[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12418-12426]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4173, DODD-
          FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1490 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1490

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the 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. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without 
     intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit if applicable.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions), and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1490.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1490 provides for 
consideration of the conference report to H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This rule provides for 
2 hours of debate on the conference report, it waives all points of 
order, and, further, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with 
or without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, today we will take an historic vote on the most 
significant reform to our financial industry since the New Deal. These 
comprehensive reforms will reduce threats to our financial system, 
increase oversight and prevent future bailouts. The bill strikes a 
responsible balance, ending the ``wild west'' era on Wall Street, while 
laying a new regulatory foundation for long-term growth which is stable 
and secure.

                              {time}  1340

  In the fall of 2008, this country was brought to its knees by a 
financial crisis, the likes of which I hope we never experience again. 
A crisis of this magnitude calls for reforms of similar proportion. 
Many elements on and off Wall Street contributed to the meltdown, and 
this bill carefully crafts responsible solutions in each area. The bill 
protects consumers through the creation of a Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau that will oversee the loan writing for banks and 
nonbanks and serve as the primary watchdog for consumers. For the very 
first time, nonbank entities will have Federal oversight, a critical 
element to reining in abusive practices and products. An oversight 
council is established under this bill to make certain financial 
institutions do not become a systemic threat to our economic stability.
  We establish a process to close and liquidate significant financial 
institutions so if a failing firm begins to fail, it is closed, and it 
will no longer be too big to fail. This dissolution mechanism ensures 
Main Street comes first--not Wall Street. We deal with hedge funds, 
credit rating agencies, mortgage reform, executive compensation, and 
investor protection in this bill. We bring these issues out of the 
shadows and into the light so there is transparency to protect the 
system.
  I worked to ensure a study on high frequency trading was included in 
this bill. As we saw from the ``flash crash'' in May, when the Dow 
Jones lost nearly a thousand points in a matter of minutes because of 
computer error, we need to know the effects of technologically advanced 
practices such as high frequency trading on the long-term investor. 
Also, transparency will be brought to the derivatives markets. 
Businesses and manufacturers will be able to reduce their own risk 
while protections are put in place for the overall system, providing 
regulators with a clear picture of the derivatives market.
  Another important provision in the House was strengthened in 
conference. It calls for strong limits on proprietary trading, or what 
most are calling ``the Volcker rule.'' This provision strikes a good 
balance in banning proprietary trading without disrupting client 
services and asset management. In other words, banks can no longer 
gamble with their customers' money. The bill we are considering here 
today ensures there is no place to hide by closing loopholes, improving 
consolidated supervision, and establishing robust regulatory oversight.
  I'm proud to stand here with my colleagues today providing for 
consideration of a bill making the necessary reforms and establishing 
robust regulatory oversight. In this bill we protect consumers, 
taxpayers, and depositors. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado, my friend, for 
yielding me time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Today, we are considering a 2,300-page Federal takeover of the 
financial services industry. This happened in health care. It's now 
happening in financial services. The bill before us today is just one 
more piece of the Democrat majority's agenda to Federalize more of the 
private sector of this country. I hear that as I travel in my district. 
Madam Speaker, while it's important to provide consumer safety and 
security in the marketplace and to minimize the chance of another 
financial crisis, I oppose this bill.
  I oppose this bill, and the underlying legislation holds many far-
reaching consequences for the American economy and prohibits the 
ability of business, small and large, to create jobs and spur economic 
growth. Obviously, this bill, because it's done by the Democrat 
majority, will be 2,300 pages; obviously, because this bill is done by 
the Democrat majority, it will involve new Big Government plans, 
programs; and, obviously, because it's the Democrat majority, it will 
involve more taxes, fees, and in fact it's $18 billion worth of new 
spending through these fees and taxes. In addition to making bailouts 
permanent, which this bill does do, failing to address the root cause 
of the crisis and rewarding failed regulators, this Democratic solution 
makes it even more difficult for consumers to access credit and for 
businesses to comply with overburdensome regulations.
  Just a few minutes ago, we heard the story about how Republicans want 
to

[[Page 12419]]

do nothing. Republicans would do nothing because they're opposed to 
rules and regulations in the marketplace. That's not true. We already 
have enough rules and regulations in the marketplace. And I do agree 
there's some things in here which do add to the safety and soundness 
features. But in the overall total, it's a bad deal. It's a bad deal 
for consumers, it's a bad deal for this country, and it's certainly a 
bad deal for anyone that wants to turn the corner on growing jobs in 
America.
  In a letter from the Independent Bankers Association of Texas, my 
home State, while referencing the new Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau created in the bill, it states, ``this agency will have broad 
powers to write rules on all bank products and services, which we 
believe will stifle innovation and entrepreneurship on longstanding 
products that have been responsibly offered by community financial 
institutions. This will result in more cost and confusion to bank 
customers and stifle lending and funding in community banks.''
  Community banks represent the lifeblood of Texas. I know this because 
I know a number of the banks and the people not only who lend with them 
but the people who rely on them day by day. I'm one of those persons. 
They're worried about what is happening here in Washington. Once again, 
they were given a reason to have fear of what has happened over the 
weekend in this bill becoming even closer to law.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of Financial 
Research, two brand new Federal agencies created in this bill--once 
again, two brand new Federal agencies created in this bill--will give 
unelected bureaucrats unprecedented power to track financial activities 
without citizens' approval. And these are not the only new regulatory 
components of the bill. This legislation allows for 355 new 
rulemakings, 47 studies, and 74 reports, and potentially dozens more as 
implementation begins. But what should we expect from this Democratic 
Congress?
  The goal of regulatory reform should be to help, not hinder. It 
should be there to help our economy to sustain and gain back economic 
growth. And, of course, gain back private-sector job creation--not 
government jobs. This legislation, of course, does the opposite. It 
takes a one-size-fits-all approach to governing, undermining U.S. 
economic competitiveness and private-sector growth. This Democrat 
solution will only increase government intervention in the financial 
markets. It will ration credit. It will limit consumer choice. And, 
perhaps worst of all, it will continue to kill jobs. I'm sorry; 
private-sector jobs. I need to get that right. We're all for government 
jobs when it's a Democratic bill, but when it comes to free-enterprise 
system jobs, we want to kill those things. This is the hallmark of the 
Democratic Party, whose party--and I know this, this is just part of 
it--but the three largest political items of the Democrat majority, 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi: To net lose 10 million American jobs through cap-
and-trade, through card check, and through health care. Once again, we 
should have included that in that list--jobs that are killed in the 
free enterprise system by this Democrat majority.

                              {time}  1350

  Madam Speaker, the motives are clear. My Democrat colleagues are 
using policy and regulation to force a further government takeover of 
the free enterprise system while paving the road to diminish the 
private sector. This is their way of making sure that they use a crisis 
or a perception of a crisis to get what they want. I get it, and so do 
people back home. Madam Speaker, the Republican Party and my colleagues 
in the Republican Party are opposed to this bill. I encourage my 
colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I will just take one moment, Madam Speaker, to remind 
my friend from Texas that by cutting taxes for the wealthiest 
Americans, prosecuting two wars without paying for them, and letting 
Wall Street run amok, in the last month of George Bush's term in 
office, we lost 780,000 jobs that month. This country lost a lot of 
jobs. By not enforcing reasonable regulation, we lost all sorts of 
jobs. But since January, February of 2009 until last month, we reversed 
that to the point where there were 400,000 jobs created, a swing of 
over 1.2 million jobs per month in this country. My friends on the 
Republican side of the aisle oppose reining in Wall Street. We know, 
and Americans across this country know that something has to be done.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California, 
Congresswoman Matsui.
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4173, the 
Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010. Many families in my 
home district of Sacramento continue struggling to make ends meet. I 
have heard countless stories of those struggling to keep their homes, 
their jobs, and their way of life. Many of my constituents were and 
continue to be victims of predatory home loan lending, unfair credit 
card practices, payday loans, and other forms of deceptive financial 
practices. The mortgage crisis, in particular, continues to impact many 
in Sacramento. Sadly, after more than 2 years, millions of homeowners 
continue to face foreclosure, and those who have not have seen the 
value of their homes plummet.
  I have been to foreclosure workshops. I have seen the hardships and 
looks of desperation. I have heard from a constituent who held a 
traditional 30-year mortgage; but after repeated attempts from her 
lender, she was convinced to refinance her mortgage to a lower 
adjustable rate. And now that the mortgage has reset, she is facing 
foreclosure. I have heard from many constituents who applied for a loan 
modification but never even got a call back. I have heard from many 
others who say they were denied a loan modification under the Making 
Home Affordable program, but their lender never even gave them a reason 
why. These are just a few of the many stories that I, and I'm sure many 
of you, have heard.
  Madam Speaker, no one is looking for a bailout. The families need 
real assistance and real reform. But it's clear that the mortgage 
industry, after repeated public pledges, has yet to demonstrate a real 
commitment to help responsible homeowners. Madam Speaker, I am pleased 
that this bill includes an amendment that I offered along with 
Representatives Kathy Castor and Betty Sutton which calls on the 
mortgage industry to help place more responsible homeowners into more 
affordable terms. The amendment will require mortgage industry 
participants in the Making Home Affordable program to report basic 
information on a monthly basis, such as the number of loan modification 
requests received, the number being processed, the number that have 
been approved, and the number that have been denied. It will also make 
that information available to the public through the Treasury 
Department's Web site.
  It is clear that greater transparency is needed to ensure that all 
parties are actually helping homeowners. Such transparency will lead to 
greater accountability. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
historic legislation to ensure that our consumers and our financial 
system are protected from irresponsible financial practices.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, our next speaker is a young gentleman 
from Texas who has a clear voice and a sound footing not only of 
economic principles but he also speaks for our party.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I was very interested, Madam Speaker, to hear the gentleman from 
Colorado defend the job statistics under the Democratic rule of 
Congress. I don't know too many Democrats coming to the floor who want 
to defend 9.7 percent unemployment. Frankly, it's one of the major 
reasons that the legislation on the floor ought to be opposed today. 
Madam Speaker, it's a job killer. Once again, we have legislation that

[[Page 12420]]

will make credit less available and more expensive.
  Let me point out four different aspects of this bill. No. 1, it 
creates a permanent Wall Street bailout authority. If you build it, 
they will come. You build a bailout authority because you expect to 
bail people out. There's a choice to be had here. Republicans believe 
in the Bankruptcy Code. There are improvements that need to be made; 
and under the leadership of our ranking member, Spencer Bachus, we 
introduced that legislation. But our Democratic friends prefer 
bailouts, bailouts over bankruptcy.
  Now they continue to say that the taxpayer won't be called upon to 
pay for these bailouts. Well, isn't it kind of funny how throughout 
this conference process, every time they've had an opportunity to 
choose either the taxpayers or the Wall Street banks, they somehow 
choose the Wall Street banks? And, in fact, when it came down to the 
government-sponsored enterprises, they set up a choice--I didn't set up 
the choice--but they set up a choice of who going forward is going to 
fund the bailout of government-sponsored enterprises. Should it be Wall 
Street banks or should it be the taxpayers? And they decided that it 
ought to be the taxpayers.
  Just yesterday at the 11th hour--actually it was way past the 11th 
hour--they came up with a new funding mechanism, taking money away from 
TARP that was supposed to be used for deficit reduction; and, instead, 
they're going to use it to help fund the bill, most of which the 
Congressional Budget Office says goes to the Wall Street bailout 
authority. This is No. 2. The No. 2 incident where they had a choice 
between choosing the taxpayers or Wall Street banks, they chose Wall 
Street banks.
  A permanent bailout authority costs jobs. They create this new bureau 
to ban and ration consumer credit--literally to decide whether or not 
you can have a credit card, small business line of credit, what kind of 
mortgage you can get on your home. There is functionally a new banks 
tax that makes derivatives more expensive, less available. All of this 
is going to harm job creation.
  You know, I talk to small businesses in my district, like a gentleman 
from Jacksonville, Texas: ``I am a one-man operation. With all the 
legislation coming down the line, I will stay a one-man operation. If 
lines of credit dry up, I will no longer be able to maintain safe 
operating equipment and be forced to cease operations.''
  Reject the job-killing bill and the permanent bailout authority.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would respond to my friend from 
Texas that, first of all, losing 780,000 jobs a month, as we were when 
George Bush left office, that's job killing. That's terrible. One of 
the things we're trying to do is right that ship. Second, he says that 
they set up a bankruptcy process for these banks. Well, as Democrats, 
we said, These failing banks, if they're failing, we're not going to 
let them linger along like they might in a chapter 11 bankruptcy. We 
close them. We liquidate them. That's the purpose of this. No more 
bailouts.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of 
engaging in a colloquy with Chairman Frank to clarify the intent behind 
section 1076 in this bill. The section amends the Electronic Fund 
Transfer Act to create a new section 920 regarding interchange fees. 
Interchange revenues are a major source of funding for the 
administrative costs of prepaid cards used in connection with health 
care and employee benefits programs like FSAs, HSAs, HRAs and qualified 
transportation accounts.

                              {time}  1400

  These programs are lightly used by both the public and private sector 
employers and employees and are more expensive to operate because of 
substantiation than other regulatory requirements. Because of this, I 
would like to clarify that Congress does not wish to interfere with 
those arrangements in a way that could lead to higher fees being 
imposed by administrators to make up for lost revenue, which would 
directly raise health care costs and hurt consumers. This is clearly 
not something that was the intent that we'd like to do. Therefore, I 
ask Chairman Frank to join me in clarifying that Congress intends that 
prepaid cards associated with these types of programs should be 
exempted within the language of section 920(a)(7)(A)
(ii)(II).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield, he's 
completely correct. The Federal Reserve has the mandate under this, 
which originated in the Senate, to write those rules. We intend to make 
sure those rules protect a number of things: smaller financial 
institutions from being discriminated against since they're exempt from 
the regulation, State benefit programs, and these.
  So the gentleman is absolutely correct, and I can assure him that I 
expect the Federal Reserve to honor that. And if there is any question 
about it, I am sure we will be able to make sure that it happens.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank Mr. Sessions for yielding me the 
time. I would like to thank our ranking member, Spencer Bachus, for his 
dedication to this issue. I would also like to thank the chairman of 
our full Committee of Financial Services for his dedication to this as 
well.
  But, Madam Speaker, as we stand here today, unfortunately, this is a 
missed opportunity. From the start of the debate, it was apparent there 
was little or no interest from our Democrat colleagues in working 
towards a consensus bill on regulatory reform. Now they are using 
budgetary smoke and mirrors, and I think that it will be apparent to 
Americans as this bill unfolds.
  As my constituents say to us all the time: Work together. Shelve the 
partisanship. The stakes are too high.
  But, unfortunately, the bill before us was drafted without our 
significant input. We are now faced with a bill that will give us 
institutionalized government bailouts, limit consumer choices, and 
raise the cost for businesses, our job creators across this Nation.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be basking in the 
rhetoric and high praise for cracking down on Wall Street. However, the 
resolution authority in this bill does little or nothing to address the 
issue of the moral hazard that has been created by the TARP program. 
Instead, failed firms will be wound down at taxpayers' expense.
  Under this resolution authority, the big will get bigger, and they 
will push the limits of risk because they will know that the government 
will be there to pay for their demise. In fact, many of the tools used 
for TARP are institutionalized in this legislation. My friends can 
opine on Wall Street reform all they want, but this bill does not 
achieve that.
  Why should the people of West Virginia help pay for poor decisions of 
Wall Street bankers, or in any State? Well, they shouldn't. But for 
over a year we have advocated for an enhanced bankruptcy for these 
large, highly complex financial institutions. This approach would have 
created a level playing field between Wall Street and Main Street and 
would have assured all parties know the rules of the game ahead of 
time.
  Furthermore, the taxpayers would not have to worry if their children 
and grandchildren will have to pick up the tab for the mistakes of the 
fabulous fabs of the world. Unfortunately, the majority has decided 
once again to turn a deaf ear to America's cries to end the bailouts.
  This bill will fuel the growth of Wall Street, will lead to job loss, 
and it represents a missed opportunity.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).
  Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with 
Chairman Frank. I want to clarify a couple of important issues under 
section 619 of the bill, the Volcker Rule.

[[Page 12421]]

  The bill would prohibit firms from investing in traditional private 
equity funds and hedge funds. Because the bill uses the very broad 
Investment Company Act approach to define private equity and hedge 
funds, it could technically apply to lots of corporate structures, and 
not just the hedge funds and private equity funds.
  I want to confirm that when firms own or control subsidiaries or 
joint ventures that are used to hold other investments, that the 
Volcker Rule won't deem those things to be private equity or hedge 
funds and disrupt the way the firms structure their normal investment 
holdings.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield, let me say, 
first, you know, there has been some mockery because this bill has a 
large number of pages, although our bills are smaller, especially on 
the page. We do that--by the way, there are also other people who 
complain sometimes that we've left too much discretion to the 
regulators. It's a complex bill dealing with a lot of subjects, and we 
want to make sure we get it right, and we want to make sure it's 
interpreted correctly.
  The point the gentleman makes is absolutely correct. We do not want 
these overdone. We don't want there to be excessive regulation. And the 
distinction the gentleman draws is very much in this bill, and we are 
confident that the regulators will appreciate that distinction, 
maintain it, and we will be there to make sure that they do.
  Mr. HIMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My understanding is also that, consistent with the overall intent not 
to subject commercial firms to financial regulation, section 604 
provides that an existing savings and loan holding company with both 
financial and nonfinancial businesses will cease to be an S&L holding 
company when it establishes an intermediate holding company under 
section 626. That company also may have an intermediate holding company 
under section 167.
  Am I right that the intent of this legislation is for these sections 
to be applied in harmony, so that an organization will have a single 
intermediate holding company that will be both the regulated S&L 
holding company and the organization and the holding company for 
implementing the heightened supervision of systemic financial 
activities under title I?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield again, yes, 
he is exactly right. And just to sum it up, we want regulated some 
activities and not regulated other activities when you have a hybrid 
kind of situation, and what the gentleman has described is how you 
accomplish that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues, I 
believe that financial reform is necessary now. But the legislation 
that is before us really, which empowers failed bureaucrats through 
government overreach and unnecessary job killing, is just not the right 
legislation.
  First, you know, one of the major fundamental flaws of this 2,300-
page bill is the section that basically empowers government bureaucrats 
with so-called resolution authority to basically pick winners and 
losers again, to continue that failed bailout philosophy.
  Now, I know the chairman and the proponents of this bill claim that 
these provisions are meant to add certainty and stability to our 
financial system. But when you think about it, when you set up an 
alternative to bankruptcy for failed firms so that there are now two 
potential tracks for failed firms to go down, that actually introduces 
more uncertainty, more uncertainty for the financial markets, for the 
investors, for the counterparties, for our entire economy because of 
this bill. And that uncertainty, what does that lead to? It leads to 
failing to invest and leads to less job creation as well.
  Furthermore, this section of the legislation gives an alarming amount 
of power to government regulators and bureaucrats to basically decide 
the fate of a firm and its creditors. Under this administration, we've 
seen this before. We've seen the rule of law trampled when the Federal 
Government bullied into submission secured creditors in the Chrysler 
situation. In favor of whom? Well, politically favored unsecured 
creditors.
  And what is this legislation? This would codify the ability of 
regulators to engage in similar conduct, further eroding confidence in 
our rule-based economy. And sending investors where, to this country? 
No. To overseas, scattering them to other opportunities, rather than 
here in the U.S.
  Not only that, but this resolution authority, in codifying a better 
deal than in bankruptcy for at least some of the politically connected, 
gives large firms an unfair advantage over their smaller rivals.
  This then does what? It increases moral hazard by encouraging 
investment in firms that basically otherwise just don't deserve it. And 
this is a part of the problem that led to the demise that we have seen 
in other areas of our economy, talking about Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac, the GSEs, which, by the way, are never touched in this legislation 
whatsoever.
  Another aspect of the problem with this bill is Big Brother, Big 
Brother overreach that didn't exist before. This bill creates two new 
government bureaucracies, including the so-called Office of Financial 
Research, that will have unprecedented power to track the financial 
activities of everyone here and everyone in the entire United States. 
You're taking money out of the ATM, that's tracked. You're trying to 
set up a new credit card, that will be tracked. Information about any 
one of your consumer transactions, that will now be able to be tracked 
and gathered without anyone's approval, any citizen's approval. And it 
will be monitored by whom? Basically by unelected and unaccountable 
bureaucrats here in Washington with few or hardly any constraints 
whatsoever on how they're going to use the information or when they're 
going to use the information.
  Then there's the section on derivatives, another massive, massive job 
killer. I joined with Congressman Frank Lucas. We offered an 
alternative to this bill in the last days that was basically the 
original House version of the bill. It had broad bipartisan support. 
Unfortunately, under pressure from Democrat leadership, not a single 
Democrat supported that House language in the final vote, despite the 
fact that very same language was originally sponsored by the Democrat 
Financial Services and Agriculture Committee chairman.

                              {time}  1410

  The results of all this? Well, the result of that section not being 
in it means that businesses big and small all over this country which 
had absolutely nothing to do with this financial crisis will now have a 
very difficult time to hedge their risks, to guard against future risk, 
because they will have to pay literally hundreds and hundreds of 
billions of dollars in additional funds to control risks on a daily 
basis.
  What does that mean for all of us? More job losses. This bill is a 
job killer. And it will raise prices, too, for every American across 
the country, whether you are talking about food prices, energy prices, 
you name it. How many jobs will be lost? In a recent study by 
Keybridge, they found between 100,000 and 120,000 jobs will be lost 
because of this job-killing bill.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I have to smile when I listen to my friends talk 
about job killing, when letting Wall Street run wild, gambling like it 
was just a big casino, results in 780,0000 jobs a month being lost to 
the point that during this recession we have lost 8 million jobs. And 
we've got to put people back to work. We need certainty, we need 
reasonable regulation. That's the purpose of this bill.
  I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Ladies and gentlemen, you would think that the Republicans were 
somewhere on another planet. Let me correct the situation, if I may.
  First of all, this was a problem that occurred under the Bush 
administration because of policies by the Republicans, who were in 
charge. It was indeed Paulson, our Secretary of the

[[Page 12422]]

Treasury, that came to our Financial Services Committee with two pieces 
of paper and said here is what you need to fix it. Throw all of this 
money at Wall Street.
  Let's give the truth in this matter. It was under Democratic 
leadership that we said ``no.'' Yes, we have a credit problem, a credit 
freeze of the credit markets up on Wall Street. And here we were. And I 
know sometimes the truth hurts, and I feel their pain over there. But I 
am sick and tired of our Republican friends assuming that they had no 
responsibility for this, Mr. Speaker. And we've got to set the record 
straight. It is in the charge of Democrats, under our leadership, that 
we indeed are saddled with the responsibility of bringing the 
confidence of the American people back to our private enterprise system 
and to keep it free. It is because of what the Democrats are doing that 
we are saving our free economic system. Under their policies it was 
heading to straight ruin, causing the worst economic collapse second 
only to the Depression.
  So we are moving here today with this extraordinary bill to do 
everything possible to make sure that it never happens again, to 
restore the confidence of the American people. And we are beginning to 
do that. We are doing it by setting up a consumer protection agency, 
something we didn't have before. That's the reason this happened. They 
went to predatory lending, they went to steering people into subprime 
lending when they could have afforded other loans. There was no 
protection for them. Democrats are providing this protection. They were 
doing it because we had executive compensation pay geared to risky 
behavior. This is an important bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman who was 
speaking that we know what happened, and it's called pin-the-tail-on-
the-donkey.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hinsdale, 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), from the Financial Services Committee.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to ask this body 
to step back for a moment to do a quick sanity check. What's the 
purpose of this bill? I thought its purpose was to rein in Wall Street 
and end the abuses that precipitated the most massive financial 
meltdown and economic downturn since the Great Depression. Its purpose 
is to make Wall Street pay for the abuses, not Main Street. I am all 
for that.
  In fact, along with my Republican colleagues I offered the first 
reform bill, H.R. 3310, back in July, and many amendments designed to 
rein in Wall Street, end the abuses, but not harm Main Street. Senate 
Banking Chairman Chris Dodd's first regulatory reform proposal was 
similar to ours, and offered great promise. Unfortunately, these 
commonsense and necessary reforms were scrapped in favor of the bill 
that we consider today.
  Instead, we have before us a bill that turns the stated purpose 
upside down. What do I mean? Well, the end result is that Goldman Sachs 
supports the bill and the Chamber of Commerce opposes the bill. 
Goldman's CEO testified, and I quote, ``I am generally supportive. The 
biggest beneficiary of reform is Wall Street itself.'' Meanwhile, the 
U.S. Chamber, which represents Main Street American businesses, opposes 
the bill.
  Wall Street supports this bill while Main Street suffers? Where is 
the logic in that? Main Street didn't engage in shady accounting 
gimmicks. Main Street didn't make risky derivatives trades. Main Street 
didn't issue subprime loans. And yet what we have here is a bill that 
makes Main Street pay the price. And what is that price? Increased 
taxes on community banks, manufacturers, small businesses, consumers, 
and American families that will increase the cost of credit. New taxes 
will decrease the credit available to those who need it most, small 
businesses who seek financing to create desperately needed jobs.
  How will new taxes rein in Wall Street? This bill expands the size of 
government, increasing our national debt, making taxpayer bailouts 
permanent, and distorts our free market by allowing bureaucrats to pick 
winners and losers. It regulates the wages of every financial employee, 
from the janitor to the CEO.
  We need commonsense financial reform. And that's not what this bill 
delivers. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would say to my friend from Illinois, with whom I 
work on lots of things in this arena, I don't know where she is coming 
from saying there are taxes on small banks. There are FDIC charges so 
that they have sufficient reserves, but there are no taxes, as she 
would suggest.
  I yield 2 minutes to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a huge step 
forward. Working and middle class families should not again have to 
worry that financial ruin lurks in the fine print of a contract that 
their bank's lawyer wrote. Families that qualify for prime mortgages 
that they can pay will not again get trapped instead in predatory 
subprime mortgages that they cannot pay. They can use a credit card 
without worrying about getting gouged. They can have overdraft 
protection that is the convenience that their banks say it is, that it 
should be, not a trap to run up indefensible fees.
  If this legislation is properly enforced, we can begin to believe 
again that our government is on the side of honest Americans trying to 
make an honest living. This bill is about our values. Our economy 
depends on our acting in our own self-interest and enjoying the rewards 
of our efforts, but every major religious faith forbids unrestrained 
greed.
  On the stone tablets that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai there 
is the commandment, ``Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy 
neighbor's.'' And according to the First Book of Timothy, ``For the 
love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, 
they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with 
many sorrows.''
  When Franklin Roosevelt spoke in his first inaugural address about 
the practice of unscrupulous moneychangers in the temple, he spoke in 
language easily recognized by that generation. Roosevelt spoke of 
restoring ancient truths. ``The measure of the restoration,'' Roosevelt 
said, ``lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble 
than mere monetary profit.''
  The financial practices that this legislation seeks to reform have 
made a few Americans very rich, but by taking advantage of working and 
middle class families who needed to borrow money and honest investors 
who wanted to lend it, and by diverting too much of our economy from 
productive, honest work. We need to restore the faith from which we 
have erred. This bill is a start.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Fullerton, California (Mr. Royce), from 
the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I don't know why it should be a surprise to the Left that this 
financial system collapsed. The reason I say that is because in 1992, 
the GSE Act passed this Congress, under a Democratic majority passed 
this Congress. And the GSE Act specifically was an attempt to get every 
American into a home.
  I understand the thought behind it. But the irrationality behind it, 
in terms of creating these mandates on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the 
GSEs, mandates that 50 percent of their portfolio of $1.7 trillion be 
in subprime and Alt-A loans.

                              {time}  1420

  What did they expect would happen? The leverage, the political pull 
that went into getting the down payments down from 20 percent to 3 
percent to zero. And now we have the very result that the Federal 
Reserve warned us about when they came to Congress in 2003 and 2004 and 
2005 and warned us that if we did not take corrective action, if we did 
not allow the regulators to have the ability to deregulate or to 
regulate and deleverage these portfolios, that we were going to create

[[Page 12423]]

systemic risk and the financial collapse could be a consequence of 
this.
  And blocking repeatedly the efforts in the Senate, which the 
Democrats did, to address this issue. And then in 2007, finally in 2007 
the Democratic majority here brought to the floor a bill which they say 
attempted to address this issue. But, again, in that legislation it 
tied the hands of the regulators so that they could not deleverage the 
portfolios, so that they could not put it into receivership, so that 
they couldn't regulate for systemic risk.
  The other reason they brought the bill to the floor was because it 
had a $300 billion provision in it for affordable housing. That's why 
the bill got out of here; but it was opposed by the Treasury, and it 
was opposed by the Fed.
  So the point I want to make is after all of that history, and after 
watching the collapse--which we were warned about by the regulators--
and albeit, with good intentions because I know the thought was 
everybody would be able to have a house if you could get down to zero 
down payment loans and if you could force the GSEs to buy that junk 
that was sold by Countrywide, who do you think created the market? It 
was 70 percent of the market. It was because there was an intention 
here to circumvent the rules of economics.
  And now in this legislation, what is not addressed? This very duopoly 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When you say we address the problems, no we 
don't. We compound the problems in this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. ROYCE. Now, what we do with this legislation is we make the 
largest institutions too big to fail, and we do so by putting in a 
provision that is going to allow them to borrow at a lower cost than 
their smaller competitors, who I guess we would say are too small to 
save. Right. They are going to borrow at a hundred basis points less 
because of the government backstop you're putting in place and because 
you're not allowing them to go through a regular bankruptcy process. We 
would like to see enhanced bankruptcy on the Republican side. We'd like 
to see firms actually fail.
  Instead, we're going to have a process here where creditors are going 
to get a hundred cents on the dollar, potentially. They are going to 
loan to big firms; these big firms are going to become overleveraged. 
You did the same thing here that you did with the government-sponsored 
enterprises, Fannie and Freddie, that then forced their competition out 
of the market. And as a consequence of that, they became duopolies and 
then failed.
  So this is what we're trying to get across to our friends on the 
other side of the aisle. This is why we oppose your approach. We've 
seen where it's headed from before.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 13\1/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Royce mentions 2003, 2004, 2005 
should have changed the GSEs in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Well, the 
Republicans controlled the House, the Republicans controlled the 
Senate, the Republicans controlled the White House, and they didn't do 
it.
  In fact, his former chairman on financial services, Republican Mr. 
Oxley, says the critics forgot that the House stepped up on reforming 
bills, but he fumes about the criticism that people are giving about 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He says all the--this is from the Financial 
Times, September 9, 2008: All of the handwringing and bedwetting is 
going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this. He said: 
What did we get from the White House? We got the one-finger salute. 
Very graphic quotation from Mr. Oxley, Republican chairman of the House 
Financial Services Committee saying that it was the White House that 
stopped the changes that needed to be stopped, and it's the billions of 
dollars from those mortgages from 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 under 
Republican leadership that are weighing down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
that under the Democrats we offered conservatorship and that's what 
they're in now, like a bankruptcy.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, let me just correct one very, very serious 
flaw and that is to somehow blame the effort to house Americans for 
this crisis. This crisis, this financial crisis, has to do with a 
failure to regulate, a failure to give consumer protection to people 
who are getting mortgages that they couldn't pay for on tricky and 
unsound terms, because we are now going to have a consumer protection 
bureau designed to protect those very same consumers. We are bringing 
stability to the market. We are bringing people a chance to have a home 
that they actually can pay for on terms that they actually will 
understand.
  This consumer financial protection bill is going to be something that 
will help people keep the money that they earn and to make sound 
financial investments and purchases that will allow them to prosper and 
grow unlike the ones we saw in the past where Republican leadership let 
the laissez-faire economy move right on along without consumer 
protection, without oversight, which landed us in this serious, serious 
crisis.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the financial crisis that we're in is a 
result of a lack of oversight, a lack of regulation, a lack of clear 
rules; and this particular piece of legislation will bring real 
clarity. It will also help banks. It will help small community banks 
because they will be able to compete on equal footing. Their 
competitors will now be regulated, which they were not in the past; and 
small banks will be able to say that the products that they offer will 
be able to be offered to the consumer on a basis similar to those 
unregulated financial institutions which now will be regulated.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good time to say that this bill is 
an excellent step forward. It will help stop the nickel and diming of 
Americans. It will help stop the targeting of people for financial 
mistreatment, and it will bring greater stability to our economy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Egan, Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), from the committee.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, we on the Financial Services Committee 
have spent nearly 2 years holding hearings to determine the appropriate 
course of action for financial reform.
  In September, the committee began marking up legislation to try to 
address failures in the financial market and plug the holes. The 
problem is that the two big culprits here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 
now taken over by the government, could cost the American taxpayers $1 
trillion. Those two entities simply are not even--nothing happens to 
them in this new bill, the guys that caused the problem.
  Maybe you could take this 2,000-page bill and gel it into one 
sentence: you can't buy a home unless you can afford it. That's what 
caused the problem in the first place.
  No credit standards, so-called ``liar loans'' where people were 
allowed to buy homes when others sat at the closing table knowing full 
well the new buyers couldn't even make the first payment. So it took 
the Fed I think 2 years to come up with a rule that says, oh, by the 
way, if you buy a house, you have to have written proof of your 
earnings.
  I mean, why did we need 2,000 pages of a bill--and none of it's 
addressed to the GSEs--simply saying Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae won't 
take the assignment of the mortgage unless the mortgage is sound. That 
won't solve the problem. We wouldn't have had the complete collapse of 
the system that we have today. But instead we just created an agency, 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. What are these guys going to 
do besides adding hundreds of more bureaucrats, maybe build a new 
building somewhere, and they're going to impose regulations in nearly 
every sector of the economy.

                              {time}  1430

  What are they going to say?

[[Page 12424]]

  All they have to say is, ``If you can't afford to buy a house, you 
can't have it.'' That should be the extent of the regulations. Yet what 
do we have now? Instead of one sentence, we have 2,000 pages.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Wall Street 
accountability bill is very clear: Never again should the American 
taxpayer be asked to foot the bill for bad bets made on Wall Street. 
Never again should millions of Americans have to lose their jobs 
because of reckless conduct on Wall Street. Never again will we allow 
the American economy to be held hostage to bad decisions on Wall Street 
and in the financial sector.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle haven't gotten that message. Having stood in this Chamber and 
having voted to help rescue Wall Street and the financial sector, they 
are not there for Main Street today. I think some headlines are 
instructive.
  The Wall Street Journal, February 4, 2010:
  ``GOP chases Wall Street Donors.''
  ``In discussions with Wall Street executives, Republicans are 
striving to make the case that they are the banks' best hope of 
preventing President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats from 
cracking down on Wall Street.''
  Roll Call, December 8, 2009:
  ``House GOP meets with 100 Lobbyists to plot to kill Wall Street 
Reform.''
  ``In a call to arms, House Republican leaders met with more than 100 
lobbyists at the Capitol Visitors Center on Tuesday afternoon to try to 
fight back against financial regulatory overhaul legislation.''
  That is the story of this debate, and the choice is clear: Are we 
going to be on the side of the big banks, which held the American 
economy hostage, which resulted in the loss of millions of jobs, and 
which left the taxpayers on the hook, or are we going to stay on the 
side of the consumers, taxpayers, American workers, and small 
businesses? The choice is very clear.
  Back in December, every one of our Republican colleagues voted ``no'' 
on Wall Street accountability. Let's hope, this time, they stand on the 
side of the American taxpayer and of the American consumer and make the 
right choice for the American people.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the same 
people who are down here who are arguing for us to give them the 
responsibility and authority and who are espousing how balanced their 
bill is are the same people who are bankrupting this country. They 
don't even apply their own logic and common sense to what they pass in 
this House. They talk about all of this balance and responsibility and 
about how they are worried about the middle class. Yet they are 
bankrupting this country. Yet they are causing the largest unemployment 
that we have had in the modern era. They are not even talking about 
what they have done to create that circumstance, and they are trying to 
point the finger at somebody else. I think that that is 
irresponsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Clinton Township, New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the committee.
  Mr. LANCE. My thanks to Mr. Sessions; to our ranking member, Mr. 
Bachus; as well as to the chairman and to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the rule for the 
financial bill that gives Wall Street firms the potential of permanent 
bailouts, that institutionalizes ``too big to fail,'' and that will 
ultimately constrict lending to consumers and small businesses at the 
worst possible time for our economy.
  The underlying measure does not fully audit the Fed, and it does 
nothing to rein in housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which 
have already cost U.S. taxpayers $145 billion and counting.
  The Troubled Asset Relief Program funds, by the original law, were 
supposed to be used to reduce the deficit, not to be used as a funding 
source for new spending, and the increase in the premium reserve ratio 
at the FDIC should not be used for anything other than protecting 
depositors in bank failures. Yet the Democratic majority has chosen the 
fiscal path of more spending and more borrowing--this at a time when 
the Federal debt is $13 trillion and rising rapidly.
  The American people deserve a better plan that puts an end to 
bailouts, that audits the Fed, that reins in Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac, and that takes the government out of the business of picking 
winners and losers. This bill fails on all of these accounts. I oppose 
the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hare).
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, for too long the irresponsible actions of big 
banks have put American families at risk. Today, with the passage of 
this financial reform legislation, we will finally begin to protect 
consumers on Main Street from the greed on Wall Street.
  Predatory lending, risky schemes, and exploiting loopholes were just 
some of the tricks used by Wall Street fat cats to send our economy 
spiraling to the brink of a depression, but under this bill, we are 
ending these practices, and we are shining new light on products and 
transactions that threaten the stability of the financial system.
  This bill is a landmark achievement in consumer protection by 
establishing a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, dedicated to 
ensuring that bank loans, mortgages, and credit cards are fair, 
affordable, understandable, and, most importantly, transparent.
  This bill is good for small business. It is good for consumers, and 
it is good for the financial security of our great Nation. It will also 
ensure that our financial sector will continue to remain an engine of 
economic growth, which is one of the reasons the Community Bankers 
Association of Illinois supports this legislation.
  I want to thank Chairman Frank and all of the members of the 
Democratic leadership for having the courage to do what is right and 
for standing up for American families.
  Today, we have the opportunity to say enough is enough, to rein in 
Wall Street, and to protect our constituents. I ask my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this critical piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed 
rule and to vote ``no'' on the conference report of this so-called 
``financial regulatory reform bill.'' I say ``so-called'' because this 
is not much in the way of reform. It is change. It is manipulation, and 
it is going to be harmful to the American people.
  My district is still mired with high unemployment. We've got over 13 
percent unemployment in western North Carolina. The people across this 
Nation have about 10 percent unemployment nationally. People are 
hurting. Small businesses in my district are worried about access to 
credit. Families are worried about being able to keep their credit 
cards, their checking accounts, and the financial products that they 
know and like.
  Unfortunately, this bill, this legislation, restricts credit, and it 
makes credit less available and tighter going forward. It makes it 
harder for the small businesses which are struggling to meet payroll--
much less to create jobs--to make ends meet.
  Now, the new taxpayer-funded bureaucracy that this legislation 
creates will intervene in the financial affairs of every single 
American and not for the better. The results will be fewer loans for 
people to buy cars, to purchase homes, to go to college, or to start 
small businesses. To make matters worse--and the kicker with this 
bill--is that it won't prevent the next crisis. It doesn't even address 
the root causes of the last crisis.
  Certainly, we are in favor of making sure the last crisis we faced 
doesn't

[[Page 12425]]

ever happen again. I think we agree on that, Republicans and Democrats. 
The fact is this bill doesn't address the root causes of the last 
crisis. So to call this ``reform'' is a sham and a fraud, and I 
encourage my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McMahon).
  Mr. McMAHON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of the bill and this rule.
  I commend Chairman Frank, Chairman Peterson, and all of the Members 
and their staffs who have worked so hard.
  This legislation, Mr. Speaker, addresses many of the problems at the 
heart of the financial crisis while allowing us to build an even 
stronger regulatory foundation for future economic growth and stability 
in our financial markets, which we need, undoubtedly, to create jobs in 
the American economy.
  Since my first days in Congress, I have called for smart, thoughtful, 
new regulations for our shared goals of reform without unnecessarily 
burdening our economy or forcing our financial industries overseas. 
After a year and a half of debate, discussion--and although not 
perfect--I think we have struck the right balance here, and I am proud 
to support this bill. It is good for America. It is good for New York 
City. It is good for the people of Staten Island and Brooklyn, who sent 
me here to represent them.
  In particular, I applaud the effort to bring greater transparency, 
accountability, and oversight to our derivatives markets. This bill 
will make sure that our regulators in the private sector understand 
that outstanding swap exposures for individual companies will never be 
allowed again to bring about a situation like what happened with AIG. 
This legislation also recognizes the important role that derivatives 
play in actually reducing systemic risk for our end user companies and 
in increasing the flow of credit throughout our economy.

                              {time}  1440

  Whether it is an airplane or farm machinery manufacturer hedging 
against currency risks, a commercial real estate company or life 
insurance annuity hedging against interest rate fluctuation, or an 
energy provider trying to hedge the price of oil and gas, derivatives 
are vital tools to keep consumer prices low and to help manage company 
budgets. These end-user companies pose little or no systemic risk to 
our economy, and this bill protects them from unnecessary and 
burdensome margin and clearing requirements.
  Again, I thank Chairman Frank and his staff for allowing me to be 
part of this process, and I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding me this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is important to 
provide consumer safety and security in the marketplace, but our 
constituents are also concerned about much, much more. They are 
concerned about jobs, they are concerned about the economy, and they 
are concerned about the tremendous debt this Nation has taken on.
  Week after week we come to the House floor to debate bills and to 
talk about the agenda that the Democratic majority wants to have on the 
floor, and it would be true to say that Republicans oppose that agenda, 
because it is about taxing, it is about spending, it is about more 
debt, it is about bigger government, and it is about the diminishment 
of free enterprise system jobs. It is about the things that the 
American people have said they do not have confidence in this body 
solving.
  Whether it is cap-and-trade, health care, or government takeover of 
the financial sector, my friends in the majority are ready every single 
week to stick it to the free enterprise system. My friends the 
Democrats seem more interested in accomplishing their political agenda 
than trying to help the American people.
  Once again, today, we have a job loss bill on the floor. That is 
really what we should call this--more big government, fewer private 
sector jobs, $18 billion in fees that will have to be paid by the banks 
that will be passed on to consumers, just on and on and on.
  Every Member of this body has a chance to say no to more spending, 
more big government, more rules and regulations, and somehow to show 
the American people that they can make tough choices and cut spending.
  I encourage a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the 
underlying legislation. And I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado 
and his engagement with me today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend 
from Texas, but we couldn't disagree more about the value of this bill 
and the process we have gone through to get to this point.
  I would first like to thank the chairman and also the ranking member 
of the Financial Services Committee for holding hearing after hearing, 
taking testimony for the last year-and-a-half, almost 2 years, on the 
various subjects that are addressed within the bill, and for holding a 
very open and transparent conference that highlighted much of the bill 
and the differences between the House and the Senate. I think that kind 
of transparency is what we need to see in the financial markets, and 
that is at the heart of all of this.
  In September of 2008, we had a terrible financial free-fall, starting 
with placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conservatorship, and then a 
whole series of failures towards the end of that month. Ultimately the 
President of the United States, George Bush, he and his chief cabinet 
officers asked this Congress to support the banking system in a way 
that none of us could have ever conceived, but that was needed in an 
emergency to save the banking system and keep this economy going in 
some fashion or another.
  Even so, under the rules and the approach taken by the Republicans 
who were in office throughout the Bush administration and this Congress 
from 1994 on to 2006, Wall Street was unregulated. It was allowed to 
just go wild, and it resulted in a terrible cataclysm that we are all 
paying for now.
  The bill that is before this body addresses nine separate subjects: 
Consumer protection; investor protection; it deals with credit rating 
agencies; derivatives; hedge funds; insurance; it deals with salaries 
so that we don't incentivize too big of risk taking by executives so 
they put their banks or their financial organizations at risk; and it 
deals with too-big-to-fail, putting a structure in place so that if 
financial institutions get way out there, over-leveraged, as we saw in 
2008, that we have a system in place where we can liquidate them and 
close them, not put them on life support in a bankruptcy, as my 
Republican colleagues would suggest.
  This is a time to bring certainty back into the market and reasonable 
regulation and reasonable enforcement back to the financial system. The 
bill that is being brought to this Congress and this House today does 
just that.
  This country needs to rein in Wall Street. We need to protect Main 
Street and the taxpayers, the people that live throughout this country. 
This bill goes a long way toward doing that.
  With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the 
rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 12426]]

  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.

                          ____________________