration of an extension of unemployment benefits to millions of 
Americans who have lost their jobs. Americans are frustrated because 
they can't understand why Congress can't just approve this. What is the 
big deal? My friends on the other side of the aisle say, Well, we can't 
afford it. Yet when it comes to war or when it comes to tax cuts for 
wealthy people, we are a bottomless pit. But the fact of the matter is, 
we have an obligation to help those who are suffering because of this 
bad economy, and hopefully we will do that.
  Madam Speaker, let me finally say that when we enact this bill today, 
this will be tough legislation that will end an era without 
accountability for Wall Street and big banks that cost us 8 million 
jobs. It will rein in big banks and their big bonuses. It will put an 
end to taxpayer bailouts and the idea of too big to fail and protect 
and empower consumers to make the best decisions on homes, credit 
cards, and our own financial future. The American people want us to 
pass this bill. They want us to pass an extension of unemployment 
benefits, and hopefully by the end of today, we will do both.
  So, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and 
on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

[[Page 12415]]



                       Amendment to H. Res. 1487

                    Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon the 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. 3251) to repeal certain provisions of title 5, United 
     States Code, relating to Federal employees' official time and 
     labor organization activities. 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 Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. 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. Clause 1(c) of 
     rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 3251.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        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 Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, 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.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will 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 definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       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 Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on the previous question will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on adoption of House Resolution 1487, if ordered; and the motion 
to suspend the rules on H.R. 4505.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 182, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 406]

                               YEAS--243

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--182

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake

[[Page 12416]]


     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Davis (AL)
     Gohmert
     Marchant
     Taylor
     Wamp
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1315

  Mrs. BLACKBURN, Messrs. ROYCE, REICHERT, BOREN, Ms. GRANGER, and Mr. 
CUELLAR changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ and Mr. FATTAH changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam 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 237, 
noes 189, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 407]

                               AYES--237

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--189

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Davis (AL)
     Gohmert
     Taylor
     Wamp
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there 
are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  1323

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________