[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11697-11729]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 
                                  2011

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 358 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1315.

                              {time}  1522


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1315) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial 
Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of 
Consumer Financial Protection, and for other purposes, with Mr. Poe of 
Texas in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.

[[Page 11698]]

  The gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, a year ago, the President signed into law the most 
sweeping financial regulatory reform package in nearly a generation. 
The centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank Act was the creation of the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau. While there was nearly unanimous agreement 
that improvements were needed in the regulatory structure for financial 
services and consumer credit, we as Republicans did not agree that the 
best answer to the problems was creating an entirely new bureaucracy.
  No legislation is perfect, and Dodd-Frank is a law that needs to be 
improved and refined. The legislation before us today marks an 
important step in improving the structure of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.
  I would like to thank both Chairman Bachus and Mr. Duffy for their 
leadership on this issue.
  The creation of the CFPB presents the first time in which consumer 
protection and safety and soundness regulation will not be handled by 
the prudential financial regulators for institutions over $10 billion 
in assets. While we do not disagree that many of the prudential 
regulators failed to uphold their responsibilities in the years leading 
up to the financial crisis, there is a legitimate concern in separating 
consumer protection from safety and soundness.
  This is why H.R. 1315 is a much needed improvement to the Dodd-Frank 
Act. The act gives the Financial Stability Oversight Council, also 
known as FSOC, the ability to override a CFPB rule or regulation. 
However, the threshold is set so high for the FSOC to consider the 
overturning of a CFPB rule or regulation that, in reality, it will 
never happen. Furthermore, a two-thirds majority of the FSOC is needed 
to overturn the rule or regulation once the petition is filed. This 
simply sets the bar too high and further exacerbates the problem 
presented by separating consumer protection from safety and soundness.
  This is Mr. Duffy's bill, and it will lower the threshold for 
petitioning the FSOC to ``regulation which is the subject of the 
petition that is inconsistent with the safe and sound operations of 
United States financial institutions,'' and will require a simple 
majority of the FSOC to overturn a CFPB rule or regulation. This is a 
critical improvement to the CFPB that will ensure that CFPB regulations 
strike the balance between consumer protection and safety and 
soundness.
  The Rules Committee Print also includes two bills that the Financial 
Services Committee has reported favorably. The first represents an 
important change to the leadership structure of the CFPB that will 
provide greater stability in leadership and moderation in rulemaking. 
As we have seen over the last 9 months, the current leadership 
structure provided for the CFPB is subject to toxic political fights. 
Individuals and groups from across the political spectrum have 
advocated for whom they believe to be the ideal candidate and, in some 
cases, the only acceptable candidate. This is not good for consumers, 
and it is not good for the legitimacy of the agency.
  Rather than a single director, we are advocating for a five-person 
commission. This strengthens the leadership of the CFPB in two ways. 
First, a commission provides greater stability in leadership. We are 
all aware of the challenges in the Senate's ability to approve 
nominees. A commission where the individual commissioners are staggered 
in their terms will provide greater stability by ensuring there is 
always some form of leadership at the CFPB. A commission will also 
provide greater consistency, not only in rulemaking, but also in 
administration. I fear that a single director will set up a situation 
in which the leadership of the CFPB will be subject to the variances in 
ideology from one administration to another when the director is 
appointed. Consumers stand to lose the most if we have a situation in 
which the directorship of the CFPB swings back and forth between the 
extremes of the political spectrum.
  Finally, H.R. 1315 includes legislation that I introduced to prevent 
the transfer of full powers to the CFPB, which should begin today, 
until there is a Senate-confirmed director or chairman in place.
  Personally, I think this is really good government. We are talking 
about an agency that is sailing into unchartered waters without a 
captain of the ship. It is irresponsible to proceed without a leader 
confirmed by the Senate. In conclusion, I know that the creation of the 
CFPB is a source of great passion, and I look forward to discussing 
these bills. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to one of 
the leaders on this committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. First, I would like to take a moment to thank Barney 
Frank for his leadership in establishing one of the most important 
pieces of legislation that has ever happened in the Congress of the 
United States of America, and that is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 to create a Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.
  I am so pleased to have been able to serve, not only on the Financial 
Services Committee, but on the conference committee that worked through 
all of the difficulty of creating this bureau to give protection to 
consumers who had been forgotten, who had been dropped off of the 
regulatory agency's agenda, who had not been protected because they 
simply said that they had the responsibility for safety and soundness 
and that they didn't know much about consumer protection. They failed 
on both, but our consumers have been harmed.
  Mr. Chairman, the CFPB is needed because it is very clear that our 
current regulatory framework inadequately protects consumers. Just look 
at the wrongful foreclosures on veterans, the robo-signings on 
foreclosure documents, the 500 percent interest rates on payday loans. 
The list of abuses goes on and on and on.
  This bill would undermine the CFPB by creating a commission instead 
of a director, making it easier for the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council to override CFPB rules and to delay the transfer date for the 
CFPB until there is a director confirmed by the Senate. In short, this 
bill would bring us back to the days when harmful financial products 
and practices went unchecked and when consumers paid the price in the 
form of high interest rates, predatory subprime mortgages, and bad 
credit card bills.

                              {time}  1530

  We've seen what happens when our banking regulators are tasked with 
both consumer protection and bank safety and soundness 
responsibilities. The pro-bank, anti-consumer stance wins every time. 
That's why we created CFPB, to make sure the consumer voices aren't 
shouted down by the industry and that an independent agency is beholden 
to consumers and not CEOs.
  A strong regulator, one which focused solely on consumer safety and 
championed simpler disclosure and products, could have prevented the 
current economic crisis and the ensuing foreclosures, bankruptcies, and 
defaults. Preventing the CFPB from doing its work, as this bill would, 
would only hurt America's consumers and turn our economy upside down. I 
oppose this bill.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, it is evident what was needed, and it is 
inconceivable that at this point in time we could have legislation that 
would undermine the good work of the conference committee of the Dodd-
Frank legislation that is in the best interest of all Americans, all 
consumers.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 6 minutes to the 
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Bachus), and I thank him for his leadership on this bill and many 
others.

[[Page 11699]]


  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, what is this awful thing that Republicans 
are bringing before the Congress today? This monstrosity, the Democrats 
have called it, is an attack on consumers. Well, it is a proposal that 
was first brought to us by our Democratic colleagues, and that was to 
have a bipartisan commission to protect consumers. That is what we're 
being attacked for today, a five-member board.
  Now, all of us in this body are for consumer protection. Our voters, 
our constituents are all consumers, and we're all for protecting them. 
We're also for protecting our financial institutions and our economy. 
And we need a balance. So how do we achieve that?
  Well, the Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, who is the originator of this 
consumer protection commission, back in 2007 proposed a Consumer 
Protection Product Safety Commission. In 2008, the Consumer Federation 
of America proposed a financial product safety commission. Senator Dick 
Durbin, acting on their recommendations, introduced, in 2009, a 
consumer protection commission with a director and a board.
  Then the then-chairman of the committee, in July of that year, 
introduced a bill, a five-member board. The Energy and Commerce 
Commission followed that a few months later with what? A five-member 
commission.
  Then Senator Dodd issued his draft discussion. What did he propose? A 
five-member commission because it needed to be bipartisan, it needed to 
be balanced.
  But what was passed out of this body, really, after three nights of 
amendments and sessions that went all day? Well, what came about was an 
unaccountable czar--one person. The Dodd-Frank bill put a single 
Director in charge, and it gave him unmitigated discretion to issue 
rules, to ban financial products, to determine what products would be 
offered. Whether you're a borrower, whether you're a lender, whether 
you're a consumer of financial services, or whether you offer financial 
services, he will determine or she will determine what those services 
will be and the terms of those services.
  So what is wrong with that? Well, let me say this: In America, do we 
give one person the power to do whatever they want to regulate every 
product and service that we are offered or that we can accept or that 
we, as a company, can offer? That sounds to me like a government 
command and control economy with the government making choices that we 
make. So for that reason, we've been attacked for proposing a five-
member bipartisan commission instead of an unaccountable czar.
  The pattern from my Democratic colleagues continues to be: We're 
going to put one person in charge of an agency and we're going to let 
them make all of the decisions, and that way there will be no real 
review of those decisions. People can either take it or leave it. It's 
up to the government. The government controls everything.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want George Washington, I wouldn't 
want Abraham Lincoln, I wouldn't want Mother Teresa to have that kind 
of power. That, to me, is not what a democracy is about. And if you 
look at the person, who is he appointed by? He's appointed by the 
President of the United States. There's no input from Congress. Not 
only can he determine all of these problems, but his funding, he 
doesn't have to come to the taxpayers or their representatives for 
funding. He doesn't have to come to the Congress to get funding. He's 
totally unaccountable.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, how in the world is proposing for the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau the exact same model that the FDIC is set 
up with, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities 
Exchange Commission--all of these are commissions. All of them are 
bipartisan. They basically ensure that no one political party, one 
agenda or one person, will make decisions for every American every day. 
But that's what has been created.
  And the monster is not the bill that we bring forward. The monster is 
the bill that you've created. You took a good idea and you ruined it. 
You took a good idea that was all about consumer protection and you 
converted it into a one-man show where one person could control every 
financial product or every offering in America. It could ban any 
product. It could say to any American: You cannot enter into that 
financial agreement. It could say to every American: You can't make 
that financial decision.
  And, Mr. Chairman, that is un-American.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I am really appalled at the gentleman saying it's un-American. We 
ought to be able to disagree more civilly than that.
  And the gentleman made a misstatement when he said we took a good 
idea and ruined it. If it was such a good idea, Mr. Chairman, I have to 
ask the gentleman why was he opposed to that good idea?
  He's making a big deal of the fact that we switched our view after 
listening to people. After having hearings, we made a change. That's 
why we had hearings. And we decided after a lot of debate that the 
model of the control of the currency, a single individual appointed by 
the President, without being subject to appropriation, was a better 
model for the consumer agency. So does Elizabeth Warren. So does 
everybody else who supported it.
  The gentleman from Alabama said, That was a good idea and you ruined 
it. But the gentleman from Alabama was opposed to it when it was a good 
idea. The gentleman from Alabama was, all of the last 2 years, opposed 
to the notion of an independent consumer agency.
  So he makes a point of stressing, yes, we decided after hearings that 
a single individual would be better than a commission. He said: How can 
you make such a change? Well, he made a change that dwarfed the 
trajectory of ours. He went from being opposed to it to now telling us 
retroactively that it was a good idea. But even then, today, on 
television, he said: We have concerns about an agency whose sole 
mission is to protect consumers unless they worry about the banks as 
well.

                              {time}  1540

  There's one other point I would make: There are three parts of the 
bill. He took the only one he thought he could defend to talk about 
because this bill would also put the bank regulators back in charge, 
and it would say that the part of the bill that would give us powers 
over the nonbanks, over the payday lenders and the mortgage lenders, 
which their bill retards, he didn't talk about that. So I will admire 
his discretion.
  Of the three parts of his bill, he only talked about one. He didn't 
talk about putting the bank regulators, who he said are there to serve 
the banks, back in charge and allowing them to veto the consumer 
agency; and he didn't talk about their proposal to postpone until we 
get a Senate confirmation, which the Senate minority said they wouldn't 
allow to happen. They will filibuster, so it will postpone the new 
powers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Bachus), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I never voted for a stand-alone consumer 
protection financial bill and I never voted against it because it was 
never offered. What was offered was a 2,400-page extravaganza which 
hires about 10,000 new Federal employees to enforce rules that weren't 
enforced in the first place. And I have consistently said let's enforce 
the rules we have and not just hire more regulators and create more 
rules.
  As you know, we offered a bill which did have several protections.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 30 seconds to correct the 
latest misstatement.
  The gentleman from Alabama did, in fact, vote against this. This 
wasn't just voted on in the final. He appears to have forgotten, we had 
a markup in committee just on this bill, and the gentleman from Alabama 
voted against a free-standing consumer agency, whether it had five 
members or not.
  So he said it was a good idea which we ruined, but he voted against 
it. He

[[Page 11700]]

did vote against the individual one. And the Republicans offered a 
substitute, which took 14 officials, made them a council, gave them the 
power to run a hotline, and said, if anything came in over the hotline, 
they'd send it back to those bank regulators, who he says are there to 
serve the banks, and they would be the ones to deal with it.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we are still feeling the effects of a crisis that 
largely came about because the referees who oversee the soundness of 
our financial system were not on the field. We took the referees off 
the field. As a result, millions of Americans are still out of work. 
But while Democrats have worked to restore proper oversight to Wall 
Street, Republicans want the referees off the field again, and that 
would put us all at risk. This legislation puts the special interests 
ahead of the public interests by weakening the very entity that shields 
responsible consumers from financial abuses.
  Last year, Congress passed an important Wall Street reform bill in 
order to prevent a job-destroying financial crisis from happening 
again. And one of the most crucial parts of that bill was the creation 
of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a watchdog, a watchdog 
that would look out for the interests of ordinary Americans who want to 
sign mortgages, apply for student loans, and start businesses on honest 
and fair terms.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is empowered to ensure that 
lenders provide clear, plain-language explanations of loan terms and to 
help stop the kind of abusive and deceptive loan practices that helped 
drive our economy off a cliff. If such protections had been in place in 
the last decade, the odds of a crisis occurring would have been 
significantly less.
  And I want to tell my friend from Alabama, he said that there was no 
congressional involvement. In fact, of course, the President does 
appoint, but it is with the advice and consent of the Senate so that 
the entire Senate, as is normal, is involved in this appointment.
  The Republican legislation that we have on the floor today would make 
it much easier to overturn these consumer protection rules. It would 
make the people's watchdog far weaker at a time when they are needed 
more than ever. This legislation is part of the Republicans' stated 
goal to dismantle Wall Street reform, protecting special interests but 
leaving Americans unprotected from another crisis.
  Removing America's defenses when we have not even fully recovered 
from the last crisis is a new level, in my view, of irresponsibility. I 
urge my colleagues, think of what we have been through; think of our 
responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again; think of our 
responsibility to make clear that the interests of your constituents 
come first, and vote this bill down.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I really am just amazed at the hyperbole of the 
dismantling and the ruining of the agency and the weakening of the 
agency. The Bureau will go forward with all of the consumer protections 
that it's empowered with in the Dodd-Frank bill. The original intent 
was a commission. We go back to a commission.
  Let me just tell you, the President has had an entire year to 
nominate this very important person to lead this Bureau, and it wasn't 
until the beginning of this week, Monday, did he finally get around to 
it. What kind of signal does that send? At least to me, it sends a 
signal that it really isn't all that important to have that person 
there Senate-confirmed, as the minority leader said, with the oversight 
of the United States Senate.
  And let's talk about the Financial Services Oversight Commission. 
There are 10 people on there. I am going to go through them quickly 
because I don't want to use too much time.
  Secretary of the Treasury, he's confirmed; Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve, Bernanke, he's confirmed; Director of the CFPB, somebody was 
nominated 4 days ago, empty; Chairman of the FDIC, Acting Director, a 
nomination, but nobody confirmed; Controller of the Currency, Acting 
Director, no one confirmed; Chairman of the NCUA, confirmed; Chairman 
of the SEC, confirmed; Chairman of the CFTC, confirmed; Director of the 
FHFA, Acting Director, no nominee; and he just nominated the insurance 
specialist. Five of the people on this 10-person commission are not 
even permanently----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CAPITO. No, I will not.
  So I say to myself, what kind of priority is this administration 
putting on this marquis part of the Dodd-Frank bill?
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), our 
vice chair.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her for 
her leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, already we know that in America we are looking at 9.2 
percent unemployment. Since the President told us if we would pass his 
stimulus plan, $1 trillion, unemployment would never go beyond 8 
percent, and now he is presiding over the longest period of high 
unemployment since the Great Depression. We just got the statistics 
since they've been keeping them. It now takes almost 10 full months for 
somebody unemployed to find a job. One in seven are on food stamps. The 
fewest new business starts in 17 years.
  This economy is not suffering so much from a lack of capital; it is a 
lack of confidence, and a lack of confidence primarily in the policies 
of our President and the previous Congress. Part of that lack of 
confidence is attributable to Dodd-Frank and this CFPB which, yes, does 
have some wonderful consumer protection powers but also has historic 
draconian powers to ration and ban consumer credit for families and 
small businesses.
  Yet here it is, as the gentlelady from West Virginia, the 
subcommittee chairman, pointed out, almost a year later that only now 
has the President seen fit to appoint some type of Director.
  The lack of confidence in these policies is what is keeping jobs and 
capital on the sideline. It is incumbent upon us to return that 
confidence.
  So, yes, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is, 
yet again, another jobs bill. We need to say, You know what, small 
businesses in America? There is not going to be one czar who controls 
consumer credit. We're at least going to have a panel representing both 
primary parties in the United States.

                              {time}  1550

  And, by the way, at least now somebody will have to consider safety 
and soundness in what this bureau does. I mean, the people who are 
telling us don't worry about it are the very same people who told us 
don't worry about safety and soundness when it comes to Fannie and 
Freddie. Come on. It's all about consumers. It's all about 
homeownership. Let's roll the dice. Don't worry about safety and 
soundness.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, we have to worry about safety and soundness. 
American small businesses are worried about safety and soundness. It is 
time to bring some confidence. It is time to bring some certainty so 
that we can get our friends, our neighbors and our constituents back to 
work, because they don't want welfare checks; they want paychecks. And 
this is one small step we can take today to provide that certainty.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 15 seconds to say the 
gentleman from Texas talked about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but he 
doesn't do anything about it. The majority has been the majority since 
January.
  The gentleman from Texas filed a big, tough bill about Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac a year ago. He has sat sweetly and quietly by while his 
majority has ignored it and taken no action on it. The Republicans 
always talk tough about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they're in the 
minority, and then they get in the majority and they choke.

[[Page 11701]]

  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Lynch), a leader in fighting, in particular, against speculation and 
the abuse of derivatives.
  Mr. LYNCH. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
advocacy on behalf of the American consumer.
  The Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
with the sole purpose of ensuring that financial markets work for, and 
not against, American families. It established a single director 
empowered with a singular mandate which is simply to protect the 
consumer.
  This bill, H.R. 1315, seeks to weaken the CFPB on the day it opens 
its doors for the first time in two important ways. First, it would 
make it more difficult for the Consumer Protection Bureau to act by 
replacing the director with a five-member commission.
  As has been shown, a single director with executive authority and who 
is directly responsible to the American consumer is better suited to 
act quickly to address problems in the consumer financial markets, and 
he or she will be directly accountable to Congress for the bureau's 
actions.
  On the other hand, a five-member commission creates another 
bureaucracy that would be both less effective and less accountable to 
consumers. A five-member commission would also, in this case, cost 
taxpayers an additional $71 million.
  To offset the cost of these commissioners and their staffs, we're 
being asked to use the money from a Federal Housing Administration 
program created to help responsible Americans who have continued to 
make mortgage payments refinance their underwater homes. According to 
Mark Flemming, the chief economist for the property research company 
CoreLogic, underwater mortgages are a primary factor holding back the 
housing market and the economy as a whole.
  So instead of working to solve this problem and boost our economy, 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided that our 
money is better spent unnecessarily expanding the bureaucracy at the 
CFPB.
  H.R. 1315 would also make it much easier for the same regulators who 
in many cases were captured by the industry that they oversee and who 
fell down on the job in the lead-up to the financial crisis, to now 
overrule the CFPB. These regulators proved that they were not capable 
of ensuring the soundness of the financial system while simultaneously 
protecting American consumers.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Mrs. Biggert), a leader on our Financial Services Committee and 
chairman of the Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity 
Subcommittee.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1315, which 
would prevent the most visible legacy of the Dodd-Frank Act from also 
becoming the most costly and regrettable.
  Today's legislation will provide the new agency with accountable 
leadership, proper oversight, and a much needed check against bad 
decisions. American consumers don't need more bureaucracy to stifle 
innovation and raise costs. We need regulators to understand that the 
job isn't just to layer on expensive new rules. It's about educating 
consumers and preserving a vibrant and competitive financial market 
that provides affordable and innovative options.
  Unfortunately, the current structure of the bureau is subject to 
virtually no oversight from Congress or anyone else. And unlike other 
agencies, even the Consumer Product Safety Commission on which it is 
modeled, it is led by a single czar who has unprecedented power.
  Even more dangerous, the Financial Stability Oversight Council must 
agree by a two-thirds majority before they can overturn a rule imposed 
by the CFPB, even if that rule threatens to imperil our economy or shut 
down a financial institution.
  Mr. Chairman, our commonsense reform adds a few more voices to a 
panel that is supposed to protect all consumers, not just those favored 
by the political powers that be, and it creates a reasonable process to 
overturn bad or inconsistent decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, these reforms will help protect consumers and ensure 
that the government doesn't stand in their way.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be 
joined by so many leaders on the Financial Services Committee.
  I now yield 3 minutes to one of them, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that I was a strong 
supporter in our committee for the creation of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau and remained a strong supporter of the bureau and its 
mission. The reason I did that was because all of these regulators had 
within their authority a consumer protection initiative. Unfortunately, 
that consumer protection obligation was subordinate to other 
obligations that each of the regulators had.
  So when we started talking about this, I kept saying to them, look, 
we need a consumer regulator that has as much authority as and the 
least cumbersomeness of any of the other regulators. So if you're going 
to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, don't give the other 
regulators authority to reverse them unless you give the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau the authority to reverse the other 
regulators. Now, if you think that's fair, do it both ways.
  This is the only agency that ended up with the other regulators, the 
Federal Reserve, the OCC, the FDIC, having the authority to reverse 
them; and we were able to restrict it to things that were in their 
jurisdiction. If it was a systemic risk that the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau was creating by promulgating a rule or regulation, 
then we thought it was fair to have them police what the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau was doing.
  But I don't know of any reason that we would create a child of an 
agency to deal with consumer protection when we don't have a child of 
an agency dealing with other aspects of the regulation in our financial 
services industry.
  So for me, this is just about parity. Give this agency equal 
authority and oomph as the other agencies had. And we are not asking 
that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be able to overrule the 
Federal Reserve when it makes a decision. We're not asking that the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be able to overrule the OCC when 
it makes a determination. Neither should we be allowing those other 
agencies, the FDIC, the OCC, the Federal Reserve, to overrule the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when they are not acting within 
their authority.

                              {time}  1600

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the author of the 
bill, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), and I thank him for his 
hard work on this issue.
  Mr. DUFFY. I want to take a moment and thank Chairman Bachus and 
Chairwoman Capito for their hard work on this legislation and for their 
drive to make sure that this bill came to the floor today.
  All of us in this House agree that we want consumer protections, 
where any one of our friends or family members, our neighbors and our 
constituents, when they deal with a financial institution, they are 
dealt with in a fair way and in a transparent way. Our reform here to 
the CFPB does exactly that; it advances that very same cause.
  I want to talk about a couple of the components of this bill. One is 
we are moving this from a director to a bipartisan commission. I think 
it's important to note that my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
when they first crafted this bill, the ranking member, they included a 
bipartisan commission. And the President, when he talked about this 
bill, he was in favor of a bipartisan commission. And now all of a 
sudden today, as we have brought this back up, they are now opposed to 
a bipartisan commission.
  I think it's important that we note that today you may have a 
Democrat

[[Page 11702]]

President and you might like the recommendation for the Director of the 
CFPB, but if I'm going to project in the future, I am one to guess that 
I bet at one point in our future there will be a Republican President, 
and you may not like his appointee.
  Let's come together. Let's not regret this moment. Let's come 
together and make sure we have a bipartisan commission that is going to 
work on behalf of consumers, because this isn't a Republican or 
Democrat issue, it is truly an American issue that should be dealt with 
on a commission level.
  One other key component of our legislation is the review standard of 
rules that come from the CFPB. The way it is set up right now, the only 
way a rule can be overturned is if we are going to have Armageddon in 
the financial industry. And so the only one that can have a rule 
overturned is a big bank on Wall Street, one who is too big to fail.
  The way it is currently written, you have given a voice to those 
people who helped cause this financial crisis. You know what? I'm not 
from Wall Street, I am from small town, rural Wisconsin. We don't have 
big Wall Street banks, we have small community banks and we have credit 
unions. The way the current bill is written--not mine, the one that's 
in existence today, the current law--it doesn't give a voice to the 
people in my community if a rule that comes out from the CFPB is going 
to affect them negatively.
  And you know what? On Main Street, the very people who had nothing to 
do with the financial crisis, who haven't been given a voice--but will 
if my bill passes--those are the people who deal with our small 
business owners, with our family members, people who are looking at 
expanding their business, growing their business, creating jobs in our 
community. They rely on community banks and credit unions for loans, 
and they don't have a voice. I don't understand that. And then the same 
people that we look to when we want a mortgage for our home or we want 
a car loan, it's these people we look to, and they have been left 
voiceless in the current law. But my bill gives a voice to Main Street 
America. I have to say, the point I don't think can be made clearer 
with those who support my bill. I don't have big Wall Street support 
for my bill, but I'll tell you what support I do have. I have the 
Community Bankers of Wisconsin, I have the Wisconsin Bankers 
Association, I have the Independent Community Bankers of America, 
American Bankers Association, I have the Consumer Bankers Association. 
All those who are about small community banks that deal with customers 
support this reform.
  We go a step further. We have the Wisconsin Credit Union League, the 
Credit Union National Association, and the National Association of 
Credit Unions, all people who didn't have any role in this financial 
crisis, all people in our communities who are looking out for consumers 
because if they don't, they don't survive in small town America, and 
they all support this reform legislation.
  I would encourage all of my colleagues to jump onboard and support 
commonsense reform that is going to strengthen consumer protection and 
provide great oversight for a very powerful agency, and it's going to 
hold it accountable.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 30 seconds to say, first 
of all, the gentleman made one more flat misstatement when he talked 
about car loans. Car loans are exempted from this. This is an example 
of the failure to understand what we're really talking about.
  Secondly, he does have Wall Street support for this bill. I think he 
mentioned the American Bankers Association. And this notion that the 
community banks aren't involved is just nonsense. As a matter of fact, 
the community banks are favored here because the Consumer Bureau is 
given the right to examine banks of $10 billion in assets or more, but 
it cannot examine the credit unions and the community banks. So that 
was a recognition that he ignores.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Miller), who has been a leader in trying to fight for decent 
mortgages.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I also disagree with the gentleman who 
just spoke. The reason that all of the Republicans want to talk about 
whether the commission ought to be five members on a commission or one 
director is that's the only part of the bill that really can be argued 
one way or the other. I mean, there are arguments one way or the other. 
I think it will be a much stronger agency if there is one director, but 
everything else in the bill really cripples this agency before it can 
even take hold.
  And I also disagree with the argument that everybody here wants to 
protect consumers. No, they do not. We saw what happened in the last 
decade, we know who was doing it. It was the most powerful industry in 
America, and they were making a ton of money by cheating consumers, 
cheating consumers on credit cards, cheating consumers on mortgages, 
cheating consumers on overdraft fees, and on and on. And we've heard 
the same arguments about this that we heard a century ago. A century 
ago, when Theodore Roosevelt pushed for pure food laws, the meat 
packers said, do you want government to take away your right to buy 
meat? Do you want government to take away your freedom to buy beef from 
diseased animals or spoiled beef? And the American people said yeah, 
that's exactly what we want. We want to know what we're getting. And 
Americans want to know what they're getting in financial products too.
  Do they want to lose the freedom to get a subprime loan when they 
qualify for a prime loan? Yes, they do. Do they want to have a credit 
card, to know what they are getting in a credit card? Yes, they do. Do 
they want to know what's really in their overdraft fees? Yes, they do. 
They want to know that there is somebody with their interests at heart 
who is reading all that fine print that the banks' lawyers wrote to be 
good for the banks, profitable for the banks, and let the consumer have 
no idea what's in that little print in the legalese. Yes, they want 
someone, a strong agency reading that fine print with their interests 
at heart and saying, no, you can't do that; you can't cheat consumers 
that way. That's what this agency does, and the American people want 
it.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining, 
please.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Conaway). The gentlewoman from West Virginia 
has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 
13\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds 
first to say that I am sorry the gentlewoman from West Virginia 
wouldn't yield to me, but there was a lot of talk about switching 
positions. The gentlewoman from West Virginia, along with every other 
Republican then on the committee, voted against this. She now says she 
wants it to go forward. So I will take ``yes'' for an answer. I am glad 
that my Republican colleagues, having opposed an independent consumer 
agency, I think maybe for tactical purposes, but for whatever, are now 
all for it. So as we go forward, I will accept their conversion.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for all he has gone through in the last couple of years 
so that people understand that we do need some regulation.

                              {time}  1610

  Now today, my friends on the other side--and I mean that--the stock 
market hit its highest point since 2008. Isn't that wonderful? And yet 
we are at 9.2 percent unemployment.
  Well, I looked at the Treasuries. They're doing very fine. They're 
doing well. But Main Street isn't; and that's what consumer protection 
is all about, Main Street. No question about it.
  We don't want to go back. We don't want to go back to 2007 and 2008. 
Why? Because the conditions that led to the

[[Page 11703]]

mess we have now, we don't want those conditions to exist now, and 
that's what we've been trying to correct, particularly over the last 2 
years.
  Now, here's the consensus, whether you are a European financial 
person or someone in the United States, here's the consensus: Dodd-
Frank puts us more on a level playing field with regard to capital 
reserve, with regard to too big to fail. Regardless of what we are 
talking about, we are oceans ahead of our European partners and our 
allies in addressing these issues because we're addressing the causes 
of the financial meltdown in the United States and in foreign allies.
  And if it wasn't for the gentleman from Massachusetts, and the 
gentleman from Connecticut at the other end of the building, we 
wouldn't be where we are today, and we'd be saying: Let's go back; we 
want things to be like they were in 2007 and 2008. Well, things were 
not good.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. In a book by James Stewart, ``How False Statements Are 
Undermining America,'' he zeroes in on the Madoff situation which 
became a poster child. No one else has been really brought before us. 
No one else has really suffered for the pain they provided to the 
middle class and to Main Street people. We don't want to go back. We 
want different rules, and regulations do have a part in it. And the 
person who is struggling day in and day out needs our help.
  They don't need it. It doesn't matter who the President nominated, 
you'll turn it down. It's this bureau you want to destroy, not the 
nominee.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say today is a nice day, 
but we have 9.2 percent unemployment. It is not a day that I want to 
keep repeating when there are so many people out of work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Hurt), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. HURT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 1315. A year ago today, 
the President signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law, a 2,300-page bill 
with 400 new regulatory mandates that have created an atmosphere of 
economic uncertainty that has stalled job growth in Virginia's Fifth 
District and across the country.
  The centerpiece of this law was the formation of the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, a massive government bureaucracy with 
unprecedented authority and little to no accountability.
  H.R. 1315 will add much-needed oversight to this far-reaching new 
government agency. These checks and balances will help reform CFPB to 
protect small community banks and credit unions, like those in central 
and southside Virginia, from unnecessary and excessive government 
regulations. These community financial institutions play a critical 
role in providing capital to our small businesses and families as we 
all work to get our economy back on track.
  At a time when far too many Fifth District Virginians and Americans 
remain out of work, we must continue to support policies that will help 
restore certainty to the marketplace, grow the economy, and create 
jobs. I urge the body to pass this bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the former chair and now 
ranking member of the Small Business Committee, and she is the best 
protector of small businesses in the Congress.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank Ranking Member Frank for his commitment and 
balanced approach to protect consumers in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1315.
  My first question is: Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
really have that short a memory? It was just 3 years ago when regulator 
indifference resulted in the single largest loss of middle class 
prosperity in this Nation's history, costing over $3 trillion in this 
country. In fact, we have spent the last month debating the need to 
raise the debt ceiling not because of the war in Iraq, not the stimulus 
plan, but because of the massive bailout needed as a result of 
regulators turning a blind eye to unfair and unsafe lending practices.
  You can go to any community in any part of this country and see the 
collateral damage resulting from Wall Street playing fast and loose 
under the disinterested watch of Federal regulation. In Brooklyn, one 
in eight mortgages is in serious delinquency or foreclosure. It was 
this type of dire situation that our working families were left with 
that necessitated, demanded that we act and create the CFPB. By 
consolidating all financial protection within the umbrella of CFPB, 
every American is given the peace of mind that someone is watching out 
for their interests, not some financial institution's bottom line.
  Unfortunately, the legislation before us today will create a 
completely unmanageable regulatory process, once again leaving the 
average American in financial limbo. I am not willing to go back to 
those days and neither are the 200,000 seniors in New York City who 
will be without protections should this legislation pass.
  Vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's not allow the very regulator that 
stood by and did nothing, while trillions were stolen from Americans, 
do nothing again.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the other side that 
we're not changing, taking any powers away from the CFPB. We're not 
reforming any of the reach of the CFPB. We are simply looking at the 
accountability structure of who is going to be governing the CFPB.
  The gentlewoman from New York was very helpful in committee when we 
amended the commission to have one commissioner particularly looking at 
specialty issues concerning veterans and elderly and children, and I 
thank her for her input on that.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), a 
great member of our committee.
  Mr. GRIMM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am almost at a loss for words when I hear that we are 
taking away the protections for our seniors, and we're weakening this 
and we're weakening that. This is simply a commonsense approach to 
reforming the CFPB and correcting the bureaucratic overreach of Dodd-
Frank.
  Specifically, this bill, very, very simply, replaces a single 
director model with a five-member bipartisan commission. A bipartisan 
commission, that's what this bill is doing. A commission has several 
advantages over a single director. For example, a commission will 
drastically decrease uncertainty over the rules issued by the CFPB. As 
the bureau is currently structured, a new director can unilaterally 
reverse the decisions of his or her predecessors. Such dictatorial 
power will do nothing but increase uncertainty in our markets, reduce 
credit access to businesses and consumers; and that stifles job growth.
  Today, we have unemployment at 9.2 percent. We must stop the job-
killing, economy-crushing policies that have come out of Washington, 
and that's why I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1315.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, I yield myself 30 seconds to say I 
understand many of the Republicans objected to the financial reform 
bill because it was too long; but apparently even a much shorter bill 
was too long for the gentleman from New York. He got up to talk about 
this bill and then mentioned one-third of it. That is only one-third of 
the bill which he talks about as if it is the whole bill. It goes 
forward to give the bank regulators the power to overturn the Consumer 
Bureau. It delays the takeover of some of the powers. So when a Member 
can't get through a 4- or 5-page bill, I understand why they are 
confused by something that is more complex.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding and 
for his leadership on this issue.

[[Page 11704]]

  Mr. Chairman, imagine a wave of arson attacks was burning down houses 
and businesses across the city. And then imagine if the city council 
responded by trying to delay and water down new laws making arson a 
crime, refused to appoint a police and fire chief, and gutted funding 
for public safety. Well, I know that sounds farfetched, but that's 
exactly what the Republican majority is doing in the aftermath of the 
2008 financial crisis.
  It was everyday American consumers who suffered most from the 
financial crisis through job losses, foreclosures, declining home 
values, and decimated retirement accounts. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act was designed to address fundamental 
weaknesses in the financial regulations that keep our economy safe.

                              {time}  1620

  The centerpiece of this law is the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, a new agency tasked with putting consumers first, not Wall 
Street or other special interests.
  The bills we are debating today are part of a coordinated effort by 
the Republicans to let Wall Street go back to business as usual. They 
have been trying to delay the implementation of these new rules. They 
have been gutting funding for the agencies that are supposed to be the 
cops on the Wall Street beat. And they are refusing to allow qualified 
nominees to even be considered for appointments.
  This bill is called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
Improvement Act, but it has nothing to do with improving the agency. 
This bill would make it easier for special interests to block or delay 
CFPB rules. The American people are sick and tired of gridlock; yet 
this bill only offers more of the same.
  In the example of the fires breaking out across town, ask yourself, 
Mr. Chairman, who would you blame after the next building burned? Would 
it be the understaffed police who failed to catch the arsonist or the 
ill-equipped firefighters who failed to put out the fire? Or would the 
responsibility lie with the politicians who failed to give them the 
tools that they need in order to do their jobs?
  I urge my colleagues to stand with consumers and oppose this 
legislation. We need to make sure the law takes effect and keep 
fighting to implement the reforms needed.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee and 
chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. I congratulate the chairman of the full committee, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin for the 
good work done on, really, a commonsense piece of legislation before 
us.
  Earlier, I heard the ranking member from Massachusetts comment about 
the partisanship here. He said something like, well, we didn't make 
this partisan; they did it. Well, I remind the chairman that his 
underlying piece of legislation, the Dodd-Frank piece of legislation, 
actually had more Democrats vote against it than it had Republicans for 
it. And he was the one that actually pushed through a bill in an 
extremely partisan manner, and that's really why we're here today.
  I believe that the agency we're talking about, the CFPB, is really a 
one-stop shop to basically allocate credit and give the government the 
power to direct and control the economy. At the same time they're 
talking about consumer protection, what are they doing? They're 
separating safety and soundness from it. How can you have consumer 
protection when you're separating safety and soundness?
  I also remind the ranking member, who originally was the sponsor of 
Dodd-Frank--the bill that has his name on it, that bill that is going 
to destroy so many jobs in this country as pointed out once before--
that he was in favor of the same type of legislation that we have 
before us today on the floor. So, basically, this is once again a case 
of where the ranking member was in favor of it before he was against 
it. So operating under that logic we are hearing from the other side, 
if the bill today weakens the agency, then the bill that the gentleman 
introduced originally would actually destroy the agency.
  Now, I've heard the ranking member during his debates do what he 
always does when he doesn't have the facts or the law on his side: He 
attacks and he twists other people's motives. He knows that he was 
essentially supportive of the elements of this bill today by offering 
these provisions himself before to get through the House, but today he 
comes out against it. Basically, he accuses everyone on our side of the 
aisle of trying to kill his legislation.
  But I remind him to consider his own statements. The ranking member 
has claimed over this past week that the most important piece of the 
Dodd-Frank bill is the risk retention section of the legislation.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. GARRETT. So he says on the one hand that the risk retention is 
most important; then he turns around and says that any loans with 4 
percent down payment should be exempt from risk retention. I don't know 
very many loans that are at that level. So I find it surprising that he 
is attempting to exempt everyone from what he claims is the most 
important portion of his bill instead of accusing everyone else of 
attempting to destroy this job-destroying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman from Massachusetts think 
before he speaks on the legislation and then come out in support of the 
same legislation that he once supported in the past.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, the gentleman from New Jersey more 
consistently misstates things that I said. I suppose it's kind of 
flattering that he hangs on my every word. I just wish he didn't hang 
askew on my every word. He said I should be supporting this 
legislation. In fact, the gentleman from Alabama said it. Once again, 
listen to what they say on the other side.
  This has three pieces. It has a single member versus a commission. 
More importantly, it increases the ability of the other bank regulators 
who have an historic terrible record of consumer protection and who the 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Bachus, says are there to serve the 
banks. It would put them in a better position to cancel the work of the 
CFPB. The gentleman from New Jersey said I've supported this. I've 
never supported anything remotely like that. The gentleman from New 
Jersey knows that. I have no idea why he would do that, except for 
this. And yes, I will impute some motive.
  Of the three parts of the bill, the only one that they think won't be 
very unpopular is the one about a single director versus a commission. 
But, again, the gentleman said, oh, I misstated that or that I was in 
favor of something last year. No, I was never in favor of those parts 
of the bill.
  By the way, as to the risk retention, I did say you could get the 4 
percent if you also had a very good debt-to-income ratio and loan-to-
value ratio.
  So the pattern of misstatements of what I said, it's flattering that 
the gentleman is so interested in what I say. I did not ever support 
putting the bank regulators back in charge. In fact, I will say this 
about the gentleman from New Jersey. He's more clear about what he 
really believes.
  Again, I hope the gentlewoman from West Virginia, when she closes, 
will tell us. She voted against this last year. She now says, oh, we're 
not trying to undo it. Well, has she switched her position?
  The gentleman from New Jersey was very clear. He doesn't really like 
this, and he voted against it and he would abolish the whole thing. 
That's what we are saying, that people who voted against it last year. 
He says we made it partisan. No. When the vote came up on this, they 
all voted against it. I wish

[[Page 11705]]

that wasn't the case, but they had voted against it because they didn't 
want an independent consumer agency. The chairman of the committee said 
it again today on television: We don't worry about the FDIC or the 
Federal Reserve. We worry about an agency whose sole mission is to 
protect the consumer without worrying about how the banks work.
  And then we had the performance by the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
again, talking only about one part of it and claiming, oddly it seemed 
to me, that this somehow hurts the small banks versus the bigger banks. 
In fact, the small banks are given preference with regard to who gets 
examined.
  And in terms of the ability to overturn rules, no, it's not simply--
and this is one of the things some people may misunderstand. Things 
that threaten the system might be the action of one particular entity 
like AIG, but they could also be a pattern like subprime loans, 
particularly subprime loans issued by nonbanks. This bill regulates, 
for the first time, those nonbanks.
  So let's go back over this. Ms. Warren came up with this. And I do 
want to address the single member versus commissioners.
  The one issue they have found, it was originally proposed by Ms. 
Warren, and I introduced the administration's bill to make it a 
commission. We had hearings. We had conversations. Every single 
consumer group that we dealt with--and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
mentioned all his supporters. There wasn't a single consumer group 
there. The AARP just came out against their bill, as have all of the 
consumer groups--the Consumer Federation, et cetera. They persuaded me 
that a single member would be better than a commission. I acknowledge 
we had hearings. I listened to people who were for it.
  So here's the debate. We have everybody who voted against 
establishing this in the first place, who are against it in principle, 
who think we should leave it to the bank regulators, they want a 
commission. We have everybody who supports the entity as an independent 
consumer protector, therefore, a single member. I listened. I was 
persuaded. So, yes, I will acknowledge having changed my position based 
on the evidence.
  I will repudiate, once again, the gentleman's inaccurate suggestion 
that I was for the other parts of this. No, I was not. I think putting 
the majority of the bank regulators able to overrule virtually anything 
doesn't work.
  And the proof of that? The Republicans offered their own version last 
year, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). It created a 14-
member council, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, a 
bunch of others, and they were empowered to set up a hotline. If they 
got things from the hotline or the Web site that were complaints about 
the banks, what did they do with them? They sent them to the very 
financial regulators who have failed to do things in the past.

                              {time}  1630

  That's where we are. That's what they preferred. They opposed then, 
and I believe continue to oppose, an independent regulator whose 
primary role is the consumer.
  As the gentleman from North Carolina pointed out, they want to give 
the FDIC and the other bank regulators the ability to cancel what the 
consumer regulator does, but it's not reciprocal. If the consumer 
regulator thinks that the bank regulators have been too lax in not 
protecting consumers in what they still have, that's not reciprocal. It 
is very clear. They have never liked consumer protection.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that they do the banks a 
disservice. I stress again that the banks were not the problems here, 
particularly the community banks and the credit unions. They apparently 
think that if banks have to protect consumers, they will fail. That's 
unfair to the banks.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few points in 
closing.
  First of all, I want everyone to understand that nothing in this 
package weakens or changes the ability of the CFPB to make rules and 
regulations for consumer protection.
  Now, the ranking member was criticizing me for trying to change 
something that I didn't support. Well, guess what: I'm a realist. This 
is law, this is now a part of our government, and my chore is to try to 
make it better. If I wanted to get rid of it, I'd be sitting here 
arguing for a bill that totally dismantled the entire Bureau, but I'm 
not doing that and neither are my colleagues, because we accept the 
reality that the Bureau is going to exist, and we want to see it exist 
in the best form. That's why we're trying to make changes to it.
  We can argue back and forth about whether a commission or an 
individual director is better or not. We believe a commission is 
better. Their original bill stated that. There are others on the other 
side of this building who believe that to be true as well, to mirror 
some of the other regulatory bodies that we have in the financial arena 
and other arenas.
  I find it a little bit amusing that the ranking member keeps saying, 
well, you're only talking about one section. So let's talk about the 
other section, the ability to overturn a rule that's been promulgated 
by the director of the CFPB. He says we're trying to make it so that 
those rules can be overturned. Well, guess what: His bill makes you 
able to overturn the rules. He voted ``yes'' on that and so did 
everybody else who voted for this bill. So the concept of overturning a 
rule and a regulation is reality. It's already in the bill. We're 
simply saying, if you're going to have a rule that says you can 
overturn a rule and a regulation, or a law that says that, let's make 
it workable. Their standard is the whole safety and soundness of the 
entire financial system. Please. What rule could possibly do that? I'm 
sure there's one out there, but I'm not sure what it is. We've got to 
get over some of the over-exaggerations of what we're trying to do here 
today.
  The last part of the bill is actually my bill, and that is saying 
that I don't think that we should be turning over the reins of the CFPB 
to a single person. Number one, I don't agree with that. But if I 
accept reality--remember, I said I'm accepting reality--if it is one 
person, like it's written, then let's make sure that the intent of that 
is a Senate-confirmed person. That's the way it's written in the law. 
It's a Senate confirmation. I'm saying in my part of the bill, I don't 
like the fact that we're going to throw everything into this Bureau and 
have somebody who's not been confirmed overlook this, and then we don't 
have the oversight that we have as Members of this Congress.
  Those are the three sections of this bill. None of the provisions 
that we're talking about destroys consumers' ability to be looked after 
by this Bureau. None of this bill undoes any of the bureau's ability to 
undo deceptive and abusive practices. We certainly think that that's a 
laudable goal. We don't like the way it's maybe been constructed, but 
we lost that fight. The reality is this Bureau is here, and so let's 
make it better. Let's make it better for the consumers, because this is 
who we're talking about.
  I've had strings of people in my district, before our committee, 
saying, we can't hire people because there's too much uncertainty. 
There's a regulatory structure here in the financial institutions that 
we don't understand, we don't understand what it is, we don't 
understand what it's going to mean, and it's constraining our ability 
to help small business owners, and that's constraining our ability to 
grow jobs in this country.
  That's what we're talking about today. We're talking about getting 
back up on our feet, weeding through this bureaucracy, and making sure 
that the financial institutions that are the heart and soul of this 
country can grow the jobs, grow the economy, and get people back to 
work.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 1315, the Consumer 
Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011. This 
bill is merely the latest attempt by my Republican colleagues to 
undermine American families and consumers, joining a distressing series 
of efforts including

[[Page 11706]]

stripping health insurance from children, ending Medicare, and removing 
protections for clean air and clean water. Congress has been in session 
for nearly 200 days this year and Republicans have so far failed to 
enact any legislation that would create jobs in America.
  A year ago today, I rose in support of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, to end taxpayer bailouts of big 
banks, to improve consumer protections, and to strengthen the rules 
governing the financial sector. Among the most important of these 
protections was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau (CFPB), whose purpose is to protect consumers from the worst 
abuses of the financial industry. Today, on the one year anniversary of 
its enactment, my Republican colleagues are trying to defang this 
critical agency, putting the economy at risk of the very same practices 
that caused the financial crisis.
  Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is led by an independent director 
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It will write 
rules for consumer protections governing all financial institutions--
banks and non-banks--offering consumer financial services or products 
and oversee the enforcement of federal laws intended to ensure the 
fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit for individuals 
and communities. The CFPB will unify responsibilities that, prior to 
its creation, were spread across seven different government entities, 
providing consumers with an accountable and powerful advocate.
  H.R. 1315 seriously weakens the CFPB and the protections it provides 
for our families. Some of my specific concerns include:
  The legislation requires a director be in place before the CFPB can 
take any action. With Republican Senators committed to filibustering 
any nominee to head the new agency, this requirement effectively stops 
any action the CFPB might take, putting the financial security of 
families at risk;
  The legislation seems motivated by a desire to deny the history of 
regulatory failure that contributed to the financial crisis, granting 
these same regulators the power to block CFPB rules; and
  H.R. 1315 compromises the independence of the CFPB by expanding the 
Financial Stability Oversight Council's authority to set aside CFPB 
rules and regulations, significantly impeding the agency's ability to 
protect American consumers.
  Professor Elizabeth Warren famously remarked that it is, ``impossible 
to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames 
and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance an 
existing home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance of 
putting the family out on the street.'' H.R. 1315 badly undermines 
consumer protections and allows financial services companies to 
continue engaging in the abusive practices that put millions of 
families on the street and threatened the global financial system.
  H.R. 1315 is deeply misguided, repudiating important protections for 
consumers, and I urge my colleagues in opposing this reckless bill.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1315, the 
Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 
2011.
  Today is the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
and Consumer Protection Act. It is also the first official day of work 
for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
  For the first time, the United States will have a financial regulator 
whose sole purpose is to protect consumers. From now on, there will be 
a cop on the beat watching out for predatory lending practices and 
unfair fees. Scam artists taking advantage of seniors, young people, 
and our men and women in uniform will be stopped. And, it will prevent 
honest businesses from having to compete with unscrupulous ones.
  It will help consumers across the country get a fair deal.
  I recently spoke with a young man in Hawaii who this agency's work 
would have helped. He was sold a $700,000 home at age 19. He worked in 
construction and, at the time, business was booming. He was told by his 
lender that he qualified for the loan and that everything would be 
fine. He was inexperienced in purchasing real estate and trusted that 
the lender had his interests in mind. He was wrong. He no longer has 
that house, and today that young man's credit is so damaged that it 
will take him years to rebuild it.
  This happened all over the country, and our economy is still reeling. 
But you wouldn't know that based on the legislation we are considering 
today. In fact, this bill seeks to limit the independence and 
effectiveness of the CFPB before it ever gets up and running.
  First, it gives the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), 
which is primarily made up of the heads of the federal financial 
regulatory agencies, significant authority to block CFPB regulations. 
The FSOC's role is for the heads of these agencies to work together to 
identify and address serious risks to the whole economy--their primary 
responsibility is not consumer protection. This bill would reduce the 
threshold of votes required to overturn a CFPB rule from two-thirds to 
a simple majority and prevent the CFPB's director from voting.
  Second, it replaces the single, independent CFPB director with a 
``collegial'' commission. According to the Committee's report on this 
bill, such a structure is necessary for a better functioning agency. 
However, the Committee report fails to point out that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve Board, and other financial 
regulators are ``collegial'' commissions. Before the economic crisis 
these ``collegial'' bodies all had consumer protection responsibilities 
in their portfolios--but too often, those responsibilities fell to the 
bottom of the to-do list. The Federal Reserve was given the authority 
to regulate mortgages in 1994--but it took them 16 years to rein in 
risky loans.
  Last, in a prime example of Washington double-speak the bill prevents 
the CFPB from taking over the consumer protection authorities of these 
other agencies until it has a Director. That is odd given that this 
very bill eliminates the Director position in favor of a commission.
  Proponents of this measure say these changes are for the ``safety and 
soundness'' of the financial system. ``Safety and soundness'' in this 
case is really code for ``what's good for Wall Street's profitability 
is good for consumers.''
  We all know that's not true.
  Congress gave the CFPB sole responsibility for consumers so that 
other regulators will be able to focus on their primary jobs. The 
simple fact is that this bill would help reinstate regulatory gridlock 
and silence the voices of consumers--the opposite of what Dodd-Frank 
intended.
  We have to remember that the cause of the crisis wasn't too much 
regulation--it was too little. I strongly oppose this legislation, and 
urge my colleagues to vote against it as well.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I don't think it's lost on anyone in this 
House that today is both the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform law, as well as the first day the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau (CFPB) created by that law officially begins its work 
on behalf of American families. And so it is disappointing--although 
not very surprising--that the majority would choose to bring a bill to 
the floor designed to undermine and delay this vitally important 
independent watchdog for American consumers.
  Specifically, H.R. 1315 would invite gridlock at the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau by replacing its current Director with a 
less accountable five-member commission. It would make it easier for 
other regulators to interfere with and overturn the Bureau's proposed 
consumer protections. And it would delay the CFPB's core functions 
until the Senate confirms the Chairman of the legislation's proposed 
Board of Directors--something the Senate Republican leadership has 
publicly and repeatedly announced it is unwilling to do.
  Mr. Chair, although not the only cause, it is at this point beyond 
dispute that insufficiently regulated predatory lending practices 
targeting consumers with abusive financial products like subprime 
mortgages helped create the housing bubble that precipitated the 
financial crisis. Had the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau been in 
existence during the early 2000s, we could have protected individual 
homebuyers from these marketplace abuses--and ultimately protected the 
Nation from the financial meltdown that ensued.
  Mr. Chair, we have an obligation to learn from history. Rather than 
take the referee off the field, we should insist on a referee that 
enforces clear and understandable rules of the road so that American 
consumers can make informed decisions about the financial products that 
are right for themselves and their families.
  I urge a no vote.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1315, 
which would fundamentally-weaken the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau (CFPB) and leave consumers unprotected from the predatory 
lending practices that helped cause the Great Recession.
  This week marks one year since President Obama signed the Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) into law and provided 
long-overdue protection for consumers. Instead of building on the 
reforms and making them stronger, House Republicans are delaying and 
defunding parts of the Wall Street Reform law that will protect 
consumers the most. H.R. 1315 is just the latest example of House 
Republicans siding with Wall Street lobbyists over the best interests 
of their constituents.

[[Page 11707]]

  This misguided bill would further delay the core functions of the 
CFPB and undermine its structure by replacing its director with a five-
member commission. H.R. 1315 also threatens the independence of the 
CFPB by making it easier for the Financial Stability Oversight Council 
(FSOC) to override the CFPB's regulations. This is the wrong approach. 
In order to effectively oversee the $3 trillion consumer finance 
industry, the CFPB must be able to operate independently from other 
regulatory agencies.
  H.R. 1315 would do nothing but prevent the CFPB from carrying out its 
duties of curbing abuses by big banks, credit card companies, and other 
financial institutions. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes, 
life savings, and pensions because of the recklessness of some on Wall 
Street. Now is the time to strengthen consumer protection laws, not 
weaken them.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1315.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
1315, the ``Consumer Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act'' 
because it is an undisguised attempt to undermine the critical reforms 
we worked to put in place following the economic disaster which cost 
this country 8 million jobs and $17 trillion in Americans' net worth 
and retirement savings.
  I cannot support legislation that would take us back to a time when 
the people charged with regulating the financial industry were so 
intertwined with its interests that they purposefully looked the other 
way while unscrupulous firms conjured up dangerous and self-defeating 
schemes that brought our nation to the brink of economic disaster.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, aided by the army of 
banking industry lobbyists, all seem to have forgotten everything that 
happened in the past three years, so let us review the record.
  Years without accountability for Wall Street and the Big Banks under 
President Bush and Congressional Republicans led to what most 
economists consider to be the worst financial crisis since the Great 
Depression.
  The official explanation was that the crisis was not a natural 
disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; 
undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the 
credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses 
of Wall Street.
  Major financial institutions began to fall like dominoes, and we had 
to step in and bail them out. I voted for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act because it ended any possibility of 
another taxpayer bailout and put in place measures to ensure that such 
insanity should never again threaten the livelihoods of innocent 
Americans.
  H.R. 1315 is designed to slow down the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau (CFPB), replacing its single leader with a 5 member commission, 
which is likely to lead to internal gridlock.
  Simply put, this legislation is an attack on the landmark Dodd-Frank 
Wall Street Reform Act passed by the Democratic-controlled 111th 
Congress and an attempt to return to the bad old days of the Wild West 
of Wall Street.
  Weaken, delay, and erode--these are the tactics being employed 
through this legislation by those who choose to side with some reckless 
Wall Street bankers over millions of American families.
  Mr. Chair, the financial crisis of 2008-2009, which we have come to 
call the ``Great Recession,'' saw millions of Americans pay the price 
of abuses committed by big banks, credit card companies, and other 
financial institutions on Wall Street.
  They paid with their homes, their savings, their pensions and their 
jobs.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was established under the 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which President Obama 
signed into law last year. Since then, opponents, backed by an army of 
banking lobbyists, have tried to restrict and cripple parts of the law 
that will do the most good for American consumers, the CFPB being the 
prime target.
  H.R. 1315 replaces the Director of the CFPB with a 5 person 
commission, which will make it easier for other banking regulators, who 
failed to protect consumers in the past, to overturn its rules and 
delay its core functions until its leadership is confirmed by the 
Senate.
  Mr. Chair, despite the claims made by supporters of H.R. 1315, the 
CFPB is far from being some all-powerful government bureaucracy subject 
to the whims of a single person, as new rules and initiatives it 
generates can at any time be overturned by a two-thirds vote from the 
Financial Stability Oversight Council. This ensures that the Director 
of the CFPB is held to account to the overall safety and stability of 
U.S. financial institutions.
  The CFPB is intended to oversee the $3 trillion consumer finance 
industry and prevent unfair and deceptive lending practices such as 
those that caused the economic crisis we find ourselves in today.
  H.R. 1315 would delay the transfer date for the CFPB until there is a 
Director confirmed by the Senate--a distant prospect since Republican 
Senators have vowed to filibuster any person nominated by President 
Obama. Thus, this provision in the bill would leave the CFPB with no 
meaningful consumer protection authority when it officially opens its 
doors.
  The same federal banking regulators who failed us the first time will 
remain in charge, leaving consumers unprotected from the abuses that 
brought our country to the brink of collapse and led to the loss of 
more than 8 million American jobs.
  Mr. Chair, since its creation last year, the CFPB has made 
considerable progress which hints at its full potential as a valuable 
and necessary component of our regulatory framework.
  The CFPB has established a new consumer complaint process and 
consolidated the authority of seven other agencies in policing abuses 
in consumer financial products such as mortgages and credit cards, 
pushing their providers to simplify their forms so consumers fully 
understand the costs and fees associated with their products.
  The CFPB also provides special guidance to members of the armed 
forces and has taken steps to police unfair practices employed by 
certain payday lenders and debt collectors.
  H.R. 1315 throws a wrench into these accomplishments with the 
ultimate goal of destroying the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
and turning back the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act.
  Mr. Chair, I believe that strong consumer protections are essential 
to stabilizing the economy, promoting competition and transparency, and 
bringing confidence back to the financial marketplace.
  For these reasons and for the protection of my constituents' 
livelihoods, I will vote against this legislation and I encourage my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in unreserved opposition to H.R. 1315, 
the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act. 
H.R. 1315's short title is ironic, given the bill's thinly veiled 
purpose of eviscerating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 
and continuing to allow unchecked consumer abuses by the financial 
institutions responsible for the crash of 2008. This is cynical 
legislating, Mr. Speaker, and ugly proof positive that my friends on 
the other side of the aisle care more about Wall Street banks than Main 
Street families.
  H.R. 1315's provisions show that Republicans clearly have not learned 
the lessons of our ongoing Great Recession. Today's bill weakens the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's ability to devise protections to 
protect the American public Not only does H.R. 1315 allow for consumer 
financial protection rules to be overturned more easily, but it also 
strips the time limit within which the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council (FSOC) must review and vote on petitions against them. H.R. 
1315's perilous net effect is the crippling of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau and its ability to protect Americans from all manner 
of deceitful Wall Street rascality.
  As if reducing consumer protections were not enough, my Republican 
friends also feel the need to use H.R. 1315 as a vehicle to play wild 
games with the legislative process. The rule to bring H.R. 1315 to the 
floor mandates that when passed, H.R. 1315 will include H.R. 830, an 
unrelated bill to terminate the Federal Housing Administration's 
refinance program. I opposed H.R. 830 when it was originally considered 
on the House floor because I believe it hastily terminates a promising 
program tailored to benefit responsible homeowners. Wrapping H.R. 830 
into the text of H.R. 1315 is Republican leadership's irresponsible 
ploy to appear fiscally austere at any cost, all while violating their 
own vaunted ``three-calendar-day'' and ``72-hour'' rules. Republican 
leadership might as well come on to the floor and announce, ``Do as I 
say, not as I do.''
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 1315 and the ongoing debt limit debate have shown 
that the House Republicans are more concerned about the needs of their 
fat cat friends on Wall Street than American families that are living 
paycheck to paycheck. It is for all of these reasons and more that I 
strongly oppose H.R. 1315. I urge my colleagues to do the same so they 
can sleep at night with the peace of knowing they voted their 
conscience to protect the very people they were elected to represent, 
not the banks that crippled our country's economy.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
1315. This bill reeks of financial irresponsibility under the disguise 
of protecting the American consumer. H.R.

[[Page 11708]]

1315 weakens and not strengthens the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act.
  H.R. 1315 would grant the same regulators who failed so spectacularly 
to protect consumers and stop the financial crisis broad leeway to 
block CFPB rules. Bank regulators did not bother to stop dangerous 
mortgage lending and credit card practices because they were not 
independent of the lenders they regulated. They put near-term 
profitability ahead of consumer protection.
  If we have learned anything from our current financial crisis is that 
strong consumer protections would have reduced, rather than increased, 
systemic financial risk. Consumers would have had less unsustainable 
debt. Banks would have fewer losses and been more financially stable. 
The real estate market would not have gone belly up. Families would not 
be finding themselves homeless. The economy would not have been pushed 
to the brink of collapse. Nonetheless, that did not stop the financial 
regulators like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) 
from claiming that protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive 
practices would harm bank ``safety and soundness.''
  Mr. Chair, what about consumer ``safety and soundness''?
  H.R. 1315 would ensure that bank regulators who want to block the 
CFPB from preventing abusive but lucrative practices--like unjustified, 
burdensome credit card interest rate increases or exploding ARM loan--
have an easy excuse and a very good chance of succeeding. Less than one 
year after historic financial reform legislation was signed into law, 
Republicans are now trying to undermine the new CFPB. At a time when 
our economy is close to defaulting, we cannot continue to protect those 
who were responsible for our present economic situation.
  And Mr. Chair, I would be remiss if I did not use this opportunity to 
applaud and commend Professor Elizabeth Warren for being our 
inspiration on behalf of the people of this country and for her 
excellent and dedicated work in standing up the Consumer Financial 
Protection Agency.
  I urge my colleagues not to support this legislation.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to 
the bill before us today.
  In 2008, this country experienced the worst economic crisis since the 
Great Depression.
  Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes, life savings, and 
pensions because of the recklessness of some on Wall Street.
  For too long, financial institutions were allowed to solely look out 
for their bottom line, instead of the hardworking American consumers 
they served.
  Our economic system was dominated by greed, irresponsibility, and 
lacking oversight.
  And now, exactly one year after we enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
and Consumer Protection Act, a comprehensive package of financial 
reforms, my Republican colleagues have brought to the floor a bill that 
severely restricts one of the main components of the bill--the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau.
  For the first time in our history, we constructed a government agency 
that will look out for the American consumer first and foremost.
  Yet instead of applauding this movement and supporting the efforts of 
consumer protection, my colleagues are working to cripple its authority 
and limit its effectiveness.
  H.R. 1315 does nothing to protect American consumers. Instead it 
delays the transfer of authority to the CFPB and adds several levels of 
bureaucracy to the bureau's leadership which will only work to delay 
any decision, rulemaking or enforcement action the bureau engages in.
  Finally this bill makes it easier for the other banking regulators, 
who failed to protect consumers for years, to overturn the Bureau's 
rules.
  Equally appalling is the source of funds being used to pay for this 
bill.
  Republicans have taken the savings gained from H.R. 830, a bill that 
eliminates the FHA Refinance Program to pay for the cost of the bill 
before us today.
  This means that Republicans are taking money away from a government 
program aimed at helping homeowners struggling to keep their home, and 
using it to weaken the CFPB--ultimately making it easier for big banks 
to skirt consumer protection regulation.
  Our economy is still struggling to recover from the economic collapse 
of 2008.
  Millions of Americans are still struggling to find jobs and figure 
out how they are going to keep their homes.
  It has been 28 weeks since the Republicans took control of this 
chamber, and time and time again, we are forced to consider bills that 
do nothing to solve the problems that Americans are facing today.
  Instead we debate bills like this that eliminate protections for the 
American middle class and serve as handouts to the ultra rich and 
corporations that ship jobs overseas.
  We should be focusing our attention on getting our economy back on 
track.
  We should be focusing on bills that create jobs and help the middle 
class recover.
  We need to bring back financial security for Americans, and one of 
the ways to do that is to allow for a strong and independent Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau.
  Democrats are standing with American families to help get our economy 
back on track, and calling for strong consumer protection and effective 
accountability to prevent another financial crisis for Wall Street.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so-called ``Consumer 
Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act,'' which 
would weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, just as it is 
beginning its work on behalf of American consumers. While its 
supporters claim this bill is innocuous, it would water down the CFPB's 
ability to issue consumer protections and subject new proposals to an 
additional layer of bureaucratic review.
  It is noteworthy that the Republican majority has brought this bill 
to the floor one year after Congress passed sweeping reforms and 
consumer protections for the nation's financial sector, maybe to blunt 
any press coverage on the launch of the CFPB. With no chance of this 
bill becoming law, House Republicans are sending a message to big banks 
and financial institution that they are fighting to protect their 
interests, not the interests of American consumers.
  But House Republicans are sending another message--that they still 
fail to understand the causes of our current economic troubles. If we 
have learned any lesson from the financial crisis of the last several 
years, it should be that by protecting consumers we can protect the 
rest of the financial system.
  It is clear that the consumer credit and housing bubbles of the last 
decade were the result of unfair and deceptive practices of credit card 
companies and lenders that steered families into financial products 
that they did not understand and that they could not afford to repay.
  Congressional Republicans claim the CFPB will be a cumbersome 
bureaucracy that will be a drag on the marketplace. All we need to do 
is look at the CFPB's first reform effort--simplifying the long, 
tedious paperwork consumers face when purchasing a home down to a 
short, simple form--to know that Republican claims have no merit.
  I am hearing different messages from consumer advocates like AARP and 
the Consumer Federation of America and my constituents. They know that 
transparency in consumer financial products is long overdue and they 
support the CFPB.
  A free marketplace can only function properly if consumers can make 
well-informed decisions about financial products, whether they are home 
mortgages or credit cards. The American people deserve a strong, 
effective CFPB. We should allow it to do its work, and that is why I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Financial Services printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of the Rules Committee print dated July 14, 
2011. That amendment shall be considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1315

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Financial 
     Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. COUNCIL VOTING PROCEDURE.

       Section 1023(c)(3)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
     and Consumer Protection Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``\2/3\'' and inserting ``a majority''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, 
     excluding the Chair of the Commission of the Bureau''.

[[Page 11709]]



     SEC. 3. REVIEW AUTHORITY OF THE COUNCIL.

       Section 1023 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
     Consumer Protection Act is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''; and
       (B) by striking ``regulation or provision would put the 
     safety and soundness of the United States banking system or 
     the stability of the financial system of the United States at 
     risk'' and inserting ``regulation which is the subject of the 
     petition is inconsistent with the safe and sound operations 
     of United States financial institutions''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (3)(B)(ii), by striking ``would put the 
     safety and soundness of the United States banking system or 
     the stability of the financial system of the United States at 
     risk'' and inserting ``is inconsistent with the safe and 
     sound operations of United States financial institutions'';
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);
       (C) by striking paragraph (5);
       (D) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) as 
     paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Public meetings.--Any time the Council meets pursuant 
     to this section to decide whether to issue a stay of, or set 
     aside, any regulation, every portion of such meeting shall be 
     open to public observation.''.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION.

       Section 1011 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (j); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(b) Establishment of the Commission.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is hereby established a commission 
     (hereinafter referred to in this section as the `Commission') 
     that shall serve as the head of the Bureau.
       ``(2) Authority to prescribe regulations.--The Commission 
     may prescribe such regulations and issue such orders in 
     accordance with this title as the Commission may determine to 
     be necessary for carrying out this title and all other laws 
     within the Commission's jurisdiction and shall exercise any 
     authorities granted under this title and all other laws 
     within the Commission's jurisdiction.
       ``(c) Composition of the Commission.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of the 
     Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Federal Reserve System 
     and 4 additional members who shall be appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
     from among individuals who--
       ``(A) are citizens of the United States;
       ``(B) have strong competencies and experiences related to 
     consumer financial protection; and
       ``(C) should want to protect service members and their 
     families who are sacrificing their lives for this country 
     from abusive financial practices.
       ``(2) Staggering.--The members of the Commission appointed 
     under paragraph (1) shall serve staggered terms, which 
     initially shall be established by the President for terms of 
     1, 2, 4, and 5 years, respectively.
       ``(3) Terms.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each member of the Commission appointed 
     under paragraph (1), including the Chair, shall serve for a 
     term of 5 years.
       ``(B) Removal for cause.--The President may remove any 
     member of the Commission appointed under paragraph (1) only 
     for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
       ``(C) Vacancies.--Any member of the Commission appointed 
     under paragraph (1) appointed to fill a vacancy occurring 
     before the expiration of the term to which that member's 
     predecessor was appointed (including the Chair) shall be 
     appointed only for the remainder of the term.
       ``(D) Continuation of service.--Each member of the 
     Commission appointed under paragraph (1) may continue to 
     serve after the expiration of the term of office to which 
     that member was appointed until a successor has been 
     appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, 
     except that a member may not continue to serve more than 1 
     year after the date on which that member's term would 
     otherwise expire.
       ``(E) Other employment prohibited.--No member of the 
     Commission appointed under paragraph (1) shall engage in any 
     other business, vocation, or employment.
       ``(4) Roles and responsibilities of commissioners.--One 
     member of the Commission shall have as their primary 
     responsibility the oversight of the Bureau's activities 
     pertaining to protecting consumers, with a focus on consumers 
     who are older, minorities, youth, or veterans, from unfair, 
     deceptive, and abusive lending practices. The designated 
     commissioner shall be responsible for--
       ``(A) ensuring the Bureau conducts regular outreach to 
     consumers regarding industry lending activities;
       ``(B) researching and reporting to the full Commission, on 
     a regular basis, the impact of new loan and credit products 
     and services on consumers; and
       ``(C) ensuring the Bureau coordinates with State-level 
     consumer protection agencies on enforcement measures that 
     protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive lending 
     practices.
       ``(d) Affiliation.--With respect to members appointed 
     pursuant to subsection (c)(1), not more than 2 shall be 
     members of any one political party.
       ``(e) Chair of the Commission.--
       ``(1) Appointment.--The Chair of the Commission shall be 
     appointed by the President from among the members of the 
     Commission appointed under paragraph (1).
       ``(2) Authority.--The Chair shall be the principal 
     executive officer of the Bureau, and shall exercise all of 
     the executive and administrative functions of the Bureau, 
     including with respect to--
       ``(A) the appointment and supervision of personnel employed 
     under the Bureau (other than personnel employed regularly and 
     full time in the immediate offices of members of the 
     Commission other than the Chair);
       ``(B) the distribution of business among personnel 
     appointed and supervised by the Chair and among 
     administrative units of the Bureau; and
       ``(C) the use and expenditure of funds.
       ``(3) Limitation.--In carrying out any of the Chair's 
     functions under the provisions of this subsection the Chair 
     shall be governed by general policies of the Commission and 
     by such regulatory decisions, findings, and determinations as 
     the Commission may by law be authorized to make.
       ``(4) Requests or estimates related to appropriations.--
     Requests or estimates for regular, supplemental, or 
     deficiency appropriations on behalf of the Commission may not 
     be submitted by the Chair without the prior approval of the 
     Commission.
       ``(f) No Impairment by Reason of Vacancies.--No vacancy in 
     the members of the Commission shall impair the right of the 
     remaining members of the Commission to exercise all the 
     powers of the Commission. Three members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, 
     except that if there are only 3 members serving on the 
     Commission because of vacancies in the Commission, 2 members 
     of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the 
     transaction of business. If there are only 2 members serving 
     on the Commission because of vacancies in the Commission, 2 
     members shall constitute a quorum for the 6-month period 
     beginning on the date of the vacancy which caused the number 
     of Commission members to decline to 2.
       ``(g) Seal.--The Commission shall have an official seal.
       ``(h) Compensation.--
       ``(1) Chair.--The Chair shall receive compensation at the 
     rate prescribed for level I of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5313 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(2) Other members of the commission.--The 3 other members 
     of the Commission appointed under subsection (c)(1) shall 
     each receive compensation at the rate prescribed for level II 
     of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       ``(i) Initial Quorum Established.--During any time period 
     prior to the confirmation of at least two members of the 
     Commission, one member of the Commission shall constitute a 
     quorum for the transaction of business. Following the 
     confirmation of at least 2 additional commissioners, the 
     quorum requirements of subsection (f) shall apply.''.

     SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.--
       (1) In general.--The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010 is amended--
       (A) in section 1002, by striking paragraph (10);
       (B) in section 1012(c)(4), by striking ``Director'' each 
     place such term appears and inserting ``Commission of the 
     Bureau'';
       (C) in section 1013(c)(3)--
       (i) by striking ``Assistant Director of the Bureau for'' 
     and inserting ``Head of the Office of''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``Assistant 
     Director'' and inserting ``Head of the Office'';
       (D) in section 1013(g)(2)--
       (i) by striking ``Assistant director'' and inserting ``Head 
     of the office''; and
       (ii) by striking ``an assistant director'' and inserting 
     ``a Head of the Office of Financial Protection for Older 
     Americans'';
       (E) in section 1016(a), by striking ``Director of the 
     Bureau'' and inserting ``Chair of the Commission'';
       (F) in section 1017(c)(1), by striking ``Director and other 
     employees'' and inserting ``members of the Commission and 
     other employees'';
       (G) in section 1027(l)(1), by striking ``Director and 
     the''; and
       (H) in section 1066(a), by striking ``Director of the 
     Bureau is'' and inserting ``first member of the Commission 
     is''.
       (2) Global amendments.--The Consumer Financial Protection 
     Act of 2010 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Director of the'' each place such term 
     appears, other than in--
       (i) subparagraphs (A) and (E) of section 1017(4);
       (ii) section 1043;
       (iii) section 1061(b)(3);
       (iv) section 1062;
       (v) section 1063(f);
       (vi) subparagraphs (E) and (G) of section 1064(i)(2); and
       (vii) section 1065(a); and
       (B) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``Bureau'', other than in--

[[Page 11710]]

       (i) section 1063(f)(2); and
       (ii) section 1065(a).
       (b) Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
     Act.--The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act is amended--
       (1) in section 111(b)(1)(D), by striking ``Director'' and 
     inserting ``Chair of the Commission''; and
       (2) in section 1447, by striking ``Director of the Bureau'' 
     each place such term appears and inserting ``Bureau''.
       (c) Electronic Fund Transfer Act.--Section 921(a)(4)(C) of 
     the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, as added by section 
     1075(a)(2) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 
     is amended by striking ``Director of the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection'' and inserting ``Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection''.
       (d) Expedited Funds Availability Act.--The Expedited Funds 
     Availability Act, as amended by section 1086 of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended by striking 
     ``Director of the Bureau'' each place such term appears and 
     inserting ``Bureau''.
       (e) Federal Deposit Insurance Act.--Section 2 of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended by section 336(a) 
     of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
     Act, is amended by striking ``Director of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Bureau'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``Chair of the Commission of the Bureau of 
     Consumer Financial Protection''.
       (f) Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act 
     of 1978.--Section 1004(a)(4) of the Federal Financial 
     Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 
     3303(a)(4)), as amended by section 1091 of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended by striking 
     ``Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau'' and 
     inserting ``Chair of the Commission of the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection''.
       (g) Financial Literacy and Education Improvement Act.--
     Section 513 of the Financial Literacy and Education 
     Improvement Act, as amended by section 1013(d) of the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended by 
     striking ``Director'' each place such term appears and 
     inserting ``Chair of the Commission''.
       (h) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975.--Section 307 of 
     the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, as amended by 
     section 1094(6) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010, is amended by striking ``Director of the Bureau of 
     Consumer Financial Protection'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection''.
       (i) Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act.--The 
     Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, as amended by 
     section 1098A of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010, is amended--
       (1) by amending section 1402(1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) `Chair' means the Chair of the Commission of the 
     Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection;'';
       (2) in section 1416(a), by striking ``Director of the 
     Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection'' and inserting 
     ``Chair''; and
       (3) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``Bureau''.
       (j) Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.--Section 
     5 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, as 
     amended by section 1450 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
     and Consumer Protection Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Director of the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection (hereafter in this section referred to 
     as the `Director')'' and inserting ``The Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection''; and
       (2) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``Bureau''.
       (k) S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008.--The S.A.F.E. 
     Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, as amended by section 1100 of 
     the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears 
     in headings and text and inserting ``Bureau''; and
       (2) in section 1503, by striking paragraph (10).
       (l) Title 44, United States Code.--Section 3513(c) of title 
     44, United States Code, as amended by section 1100D(b) of the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended by 
     striking ``Director of the Bureau'' and inserting ``Bureau''.

     SEC. 6. CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION REQUIRED BEFORE TRANSFER.

       Section 1062 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
     Consumer Protection Act is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Chair of the Commission Required Before Transfer.--
     Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, the 
     single calendar date for the transfer of functions to the 
     Bureau under section 1061 shall be the later of--
       ``(1) the date that would have been designated, but for the 
     application of this subsection; and
       ``(2) the date on which the Chair of the Commission of the 
     Bureau is confirmed by the Senate.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112-
172. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 112-172.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I have an amendment at the desk on behalf of the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), who is recovering from a knee 
injury.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, strike line 5 and all that follows through page 3, 
     line 2 (and redesignate succeeding sections accordingly).
       Page 10, after line 21, insert the following new 
     subparagraph (and redesignate succeeding subparagraphs 
     accordingly):
       (G) by striking section 1023;

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you.
  Today is the 1-year anniversary of Dodd-Frank. It is also the date of 
transferring authority to the CFPB so it can protect consumers in one 
single place.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a critical part of last 
year's financial reform bill. It will ensure that there is a cop on the 
beat protecting consumers from predatory products and misleading 
information. But instead of supporting the CFPB on its first day, House 
Republicans are pushing forward with a bill to weaken this important 
agency, to derail, delay, and de-fang it.
  I want to point out that many of the people on the other side of the 
aisle that are supporting the Republican change are the exact same ones 
who voted against Dodd-Frank in the first place, opposed the consumer 
protections, and opposed the creation of the CFPB.
  The bill sets out to change the CFPB so that it is less independent 
and instead is more bureaucratic. House Republicans want a five-person 
commission instead of a single director, but the single director 
structure is exactly like the OCC, the OTS and other financial 
agencies. A single director promotes more accountability, allows 
quicker reaction and change to market conditions. A five-person board 
would be slow, indecisive, and more expensive.
  The Office of Management and Budget estimates that this new form will 
cost $71 million. And where do they propose to get this money? From a 
program that was helping consumers who lost their mortgages, their 
mortgages were underwater, but if we had had a CFPB in place, we could 
have prevented the subprime crisis in the first place.
  One of the problems is that no one in the whole regulatory structure 
was looking out for consumers. Consumers were an afterthought, a third 
thought, or were not thought about at all, and this agency will be the 
first time that someone is looking out for the consumer.
  They also want to make it easier for bank regulators to override the 
CFPB rules so that they can go back to the status quo that led up to 
the financial crisis in the first place that has cost the American 
public trillions and trillions of dollars.
  The Ellison amendment would delete the section of Dodd-Frank that 
created the FSOC override. The other body included it as a way to 
provide a check on a single director, but if they're going to change 
the entire structure to a five-person commission, then there is no need 
for that additional check, and the override power of the FSOC would be 
entirely eliminated.

                              {time}  1640

  So I ask my colleagues to support the Ellison amendment.
  Most importantly, Americans favor a strong CFPB. In a poll this last 
week, it showed that 73 percent favor a strong and independent CFPB 
protecting consumers. As the chart behind me shows,

[[Page 11711]]

they overwhelmingly support the critical functions of the bureau, 
including better disclosure for credit cards, making it harder for 
lenders to offer loans which are confusing and with confusing teaser 
rates and other features, allowing them to come forward with simplified 
forms so that they could compare prices and get the best price and 
product for them. It would make risks clear and prices clear.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing everything 
they can to defang and delay it.
  I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from the great 
State of North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I know that the 
Republicans' political consultants have said that they need to argue 
because Americans really do like this agency that is huge and that has 
dictatorial powers and unchecked accountability. The problem with that 
argument is that it is completely untrue.
  This agency has all of the oversight, more than every other agency 
has. Before they adopt a rule, they have to let everyone know they're 
thinking about adopting a rule; they have to take public comment; then 
they have to propose the rule; then they have to take more public 
comment. After all that, they can then be taken to court. If the rule 
is arbitrary and capricious and if there is no evidence to support it, 
it can be overturned by a court.
  There is ample protection in the law already. We do not need the 
additional check of having the regulators, the supposed watchdogs who 
did such an abysmal job in the last decade, having a veto over 
everything they do. There are protections enough already.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to just start by saying I am absolutely 
amazed at this amendment and that my ranking member is in favor of it, 
considering that she voted for the bill and that she is voting to 
strike the section of the oversight, of the FSOC, that she and others 
who wrote the bill put in there, because that's basically what this 
amendment does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. I think it is important to note the reason that oversight 
of the CFPB wasn't included in the original legislation, that being 
that the CFPB doesn't have to consider safety and soundness when 
they're making rules. Safety and soundness is the gold standard when we 
look at our banking industry and how it effectively works within our 
society. Because that was not included--we just looked at consumer 
protection--I think the rationale was that, well, we should have an 
outside group review each rule that comes out to make sure it will not 
undermine our financial sector.
  I have to tell you I am quite amazed, though. My friends across the 
aisle drafted a bill that includes a review process, a review process 
that only gives a voice to big banks on Wall Street, that only gives a 
voice to those banks that are too big to fail. So I come out with a 
commonsense reform. I say, Listen. Let's just not give a voice to your 
friends on Wall Street. Let's give a voice to the small community banks 
in rural Wisconsin, to small credit unions in rural Wisconsin. Let's 
give them a voice, too. Then when we do that, when we make that 
proposal, Mr. Chairman, it seems like they want to take their ball and 
go home. They say, Well, if you want to give a voice to small community 
banks, then no one should have a voice to express their concern for a 
rule that could be harmful.
  I mean, when you look at small community banks that are already 
overregulated, small community banks and credit unions which had 
nothing to do with the financial crisis but are going to be stuck 
dealing with over 2,000 pages of rules from Dodd-Frank, let's give them 
a voice to come here and say, This is how these rules will impact and 
affect us.
  So I would say to my friends across the aisle, don't take your ball 
and go home. Let's actually work together and find a way in which we 
can give a voice to those banks and those credit unions that don't 
currently have one.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was rejected.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 112-172.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, strike lines 5 through 12 (and redesignate 
     succeeding sections accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank Mr. Frank, and I thank the ranking 
member, and I thank the managers of this legislation as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I have become friends with my two poster pictures here 
because I do think they symbolize sort of the composite of America. My 
amendment, I think, focuses on making sure that the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, which is something that consumers asked for--
sometimes under the Christmas tree or during the gift-giving season, 
you get a gift that you may not have asked for, but you know there's a 
problem or you know you want something, and all of a sudden that gift 
shows up. That's what the Dodd-Frank bill did with the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau.
  Now my friends want to defang, derail and delay this very important 
legislation. The bureau is one of the strongest provisions of the Dodd-
Frank bill, and it was created to consolidate the authorities 
responsible for consumer protection. It is an important bill because, 
American consumers, you need to have strong protection: credit cards, 
buying a car, student loans. We're not trying to undermine businesses. 
We're simply trying to create an even playing field.
  My amendment empowers the consumer board and ensures that it will be 
able to issue the rules that will protect the average financial 
consumer. The bill that we're speaking of, as written, empowers the 
Financial Stability Oversight Council to overrule a consumer victory by 
a simple majority vote. This will literally turn the authority of the 
CFPB around and weaken consumer authority.
  My amendment restores the two-thirds responsibility, or the two-
thirds vote, that is needed to overrule a good vote for the consumers--
a good vote for this nurse who may be buying a car; a good vote for 
this little one whose parents may be overburdened with credit card debt 
because they signed on to credit cards with enormous interest rates of 
which they are unaware; or it may be able to help these military 
families, many of them suffering because of the sons and daughters, 
husbands and wives who are overseas--to be able to say to these 
families, you can get a home without being defrauded.
  So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, number 4 to H.R. 
1315, the Consumer Financial Protections and Safety Act. My amendment 
will ensure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will be 
able to make effective decisions on behalf of the public by restoring 
the two-thirds majority vote in order for the Financial Stability 
Oversight Council (FSOC) to overturn a CFPB ruling.
  The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is 
one of the strongest provisions in the Dodd-Frank legislation passed 
last year. The Bureau was created to consolidate the authorities 
responsible for consumer protection.
  American consumers need a strong independent CFPB to police credit 
and payment

[[Page 11712]]

markets and to put consumer protection first. The widespread economic 
crisis has threatened consumer wealth. The impact has reached consumers 
worldwide. Many Consumers lost their assets, incomes, and ultimately 
confidence.
  Consolidating these regulatory authorities allowed the bureau to 
exert its influence and enforce consumer protections. With this newly 
defined power afforded to the CFPB came a new era of oversight. The 
CFPB has stopped unfair practices, protected the average consumer from 
fraud and abuse, and held big business accountable to prevent bailouts 
at the expense of the taxpayers.


                          The CFPB's Functions

  The CFPB will look out for people as they borrow money or use other 
financial services by:
  Implementing and enforcing Federal consumer financial laws;
  Reviewing business practices to ensure that financial services 
providers are following the law;
  Monitoring the marketplace and taking appropriate action to make sure 
markets work as transparently as they can for consumers; and
  Establishing a toll-free consumer hotline and website for complaints 
and questions about consumer financial products and services.
  My amendment empowers the CFPB and ensures that it will be able to 
issue rules that will protect the average financial consumer. H.R. 1316 
as written empowers the Financial Stability Oversight Council to 
overrule regulatory measures passed by the CFPB with a simple majority, 
instead of the two-thirds majority in current law, this change to a 
majority vote will make it easier to weaken consumer protections for 
the CFPB. This will literally return control of rules governing 
financial products back in the hand of the very agencies that were not 
able to neither foresee nor offset the financial crisis we are 
currently recovering from. My amendment restores the 2/3's vote to 
overturn regulations of the CFPB and it restores the rights of the 
consumer.
  A strong and independent CFPB is the only way to ensure that the best 
interest of the consumer is protected. This bureau was designed to 
increase transparency and equality in mortgage practices, credit card 
procedures and other consumer services.
  Allowing the CFPB to set and enforce clear and consistent regulations 
is a fair and cohesive way to safeguard against the type of practices 
that contributed directly to the financial meltdown of 2008.
  Cities and towns across the nation are still struggling to recover 
from the collapse of the housing market, and subsequent financial 
crisis. According to study of 20 metropolitan centers throughout 
America conducted in 2010 by the National League of Cities, Houston, 
where I represent the 18th Congressional District is still suffering an 
unemployment rate of 8.3%, and a foreclosure rate than has risen more 
than 60% since 2007.
  I seek to restore the two-thirds majority needed to overturn a 
regulation issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to 
safeguard hardworking Americans from fraudulent practices, and 
predatory loans. This amendment will protect people like Chris from 
McKinney, Texas.


                                STORIES

  Chris: Chris and his family had a modest home, and they were able to 
afford their mortgage payments until he lost his job. After a year of 
unemployment, the family's savings were depleted, and there was no 
money with which to pay their mortgage. Chris still tried to be 
responsible; he tried to work with the mortgage company to reach a 
solution, to refinance. Without ever sending him a Notice of Sale, the 
mortgage company removed his property from the home, changed the locks, 
and sold the home where Chris and his wife raised their two children.
  Chris spent his savings. He tried to work with the mortgage company 
to save his home. Chris and his family demonstrated good faith; until 
Chris lost his job, they paid their mortgage each month, and when they 
reached out for help in order to save their home, there was no help to 
be found.
  Michelle, Houston: Chris' story is similar to that of Michelle, a 
resident of Houston, who told her story to a local news station. 
Michelle's home was severely damaged by Hurricane Ike, and she and her 
husband had difficulties rebuilding. During the construction process, 
Michelle and her husband had to take wage cuts, and the cost of the 
home repairs, coupled with the unexpected reduction of income caused 
them to default on their mortgage.
  Michelle was four months behind on payments, and had just moved back 
into her home, the damage from Hurricane Ike finally repaired, when she 
received a notice of foreclosure. Desperate and panicked, Michelle 
contacted a private company that had sent her a letter alleging they 
could save her home for a fee. After sending the company $1,400, 
Michelle was told there was nothing they could do.
  Michelle and her husband, like Chris and his wife, were forced to 
vacate their home due to circumstances beyond their control. Michelle 
tried everything--she attempted to work with Bank of America, the owner 
of the mortgage, to modify her loan, or establish a payment plan--to no 
avail.


                           ADDITIONAL STORIES

  Jacob (56) a retired mechanic wanted to purchase $70,000 CD. He was 
referred to speak with a financial advisor. Jacob was talked into 
buying a high risk mutual fund and to pay a $3,157 up front fee. This 
man only makes $25,000 and worked hard to save his money. He ended up 
losing $12,000 and was told he would make more money. This man had no 
experience in stocks, bonds, or mutual funds.
  A retired court clerk went to her local bank to discuss a financial 
matter. She entered the bank and spoke with a bank teller. She asked 
the bank teller for information about opening an IRA account. The 
teller directed the customer to speak with a bank advisor. The customer 
believed she was going to speak with an employee of the bank. Her 
confusion was understandable as the person that she was directed too 
did have a desk within the confines of the bank's premises; and the 
teller stated the individual was a bank advisor. However, as it turns 
out the advisor was not an employee of the bank. The customer ended up 
losing thousands of dollars and ended up winning a lawsuit against 
bank.
  Martha: The Home Foreclosures crisis has hit every part of our 
country. For example, in Oregon, a 62 year old woman named Martha now 
faces losing her home. Martha owned her three-bedroom house for 20 
years and had built up significant equity. She fell behind making 
payments after quitting her job answering customer service calls for 
credit card companies at her home. Since then, she's lived off 
unemployment, social security and a small business incubating and 
selling quail eggs. She sought a modification but could not get the 
bank to agree, despite repeatedly submitting documents. ``Even though I 
couldn't afford an attorney, I thought, `What's the harm?''' Flynn 
said. ``Most people just give up.''
  Martha finally did end up suing and winning her case. A judge has 
blocked the bank from evicting Martha, whose home it purchased in 
foreclosure. The court concluded that her lenders had not properly 
recorded mortgage documents. Although, this is a great legal win for 
Martha, she is still in limbo, as there's no clear choice for her and 
there's no big money at the end of this rainbow, either because even 
with the victory, Martha may very well end up losing her home. Martha 
was not a woman who wanted to get rich quick by buying and selling 
homes. She did not buy her home during the bubble. She has paid her 
mortgage for 20 years! There are hundreds of other stories of 
hardworking Americans having to fight big banks on their own. That's 
why there needs to be this Bureau to protect consumers like Martha.
  According to Lisa, Executive Director of a coalition, ``Deceptive and 
abusive mortgage lending--allowed to continue by the existing 
regulators--was a fundamental cause of the financial crisis, and of the 
worst recession since the Great Depression. In response, Congress 
created the consumer bureau, so we will have a cop on the beat with 
fair play and the public interest as its first priority.''


              FORECLOSURE PRACTICES AND MORTGAGE SERVICING

  The Dodd-Frank Act instructed the new agency to replace the Truth in 
Lending form and the Good Faith Estimate with a single integrated 
mortgage disclosure.
  We learned a series of valuable lessons during the financial crisis. 
One of the lessons we learned is that it is very easy for lenders to 
mislead consumers about the true, long-term costs of their loans.
  According to Alys, a Staff Attorney in Washington, D.C., the rules 
need to be fixed to handle loan modifications in a strong, clear manner 
that can help avoid more foreclosures. ``The core requirement that is 
needed is to stop the practice of pursuing foreclosure at the same time 
that someone is being reviewed for a loan modification,'' she said. 
Consumers continue to receive conflicting information, are required to 
resubmit the paperwork and can be foreclosed while waiting for word on 
a loan modification.
  The fact is that if you take a good look back at the financial crisis 
that began in 2008 and continues today, most of it is attributable to 
predatory and irresponsible mortgage practices that were deplorable but 
not illegal. In other words, I believe that the most important role of 
the CFPB in this regard is the creation of new policies and rules to 
protect individual borrowers and consumers, not only to enforce

[[Page 11713]]

existing laws that were and are in some cases woefully inadequate.
  The mortgage crisis makes it clear that no one had to break the law 
to con us . . . the American People. The vast majority of those 
creative option-ARMS was perfectly legal, terribly innovative and 
clearly, as they have now been labeled, weapons of mass destruction. So 
while it is obviously very important to enforce the law, it is more 
important to make effective laws and rules that can then be efficiently 
enforced. The CFPB is the government's watch dog to protect consumers. 
We must ensure the Agency has the power to do its job.
  Additionally, one of the other root causes of our current financial 
malaise was the lack of financial literacy among the general population 
in this country. The victims of what I will call a legal con game . . . 
were the citizens who were convinced that they could buy houses that 
they could not afford by looking at the current mortgages of ARMS. 
These loans were all run by those avaricious bankers and brokers who 
had excellent targets, because most buyers really didn't know much 
about money, or mortgages, or borrowing in general--but unfortunately 
now they're getting a crash course in foreclosure. There is no law, 
however wise and rigorously enforced, that can substitute for a 
financially educated populace. Knowledge is, after all, power. In sum, 
in order to prevent a repeat of recent financial history, the CFPB must 
ensure that Americans know as much about financial matters as they do 
about Kim Kardashian, and it must make and enforce new rules that 
protect consumers within every financial strata, not just the folks who 
buy the bonds issued by firms.
  Not only did the effects of the housing market collapse force 
millions from their homes, it reverberated across various financial 
markets. Access to credit, on which our economy depends, was limited, 
making it difficult for families to secure affordable loans.
  Restoring the two-thirds majority will foster debate and compromise 
among members of the FSOC, and ultimately lead to more productive 
solutions between the FSOC and CFPB.
  We must ensure that the CFPB is able to advocate for the best 
interests of the consumer. As we continue on the path to recovery in 
the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it is not corporate giants, but 
average Americans who are still suffering.
  In order to bring this country out of its economic downturn, there 
must be hope, optimism and we must come together in the resilience and 
enduring legacy of the American Dream. The legacy that has for years 
past, and will for centuries to come, send the message to the world 
that on our shores, from sea to sea, anything can be achieved.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to restore the two-
thirds majority and give the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 
real oversight capabilities. We must protect consumers; we must put the 
interest of our constituents before those of corporations.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I oppose the amendment because I am in support of the 
bill, Mr. Duffy's bill, which puts a workable and a more reasonable 
standard that could actually look at consumer rules and regulations 
that, as he has said, and I think very eloquently, takes in 
consideration Main Street, the community bankers and the credit unions.
  I would like to remind the gentlewoman from Texas, as we were 
reminded by the gentleman from Massachusetts, that car loans are 
exempted from this, so we don't have to worry about car loans in terms 
of their being part of the rule and regulation. That is part of the 
Dodd-Frank bill. Anyway, I think that a simple majority makes a lot of 
sense.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. I think one of the reasons we modified the rule is that 
right now, with the two-thirds majority, you basically need seven out 
of 10 votes to overturn what would be a harmful rule. In the way the 
law is currently written, one of the voting members is the director of 
the CFPB, making the standard that much more difficult.

                              {time}  1650

  If we're talking about harmful rules to our community banks and our 
credit unions, let's make sure we have a simple majority that can step 
in and overturn those rules. Why do we want to set a standard so high 
that it can't be overturned? It's nearly impossible to overturn it.
  And I would commend my friends on the other side of the aisle to make 
sure there was a review process in the CFPB. But no law is ever 
perfect, and with that, I think we should come forward today and say 
how can we better perfect this rule to work for our consumers? And 
having a simple majority to overturn a rule that could be harmful 
coming from the CFPB does exactly that.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me just say as I yield to the 
gentleman, the ranking member and chairman at the time of passage of 
this bill, I was given a litany of ills that can attack consumers. I'm 
glad we have this board, and I'm glad that we are looking to restore 
the two-thirds oversight to protect these individuals and the nurse and 
the child. I ask support for the amendment.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First of all, let's resolve one 
contradiction in the Republican amendment. Some have said, why are you 
now opposing what you originally supported? Well, this is a clear 
example. We never supported anything like this. We always thought it 
had to be two-thirds. And here's what happened.
  There is no comparable banking agency which can be overruled by the 
other agencies. But the Republicans got very nervous about this and 
their banker friends were in a bit of a twitter. And they said, Save us 
from this horrible notion of consumer protection. I say it doesn't 
speak well for banks if they think consumer protection undermines 
safety and soundness.
  So we said, okay, here's what we'll do. To lower these fears, we will 
say if it does threaten the whole system, two-thirds can overturn it. 
We didn't think that was very likely. It was to try to calm people 
down. They transform it with this amendment into saying that five 
regulators, because the consumer bureau couldn't vote, five regulators 
who have overlapping terms who may have been appointed by previous 
Presidents, regulators who represent the very regulatory agencies that 
have not been good about consumers can overturn the consumer bureau. 
This amendment canceled the fundamental reason for having a consumer 
bureau.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, this is remarkable.
  My friends across the aisle actually include and voted for a review 
process of the CFPB, and now they come in today and say, Listen, we 
want to do away with that review process. I mean, how last year did we 
come into this House and say we're going to vote for a review process 
of harmful rules coming from the CFPB because it doesn't include the 
standard of consideration for safety and soundness, but today with my 
bill, they come in and say, We don't want any review process. That to 
me, Mr. Chairman, does not make sense.
  I don't think it works for the American people, and it doesn't work 
for small community banks and credit unions who support a review 
process. Not only that, but they support a voice in that review 
process. And that's what my bill does.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 112-172.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page 11714]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 6, strike ``Section'' and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Section
       Page 1, after line 12, insert the following:
       (b) Conflict of Interest.--Section 1023(c)(3) of the Dodd-
     Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Conflict of interest.--No member of the Council may 
     vote on the decision to issue a stay of, or set aside, any 
     regulation under this section, if such member has, within the 
     previous 2-year period, been employed by any company or other 
     entity that is subject to such regulation.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Hopefully, this will be an amendment which can be 
accepted. It's quite simple.
  And what I'm addressing is what The Washington Post has called the 
revolving door that spins at a dizzying pace here in Washington, D.C. 
The New York Times has said that Goldman Sachs is ``Government Sachs'' 
for all the employees who bounce back and forth between the Nation's 
Capital, the regulatory bodies, administrative branch, and its 
Manhattan office tower.
  All my amendment simply does is prevent potential conflicts of 
interest. Remember, a board here has been created in the original bill 
which can overturn any regulation, fairly unique among independent 
agencies if there is a board which can overturn the administrative 
procedures or rules that they adopt on the financial services industry. 
But in any case, that was in the original bill. This bill would reduce 
from a two-thirds majority to a 50 percent majority of this 10-member 
board.
  And my amendment just says if there's 10 people sitting on the board 
and it's potentially a close vote and this is something that's going to 
affect, say--not to pick on Goldman Sachs--but let's just say Goldman 
Sachs and a member of the board is a former employee of Goldman Sachs 
within the last 24 months, that member would have to sit out the vote. 
Plain and simple. It is a conflict-of-interest rule.
  I would hope that this would prove to be noncontroversial.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to tell the gentleman I really see what 
he's getting at here. And I do think that some of his ideas have merit 
because of the revolving door appearance of--and in reality probably in 
some cases preconceived opinions. But I think that if a person is 
qualified to lead an agency, if a person is qualified to be the 
Secretary of the Treasury, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Director of 
the CFPB, Chair of the FDIC, Comptroller of the Currency, Chairman of 
the SEC, and there are 10 members on this board, that if we agree to 
this amendment, we might be narrowing the scope of really talented and 
qualified people.
  I think the vetting process--all of these folks have to be nominated 
and confirmed by the Senate. I think that any conflicts of interest or 
possible conflicts of interest could be vetted through the confirmation 
process.
  I think by disqualifying some folks, I think that it, as I said, I 
think we might miss some good talent. We might chase away folks that 
have good ideas and vibrant ideas in the area of finance.
  With that, I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I think there is a misunderstanding.
  They can serve on the board. It's just that if a proposal comes up 
that directly affects their previous employer and they have been on the 
board less than 2 years, they would have to sit out that particular 
vote. They can serve and vote on any and every other procedure, but 
just not on that particular thing. It's a very restrictive conflict of 
interest rule.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I thank the gentleman for the clarification. I didn't 
address that in my statement, and you're absolutely right. But I would 
just continue to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, obviously we've straightened out that 
misunderstanding, that the folks could serve.
  Now let me just harken back to something where I think many of my 
Republican colleagues agreed with me. I voted against the TARP bailout. 
Hank Paulson, as I said at the time, I think he was Goldman Sachs's 
executive standing in as Secretary of the Treasury and meting out 
justice to some of his competitors in terms of who lived and who died 
on Wall Street.
  So I would think there would be agreement on that side that for 
future conflicts of interest that these people would be restricted only 
on that one vote, only as it affects their former employer, only within 
the last 24 months.

                              {time}  1700

  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, the gentleman is correct. I would 
just note my disagreement with his statement on Secretary Paulson.
  But more important, I was struck by the fact that the gentlewoman 
from West Virginia stood up and opposed the amendment. The gentleman 
from Oregon then pointed out that her basis for opposing the amendment 
was incorrect; whereupon the gentlewoman from West Virginia said, Never 
mind, but I still oppose it, with a less than eloquent explanation. So 
I think that's unfortunate.
  And part of my problem is, I didn't get a chance to talk fully about 
this rule. This is a terribly unfair rule. I asked the chairman of the 
Rules Committee yesterday if we could have more time to debate. Not all 
the amendments were of equal importance. We had the very important 
amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas to talk about two-thirds versus 
a majority. This is an important amendment about conflict of interest. 
We had a very important amendment coming up from the gentlewoman from 
New York about the powers.
  It is outrageous that the Rules Committee said, You only get 5 
minutes on each side on each amendment. And the chairman of the Rules 
Committee--he's a magnanimous fellow--he said to me when I asked, he 
said, Well, you know what, you can go get a unanimous consent agreement 
to extend it, which meant he was not suspending the rules of the House. 
I approached the other side, and I was told--not by the chairman, who 
has been very gracious in all of this--that the Republican leadership 
wanted to hurry this bill up.
  So we have very fundamental issues not being adequately debated, and 
this is one of them. I have some differences with the gentleman from 
Oregon about what I think happened during the TARP. But to have only 10 
minutes on this?
  And then, frankly, for the chairman of the subcommittee to be so 
dismissive of a valid amendment, to say, Here's why I am against it, 
because her staff probably didn't read it before they wrote it, and 
they gave her the wrong reason, and then she just said, Well, I'm 
against it because I'm against it. That's an inappropriate way to deal 
with this serious issue. And it reinforces my view that what we have 
here is this:
  Last year, every single Republican opposed an independent consumer 
agency, in principle. They now come forward with efforts that would 
substantially weaken it, that everybody who does support it opposes. 
And they say, Oh, no, we're not opposed to it. We're just trying to 
change it.
  The gentleman from Oregon has a perfectly reasonable point. I cannot 
understand, other than simple partisan

[[Page 11715]]

rigidity, why it would not be accepted. So I thank the gentleman, and 
I'm sorry we do not have a more civil atmosphere in which to discuss 
this.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Paulsen

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 112-172.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 6, strike ``Section'' and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Section
       Page 1, after line 12, insert the following:
       (b) Petition by Nonvoting Members; No Restrictions on 
     Petition Subject Matter.--Section 1023 of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
     Street Reform and Consumer Protection act is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Petition by Nonvoting Members.--Notwithstanding any 
     other subsection of this section, the provisions of this 
     section shall apply to a petition by a nonvoting member of 
     the Council to the same extent that they apply to a petition 
     by an agency represented by a member of the Council.
       ``(h) No Restrictions on Petition Subject Matter.--
     Petitions made under this section may be made by an agency or 
     a nonvoting member of the Council on any subject matter, 
     regardless of the areas of particular expertise of such 
     agency or nonvoting member.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment really to 
help ensure that we maintain prudent regulation of the financial 
services industry. Under current law, there are five nonvoting members 
of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, including a State 
insurance regulator and a State bank regulator.
  This amendment really seeks to ensure and clarify that these 
regulators on the Financial Stability Oversight Council, who do not 
have voting rights, still have the authority to challenge any 
regulations that are put forth by the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau. For example, while it's clear that the CFPB does not have the 
authority to regulate insurance, it could put forth a regulation that 
actually negatively impacts the industry and the economy. So it just 
makes sense that all the members on the council have the ability to 
consider the impact that these new rules may have.
  Therefore, by clarifying that any member of the Financial Stability 
Oversight Council may question any regulation and bring that up for 
clarification and clarify the rights of the nonvoting members, I am 
seeking to improve the oversight on the CFPB.
  I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I rise to claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and reserve the right to close.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I rise in strong 
opposition to this bill.
  This misguided legislation seeks to destroy the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau on its birthday, before it even has time to take its 
first breath, out of fear that the interests of consumers--our 
constituents, by the way--may finally have a voice here in Washington. 
I would note that the CFPB is the only Federal agency that can have its 
regulations vetoed by other banking regulators serving on the Financial 
Stability Oversight Council, and this bill would make that veto process 
even easier.
  Among other destructive provisions, H.R. 1315 would exclude the 
director of the CFPB from serving as a voting member of the FSOC, which 
would make the director the only banking regulator without a seat on 
the council.
  The CFPB is one of the most important creations of Dodd-Frank because 
it is the very agency focused on ensuring that the consumer protection 
products made available in the marketplace will not lead families into 
economic ruin. Rather than attacking this agency, which is intended to 
defend the rights of consumers and protect them from predatory 
practices, we should be standing with the consumers, our constituents, 
and protecting them from financial entities that would take advantage 
of them.
  Last week, I convened a forum to examine the abuse that 
servicemembers are suffering at the hands of mortgage servicers. 
Thousands of U.S. military servicemembers and their families have lost 
their homes, been charged millions of dollars illegally, and have been 
subjected to other abuses in violation of Federal law. The CFPB was 
created precisely to help Americans such as these, our constituents.
  I urge the Members of Congress to stand on the side of their 
constituents by supporting CFPB, and I urge Congress to vote for their 
constituents by voting against this bill.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman was speaking earlier 
in opposition to the bill, and perhaps there is no opposition to the 
amendment.
  I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is indicative of 
why we are in opposition to much of what is being said today. This 
amendment assumes that there is some sort of onerous regulation or some 
sort of invidious discrimination that has taken place within the CFPB 
when, in fact, the CFPB has not issued one regulation, not one. And 
because it has not issued one regulation, one can only assume that much 
of what is happening today is onerous speculation and invidious 
prognostication because there seems to be this notion that this agency 
is going to be harmful, but it hasn't done one thing. There is this 
concept of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but there is no 
bathwater. There is no bathwater to throw out because the baby hasn't 
done anything.
  The CFPB has done absolutely nothing, and we are now trying to 
overregulate it before it has an opportunity to pass a single 
regulation. It was not the CFPB that created the crisis. It did not 
create 3/27s and 2/28s. It did not create prepayment penalties that 
coincide with teaser rates. It did not create negative amortization. It 
did not create the dastardly yield spread premium which allowed people 
to qualify for prime mortgages and be forced into subprime mortgages. 
The CFPB has done nothing. It is an effort on our part to make sure 
that many of the onerous actions that took place, that caused us to be 
in the position that we're in, that these actions cannot happen again.
  I stand in opposition to this amendment. I also stand in opposition 
to the bill because the bill would weaken the CFPB to the extent that 
it can't do what it is intended to do, and that is protect consumers. 
Somebody, some agency ought to stand there for consumers. This agency 
is that agency. It's the watchdog. We do not need a watchdog without 
any bite. Let's keep the bite in the CFPB. Let's make sure that it can 
protect consumers and make sure that we don't get the products back on 
the market that we had before.
  This amendment would allow persons who are on the board, who do not 
have a vote to petition, in a sense, they would become empowered by 
this ability to petition, even if it doesn't impact the industry that 
they happen to represent. I stand in opposition to it. I think the 
CFPB, as presented, is the best way for us to proceed.

[[Page 11716]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1710


        Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Miller of North Carolina

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 112-172.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 14, strike ``Section'' and insert the 
     following::
       (a) In General.--Section
       Page 3, after line 2, insert the following:
       (b) Specific Disclosures Required.--Section 1023(b) of the 
     Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Specific disclosures required.--With respect to the 
     regulation or provision that is the subject of a petition an 
     agency files with the Council under this section, the agency 
     shall publicly disclose, at the time such petition is filed--
       ``(A) an analysis of the practice that is the subject 
     matter of such regulation or provision; and
       ``(B) a list of any specific financial institutions whose 
     safe and sound operation the agency believes would be placed 
     in jeopardy due to such regulation or provision.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, it is simply not true that 
we all here want to protect consumers; we just have an honest 
disagreement about the best way to do it.
  This bill really cripples the ability of the CFPB to be an effective 
watchdog for consumers. And the way that it does it, probably the most 
harmful part of the bill, is the veto power, the greater veto power it 
gives the Financial Services Oversight Council and the way that that 
council has to exercise that veto.
  Here is what the CFPB has to do to pass a rule in the first place. 
First of all, they cannot require any financial institution to do 
anything. They can't say, You have to give people this mortgage or this 
credit card contract. They can just forbid. They can say, You can't use 
this contract, this mortgage, this credit card contract because this 
cheats people. They cannot require; they can only forbid.
  And before they forbid, before they pass a rule that says, You can't 
do that because it cheats people, it abuses people, they have got to 
consider all the benefits to the consumers that might come from that, 
as well as to the financial institutions that offer it. They've got to 
consider whether it really reduces the ability of consumers to get 
credit, and they've got to consider the effect on the financial 
institutions, and they've got to consult with all the other regulators 
whose business it is to make sure that the financial institutions don't 
go broke. And then they've got to publish it. They've got to let people 
comment. They've got to build evidence. And if they don't have support 
for the rule, it can be turned over by a court.
  But even before it goes to a court, it goes to this panel, this 
Financial Stability Oversight Council, and it can be vetoed if they 
decide that it threatens the stability of the financial system or the 
safety and soundness of the banking system.
  This bill changes it and says, not just that they can overturn it, 
but they have to overturn if it threatens the safety and the soundness 
of financial institutions; in other words, if it would make specific 
banks go broke.
  Some banks, I agree with what the gentleman from Wisconsin has said 
repeatedly, most small banks, most credit unions have had honest 
business practices. But there are some sleazy ones out there, and we 
saw what they did in the last decade.
  Under the bill, as it is written, if one of those banks comes forward 
and says, Unless we can do this sleazy thing, we're going to go out of 
business, the Financial Stability Oversight Council has to disallow it 
if it would put them out of business.
  Mr. Chairman, some of those banks, some of those sleazy, scuzzy banks 
need to be out of business. If the only way they can stay in business 
is by cheating consumers, they should be out of business. But this bill 
would not allow that to happen. A consumer protection rule could not go 
into effect if it put specific banks out of business. That's an 
enormous change, and it cripples the ability of the CFPB to be an 
effective watchdog for consumers.
  What this amendment does is, if any one of those prudential 
regulators, those watchdogs that are supposed to make sure the banks 
don't go broke is going to challenge any rule of the CFPB, they have 
got to say exactly how they think it would threaten the safety and 
soundness of the financial institutions, make a bank go broke, and 
they've got to say who they are, who is this rule going to put out of 
business. Because the American people are entitled to know if this 
agency, this FSOC, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, is acting 
on behalf of the American people and on behalf of the consumers or if 
they are protecting sleazy banks that stay in business whose whole 
business model is cheating consumers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I think I understand the gentleman from 
North Carolina's amendment. But I would like to just start, in the 5 
minutes that I have, to remind everybody who is on the council that is 
going to be able to allow sleazy financial products to go forward to 
save the safety and soundness of an institution. That's what the 
gentleman said.
  So we've got the Secretary of the Treasury. We've got the Chairman of 
the Federal Reserve, the Director of the CFPB, who is the person who is 
making the regulations, Chairman of the FDIC, Comptroller of the 
Currency, Chairman of the NCUA, Chairman of the SEC, Chairman of the 
CFTC, Director of the FHFA, and an insurance representative. That's 10 
people, professional regulators that are working in certain areas of 
the financial markets overseeing our financial stability. It's not Tom, 
Dick, and Harry off the street trying to figure out if a certain 
provision, sleazy provision should be allowed to go forward. And I 
think, in order to convince these folks, or to put your argument 
forward as to why the rule or regulation would harm the safety and 
soundness of an institution, I would imagine that these professionals 
would require much due diligence and proper background work, probably 
touching on some of the things the gentleman's already talked about, 
who would be influenced and an analysis of the practice that is the 
subject matter of the regulation or provision.
  I think that the standard is high in any scenario. Certainly, it's 
impossible in the existing bill. But in Mr. Duffy's bill, which brings 
the standard down more in line with protecting community banks and 
credit unions and other institutions on Main Street and the consumers 
that so rely on them, that, I think, really this amendment just further 
complicates, places in jeopardy, I think, makes it more cumbersome, 
more impossible to meet a standard where the FSOC would be able to 
oversee a certain rule and regulation.
  So I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, one of the changes that 
doesn't sound like it does much but really does is when you change the 
word ``may'' to ``shall.'' Not only can this FSOC overturn a rule when 
they think it might affect the safety and soundness of the system, they 
have to overturn it. They have to overturn it if they think it's going 
to put a specific bank out of business. That's not a

[[Page 11717]]

small change. That's not a high standard. That is a very low standard, 
and it is one that completely cripples the bill.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would say to my friend, and I thank 
him, if somebody had put Countrywide out of business, we'd have been in 
good shape.
  But the bias of the Republicans here against consumers and for the 
banks is very clear. A later amendment will require the consumer bureau 
to submit very much this kind of information to the Financial Stability 
Council. So it's not reciprocal.
  If the consumer bureau, under their amendment, has a rule or 
regulation that it has to give all this information to the council but 
nobody else does, it is one more example of how the consumer bureau is 
not at all that favored.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.

                              {time}  1720


          Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 112-172.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 12, after the semicolon insert ``and''.
       Page 2, strike lines 13 through 20 (and redesignate the 
     succeeding subparagraph accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. My friends are back again, those that we 
have a great deal of respect for. And I am reminded of my colleague, 
Congressman Cummings, who mentioned the enormous amount of foreclosures 
that our military families experience.
  Maybe we're not clear on what our new board really does, the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau. Let me make it clear. It makes prices 
clear; it makes terms and conditions clear; it ensures that mortgage 
disclosures are short, relevant, and understandable by consumers and 
lenders and military families; it lets consumers shop for the best 
product of that price; and it helps consumers understand the true cost 
of a financial transaction. It acts like a cop on the beat for our 
consumers. The Financial Stability Oversight Board has its role--to 
review the actions.
  But let me tell you what this bill has just done. In the Dodd-Frank 
bill, it has been a defined time schedule for the review to take place. 
So if you are, in essence, hanging with a bad foreclosure or some bad 
actions, this oversight board can review quickly the decision that the 
consumer board did to protect you. But you know what has happened now? 
They have given the oversight board an indefinite amount of time. This 
is in the backdrop of undergraduates carrying record-high credit card 
balances, $3,173.
  What my amendment does--it restores reality. It restores a definitive 
time, a time certain that the oversight board can review the regulation 
that has given you relief so that you can benefit from the consumer 
protection. Is that not a simple premise?
  I ask my colleagues to accept this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, number #3 to H.R. 
1315, the Consumer Financial Protections and Safety Act. My amendment 
will improve certainty with respect to Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection (CFPB) regulations by restoring current time limits in which 
the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) must review and act on 
a petition to overrule a CFPB regulation, and restores a provision 
allowing a petition to expire if the FSOC fails to act within 45 days 
of the filing of the petition or upon expiration of a temporary stay.
  Under my amendment the FSOC chair may stay the effectiveness of a 
regulation at the request of a single FSOC member for 90 days. If the 
FSOC chair does not stay the rule, the FSOC must vote within 45 days of 
the date the petition is filed. If the FSOC stays the rule, the vote 
must be taken before the stay elapses. If a vote is not taken within 
these time frames, the petition is deemed to have been dismissed. This 
is a basic and reasoned approach to ensure that rules issued by the 
CFPB are reviewed in a timely fashion by the FSOC and will not result 
in an endless delay and an endless issuance of stays which would 
thereby render any CFPB rule ineffective.
  Providing the FSOC with unlimited time to review CFPB regulations is 
yet another way in which this legislation undermines the authority of 
the CFPB and the necessity for consumer protection standards.
  CFPB regulations enacted by the bureau are designed to protect the 
average consumer from fraud and abuse, and prevent financial 
institutions from employing unfair practices. This legislation would 
allow the Financial Stability Oversight Council to review regulatory 
measures passed by the CFPB without any time constraints. Under H.R. 
1315, the FSOC can avoid making decisions, suspending CFPB regulations 
in the process, providing the FSOC with a method to circumvent the 
authority of the CFPB without being held accountable.
  A strong and independent CFPB is the only way to ensure that the best 
interest of the consumer is protected. This bureau was designed to 
increase transparency and equality in mortgage practices, credit card 
procedures and other consumer services.
  The collapse of the housing market in 2008, and the financial crisis 
that followed proved how intertwined our financial system is. When 
securities collapse, due to failing mortgages, credit becomes scarce 
and companies lay employees off. Losing a job and prolonged 
unemployment can lead to the loss of one's home. In order to truly 
safeguard against the irresponsible practices that led to the financial 
crisis of 2008, we need an agency, such as the CFPB, to ensure that 
consumers are protected.
  It will protect consumers like Charles, who was forced to seek a loan 
from a small, private lending company he had never heard of. The 
company required a cosigner for the loan, and stipulated the cosigner 
had assets worth far more than the loan.
  When Charles defaulted on the loan, the company went after his 
cosigner and his assets from the successful small business he owned. 
Despite efforts to modify the loan based on Charles' unexpected 
economic circumstances, the lender targeted his cosigner, resulting in 
devastating effects to his credit rating.
  The predatory loan company went as far as to assign Charles a new 
loan to cover his debt, using the same cosigner, despite knowing that 
Charles had no way to pay either of the loans, effectively ruining the 
credit of both Charles and his cosigner.
  If the FSOC is able to indefinitely delay the implementation of CFPB 
rulings, it greatly reduces the effectiveness of the bureau, and 
weakens the Dodd-Frank mechanism for consumer protection. We need this 
Bureau to safeguard the interests of consumers like George, a disabled 
veteran from Texas, whose doctor helped him apply for loan discharge, 
under the Disability Act.
  A 100% disabled veteran, extenuating circumstances caused George to 
default on his loan; regardless, his request for loan discharge was 
denied. As a result of being denied a discharge, George, a registered 
nurse was not able to renew his nursing license. Which left George 
without a nursing license and thereby without a license he lost his 
ability to maintain a nursing position. A job as a nurse would have 
allowed George to have an income in order to pay back the loan. George 
found himself in a viscous cycle. George, a man who has honorably 
served his nation. A man who was wounded in battle . . . that George 
now a man who cannot pay his loan, cannot attain a license, and cannot 
find a high paying position. If George was educated on the 
consequences' of taking out a loan . . . he might have made a different 
choice. The Bureau gives financial consumers a frame of reference 
before agreeing to often confusing and convoluted loan schemes.

[[Page 11718]]

  The CFPB would also prevent predatory companies from taking advantage 
of people like Carol. One day, while cleaning her home, Carol received 
a phone call from a debt management company. This company told Carol 
that they would be able to get her creditors to lower their interest 
rates, which would allow Carol to pay off her credit card, mortgage and 
car loan debt in a shorter frame of time.
  Carol was told she would save at least $2,500 and would save much 
more. Carol was skeptical, especially when she heard the price was 
$499, but the salesperson assured Carol she would see lower interest 
rates within the first 30 days of the program and that these savings 
would more than cover the fee. The company kept the initial fee, and 
drove her further into debt by doing nothing to attempt to find 
solutions to pay her existing debt. She had fallen victim to a scam.
  I offer this amendment to ensure that the CFPB exists to enforce 
regulations to protect consumers, rather than an ineffective body that 
is used as a tool for political grandstanding. If we are serious about 
providing the American people with a protection mechanism, we must do 
so by way of action, not by telling the public what they want to hear.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPITO. What we have done in our bill, as the gentlewoman said, 
is to give the FSOC as much time as necessary to evaluate the effects 
of the CFPB rule.
  It's easy to imagine, under any scenario, that some of the effects, 
good effects or bad effects, take more than 3 months to really surface. 
I mean, we saw what happened with the subprime issue. It didn't bubble 
up in 90 days. It bubbled up over a period of time. Should it have been 
stopped? Absolutely. Were people asleep at the switch? Absolutely. And 
that's why we think that you should have not constraints on the time, 
but you should have an open-ended time period to find out any different 
pitfalls that may occur from a certain rule and regulation. And so 
that's why I would oppose the gentlelady's amendment going back to the 
90 days.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have great respect for my friend from 
West Virginia, but I'm so glad she said 90 days. My friends, that is 3 
months. They want to take away 90 days and put it forever. Almost like 
Dorothy, we're going to the Wizard of Oz, land of Oz, forever and ever 
and ever.
  And so individuals like Michelle, whose home was damaged during the 
hurricane, who got costly repairs but had wage cuts and then found that 
their house might be in foreclosure, they sent a company $1,400. The 
company told them there was nothing they could do and they were 
foreclosed on. The Bureau, being able to protect them from that now, 
has oversight over positive regulation, and that oversight to review it 
or to eliminate it goes on and on and on while Michelle and her husband 
walk the streets.
  Or Jacob, who wanted to just come as a retired mechanic to buy a CD. 
He wanted to speak to a financial advisor. He was talked into buying a 
$3,000 up-front fee. The man he talked to wasn't even in the bank. He 
only made $25,000. He wound up losing $12,000. They want Jacob to wait 
forever and ever and ever.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I appreciate the gentlelady's passion for this. And I 
would like to say that as the 90-day rule stands right now, it doesn't 
say that the rule can't go forward. It simply says that the ability to 
have a look back to what consumer rules or regulations are put forward, 
it widens the window there.
  So some of the effects of rule and regulation that may, as I said 
earlier, may not bubble up for a year or two, it may have a cumulative 
effect, it may have a regional effect. I mean, we have friends in 
Georgia right now who have had a lot of bank foreclosures. It's more 
regionally placed, all the foreclosure problems.
  I live in a place, actually, where we avoided a lot of the 
foreclosure problems, but I understand my fellow Members from 
California and Florida and Texas and Michigan and Ohio, they have 
regional issues. This doesn't say that you can't allow the rule to go 
forward. It simply says that it allows you to look back for a longer 
period than 90 days.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady.
  I'm asking my colleagues to support this amendment, which restores a 
3-month review. There are people in America that don't even know what 
their interest rates are on their credit card. The Consumer Protection 
Bureau will help that. We need oversight that is refined and defined to 
be able to protect the consumer.
  With that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Once again, we see this pattern.
  The gentleman from New Jersey objected before and said I am imputing 
motives to them. Yes, I was imputing to them the notion that they knew 
what they were doing last year when they overwhelmingly, unanimously 
opposed an independent agency. I don't know who's kidding whom. They 
don't like the idea of an independent agency. They do know that 
politically it's kind of popular, so the tactic is to chip at it here 
and chip at it there and to do a series of nonreciprocal requirements.
  It is clearly the stepchild, the Cinderella of the financial 
regulators. It's the only financial regulator that can be overruled by 
the other financial regulator.
  They say, How can you have an individual entity? But Members have 
been here 20 years, and comparable times they have never moved to make 
the Comptroller of the Currency a commission. They've never moved to 
subject the Comptroller of the Currency to the appropriation. The 
consumer chief is just like the Comptroller of the Currency, but that's 
a banking agency. That's one of those agencies that the chairman of the 
committee says is there to serve the banks. And as he said in his 
statement today, they don't worry about the Federal Reserve and the 
FDIC--with the terrible record the Federal Reserve has had on consumer 
protection. He said, the chairman of the committee from Alabama, we are 
worried about an agency whose sole goal is to protect consumers.
  So this is one more thing. When it comes to other agencies, my 
colleagues on the Republican side want to impose deadlines, want to 
require speed, don't have it hanging over. But, no, the consumer agency 
is treated differently.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Quigley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 112-172.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 2, after ``servation.'' insert the following: 
     ``The Council shall provide live online streaming or 
     broadcasting of the meetings.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 1315.

[[Page 11719]]

  The underlying bill requires that when the Financial Stability 
Oversight Council meets to deliberate on a CFPB ruling, those meetings 
would be open to the public.
  My amendment takes that one step further and would require that the 
meeting be live-streamed over the Internet. If what we are concerned 
about here is transparency and openness, it makes sense that the entire 
American public have access to these meetings over the Internet, not 
just people in one city.
  This is important to both supporters and critics of the CFPB. If a 
CFPB ruling is challenged by the FSOC, Americans should be able to 
observe the proceedings. My amendment will do just that. It makes the 
proceedings more open, transparent, and accessible. Transparency will 
help ensure that all parties--banks and consumers--get a fair hearing.
  It is also important in terms of regaining the public trust, 
especially in these times. According to a Pew poll, only 22 percent of 
Americans trust government to do the right thing. What does that mean? 
That means that eight out of 10 people in this country think that 
government will do the wrong thing. The real cost of corruption is the 
deficit of trust. It is almost impossible to lead without the public's 
trust. What we need to focus on first and foremost is regaining that 
trust, principally through transparency. Therefore, I ask that this 
amendment be supported by both sides.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am 
not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West 
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to congratulate the gentleman on an 
amendment that provides for sunshine and transparency. When we did the 
markup, we actually had another amendment along the same lines. I would 
support the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Chu

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 112-172.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, line 17, strike ``and''.
       Page 6, line 22, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 6, after line 22, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) researching and reporting to the full Commission 
     about ways to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or 
     abusive lending acts or practices, including how language 
     barriers contribute to lack of understanding in lending 
     activities.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Chu) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would give additional 
responsibility to the Commissioner who is already in charge of 
oversight of the Bureau's activities pertaining to the protection of 
older consumers, minorities, youth, and veterans. It would require 
research on how language barriers can lead to unfair and abusive 
lending practices, and a report to the full Commission on ways to 
protect consumers from potentially unfair and deceptive practices.
  Take the case of Ms. Huang, who went to a car dealership and 
negotiated a car sale with a salesperson in Chinese. But then when she 
went to sign the contract, it was totally in English, and she didn't 
understand it. When she got it translated later, she discovered that 
she bought a different car with an extremely high interest rate. She 
went back to the car dealership for redress, but they refused. She was 
so upset that all she could think of to do was go back to the 
dealership and wrap herself in a white sheet and hold a sign that said 
``Cheaters'' and walk up and down in front of the dealership in 
protest. Well, that gained attention. It turned out that many other 
immigrants had been cheated in this manner as well, so I sponsored a 
bill in the California State Assembly to address these deceptive 
practices. But that is just one State and one small fix.
  Now I know that the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and 
Soundness Act does not include oversight of automobile loans, but Ms. 
Huang's story highlights how persons with language barriers can be 
victims of deceptive practices. We need someone on a national level 
looking out for people like Ms. Huang and staying on top of ways people 
are being duped because of language barriers. And that is just what my 
amendment will do.
  I urge support of my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I am not 
opposed to the gentlelady's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West 
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank the gentlewoman for her amendment.
  I would like to also highlight, in the Dodd-Frank bill, and I'm sure 
she is well aware of some of the provisions that are already being made 
through the CFPB for multilingual outreach and understanding.
  During a conference call with a large number of bipartisan 
congressional staff, the senior officials at the CFPB indicated that 
the Bureau would have the capacity to translate into 180 languages. 
That is a very broad reach, I think. And there are other foreign 
language disclosures outreach by the Secretary of the Treasury to help 
persons facing language barriers and other aspects around the same 
issue that the gentlelady is speaking about.
  I am delighted that she wants to amend the Commission because, as we 
know, and I have spoken more than a few times on this in just the last 
several hours, about my ardent support for the Commission. There is one 
Commissioner who is charged with overseeing some special segments of 
our population, and certainly ones who have language barriers would be 
included in this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentlelady from West 
Virginia making a very important point, seriously, talking about the 
multilingual aspects, because an important bipartisan part of our 
committee's work over the years, and we've had some differences, but 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hinojosa) and a number of others have stressed an important part 
of this Agency's mission is financial literacy.
  We all agree that if people were better educated, they could defend 
themselves better. This is an ongoing, joint effort on our committee. 
And obviously, if you're trying to do financial literacy, it has to be 
in a language that the people understand. So I appreciate the 
gentlelady highlighting that, and it does help us do it.
  I would note, and I think the gentlewoman from California is quite 
correct in wanting to do this, but you don't need a commission to do 
it. If there wasn't a commission, we could do it with various agency 
heads. For example, there has been some concern about making sure that 
veterans are taken care of and people in the military. One of the 
things that Elizabeth Warren did, and she did a number of extraordinary 
things, and I don't know if people are aware of the head of the 
military Bureau that protects members in the services, a very 
experienced woman from the military named Holly Petraeus, the wife of 
General Petraeus. That's an example of how you can do these things.
  So the principle that the gentlewoman from California advocates is a

[[Page 11720]]

very good one, and I'm sure we'll find a way to accommodate it. I thank 
her.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that this does not create 
any overly burdensome responsibility. Instead, it supports the goal of 
the legislation. It protects those persons who might be the victims of 
such unfair and deceptive practices.
  What this does is clarify that this specially designated Commissioner 
would take into account how language barriers might be impacted by such 
abusive practices, and it makes sure that that is done.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 112-172.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 15, line 17, after ``section,'' insert the following: 
     ``except for subsection (e),''.
       Page 15, line 23, strike the quotation marks and following 
     period and insert after such line the following:
       ``(e) Functions to Temporarily Be Carried Out by the 
     Secretary.--Notwithstanding subsection (d), if no Chair of 
     the Commission of the Bureau has been confirmed by the Senate 
     as of the single calendar date designated for the transfer of 
     functions to the Bureau under section 1061, then until such 
     time as the Chair of the Commission of the Bureau has been so 
     confirmed, the Secretary of the Treasury shall have the 
     authority to carry out the following functions:
       ``(1) All rulemaking authority with respect to unfair or 
     deceptive acts or practices that would have been conferred 
     upon the Bureau on the designated transfer date, but for the 
     application of subsection (d).
       ``(2) All authority to carry out examinations of 
     nondepository covered persons that would have been conferred 
     upon the Bureau on the designated transfer date, but for the 
     application of subsection (d).
       ``(3) All functions of the Bureau under this subtitle that 
     would have been conferred upon the Bureau on the designated 
     transfer date, but for the application of subsection (d).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 
1315, which will transfer all authority that the CFPB would receive to 
the Secretary of the Treasury if no Commission chair is in place by 
July 21 until such time as the confirmation by the other body.
  There is no more blatant effort to derail the consumer protections 
than the section of this bill that delays the full transfer of 
authority that the CFPB would have to protect consumers until a 
Director is in place.
  Under the Republican bill, the Bureau would not be able to do 
anything starting today, even write rules under the existing consumer 
laws as Dodd-Frank envisioned. As we know, there are 44 Republican 
Members of the other body that have indicated in writing in a letter to 
the President that they will not vote to confirm anyone unless 
President Obama bends to their demands that would weaken the CFPB.
  The Republican bill is not about improvements; it's about preventing 
the CFPB from effectively operating. This week, the President nominated 
former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to be the CFPB's first 
Director. He is now the Director of enforcement there, and will bring a 
voice for State AGs to enforce consumer laws. I hope that the other 
body will act on his nomination as soon as possible, but we know that 
there are 44 who say they will not confirm anyone. I do not believe 
that consumers should have to wait for this process to go forward. They 
should be protected today.
  My amendment says that if they are going to delay the ability of the 
Agency to protect consumers, at least give that authority to the 
Secretary of the Treasury until a Director is confirmed to head the 
Bureau. Now, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
indicated their concern that there is no one officially at the helm; 
then let Treasury have that authority until a Director has been 
confirmed so that it can begin to go forward with the protections that 
Dodd-Frank envisioned.

                              {time}  1740

  This includes the authority the bureau is set to receive today as 
well as the new supervisory authority for nonbank financial 
institutions and new rulemaking under unfair, deceptive, and abusive 
practices. Consumers should not have to wait any longer. My amendment 
will ensure that work can begin to advance the important mission of the 
CFPB.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I am opposed to the amendment offered by the gentlelady, 
my ranking member. We work really well together, I think, on the 
subcommittee. We obviously have differences, and this is one.
  The portion of the bill that she's talking about is actually the 
portion that I created. It was really a creation of a couple of months 
ago. Probably in April, I began to think to myself: The President 
hasn't made an appointment to the marque bureau to protect consumers, 
and he's had almost an entire year to do this. The handwriting was 
going to be on the wall in terms of trying to get a Senate 
confirmation. Certainly, you're not going to get one in 4 days, which 
is what he tried when he nominated somebody on Monday, finally.
  So the thought for me is that we have enormous powers vested in one 
individual. The bill was written to have them. The minority leader was 
down here saying the oversight that is provided by Senate confirmation 
is the Congress's stamp of approval of the direction this individual 
wants to take this bureau. Yet, we have a situation where we have a 
President who's waited an entire, let's see, 361 days before making an 
appointment, and we're in a position where we're going to have an 
acting or recess appointment with a very powerful position without any 
input or oversight in the nominating process that moves forward and is 
vested in the United States Senate.
  I just think that's a problem. I think that the President had had due 
time to accomplish this, and we're going to say to the Treasury 
Secretary, We're going to give it to you. Quite frankly, I think the 
Treasury Secretary is pretty busy right now dealing with debt limit 
issues and trying to solve other problems that we have in front of us 
financially. Our economy, we have 9.2 percent unemployment. We've got 
to get the wheels turning here, and I'm sure that's where the Secretary 
is putting his energy, appropriately so.
  I just think that this is an agency that's starting with one hand 
tied behind their back because of the fault of the chief executive who 
has not appointed a person that could seek and get Senate confirmation, 
and I think that without that person, with the oversight of a Senate 
confirmation, taking the reins of this very powerful bureau that's just 
been created, we would be getting off on the wrong foot.
  I would oppose the gentlelady's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY. May I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Well, first of all, the President has made an 
appointment, and he confronts a threat by 44 Members of the other body 
who say they won't confirm anyone unless the powers of the CFPB are 
diminished and it's de-fanged and weakened. Consumers should not have 
to wait for a political confirmation process that the Republicans in 
the other body have vowed that they're going to hold up. They should be 
able to move forward with these critical protections and go forward.
  I must tell you that the American public is fed up with the delays 
and the

[[Page 11721]]

efforts by the other body to prevent consumer protections. If we had 
had a CFPB in place, we could have prevented the financial downturn in 
2008 which caused the high unemployment that the gentlelady is 
concerned about.
  The CFPB is carefully constructed, urgently needed, and should be 
allowed to go forward to protect consumers. My amendment will allow 
that to happen. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Being lectured by a member of the 
Republican Party on the importance of confirmation at the CFPB is like 
being lectured about birth control by the Octomom. Forty-four 
Republican Senators have outrageously announced they will not do their 
constitutional duty and they will confirm nobody, no matter how good, 
until we agree to weaken the agency.
  So what we have is a perfect double play here between House and 
Senate Republicans. Senate Republicans say we will confirm nobody, 
House Republicans say the agency won't function until you get a 
confirmation, which the Senate Republicans have refused to do.
  I wish the President had appointed someone earlier. I'm critical of 
him for not doing that. But I don't want to punish the American people, 
the beneficiaries of this, by that failure to appoint earlier. By the 
way, with the Secretary of the Treasury having the authority until now, 
a lot has been done. Holly Petraeus was put there. A lot of other 
people were there. They've done some good stuff.
  Let's not give in to the Republican blackmail in the Senate.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my request 
for a recorded vote on amendment No. 3 be withdrawn.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Oregon?
  Without objection, the request for a recorded vote on amendment no. 3 
is withdrawn, and the amendment stands adopted by the voice vote 
thereon.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Lankford

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 112-172.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 7. INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT.

       Section 1013 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
     Consumer Protection Act is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(h) Inspector General Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than February 1, 2012, and 
     annually thereafter, the Inspector General of the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Bureau of 
     Consumer Financial Protection shall submit a report to the 
     Congress containing the following:
       ``(A) A list of all new rules, guidelines, and regulations 
     prescribed by the Bureau within the previous fiscal year, 
     with corresponding detailed descriptions of each.
       ``(B) A detailed list of all authority which the Inspector 
     General believes overlaps with the efforts of other Federal 
     departments and agencies.
       ``(C) All administrative expenses of the Bureau, including 
     the amount spent on salaries, office supplies, and office 
     space.
       ``(D) The current amount in the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection Fund.
       ``(2) Public disclosure.--The Inspector General of the 
     Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the 
     Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection shall make each 
     report submitted under paragraph (1) available to the public, 
     including on the Bureau's website.
       ``(3) Use of funds.--The Inspector General shall carry out 
     this subsection using existing funds.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Similar to Mr. Quigley's amendment earlier--his amendment was to 
provide transparency at CFPB meetings--this amendment brings 
transparency to the regulatory process decisions, cost and staff 
structure.
  Both parties want reliable information from the Inspectors General of 
every agency and of this bureau. Congress has a responsibility for 
oversight. That responsibility is not possible without good 
information. This will make the CFPB consistent with other agencies in 
oversight transparency.
  Because this new Federal Bureau is within the Federal Reserve, we 
must provide, Congress, citizen watchdog groups and the general public 
with the tools for proper oversight.
  The Lankford amendment will put in place a mechanism for bureau 
transparency. Specifically, this amendment would require the Inspectors 
General of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to post online and submit an 
annual report to Congress each February 1 illuminating four key 
elements in the bureau's operations during the previous fiscal year:
  Number one, a list of all new rules, guidelines, regulations 
prescribed by the bureau within the previous fiscal year with 
corresponding descriptions of each.
  Number two, a detailed list of all authority that the Federal Reserve 
Inspector General deems in conflict with other Federal departments and 
agencies.
  Number three, administrative expenses of the bureau, including the 
amount spent on salaries, office supplies, and office space.
  Number four, the current balance at the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, their fund itself.
  As lawmakers, we have to have quality information at our disposal to 
conduct our constitutionally required duty of oversight. The report 
required by this amendment would provide Congress and the public a 
broad look into the operations of the bureau.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in tentative 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I could be persuaded as I would like to 
be, but I am the only speaker, and since I am defending the committee's 
position, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANKFORD. I yield to the gentlelady from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would just like to tell the gentleman I support his 
amendment. I think it lends itself, again, to transparency and full 
accountability. I thank him for bringing it forward. Good work from the 
gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the amendment. I've had a chance to think 
about it, and I am persuaded by its merits. I think this is a genuinely 
helpful amendment.
  But I do want to take this opportunity in this 5 minutes to talk 
about broader issues, and I do so, I will say--I would not 
extraordinarily have done this, to take this 5 minutes in this way, but 
the rule was so outrageously stingy in refusing adequate debate time on 
some central issues that we have no option but to use this perfectly 
reasonable amendment as an opportunity to

[[Page 11722]]

say what we were prevented by the rule from saying.
  By the way, there's one part of the rule that should be mentioned 
that I didn't have time to talk about earlier. The regular order that 
my Republican colleagues promised has been beat up pretty good 
recently, and certainly by this rule.
  The Congressional Budget Office says that their effort to expand the 
head of the consumer agency to a five-member commission will cost $71 
million over the 5-year period. Now, that violates their CutGo rule, 
but they don't care that much about violating their rules when it suits 
their ideology. But they found an offset. What's the offset? The offset 
is a bill that the House already passed to save money from the Federal 
Housing Administration, the FHA.
  So here's what they're doing. They're reaching back, and the rule 
retroactively merges the two bills. How's that for the regular order? 
It's a rule that retroactively takes a bill that already passed, saves 
money within the FHA, and instead of using that either for deficit 
reduction entirely or for easing people's ability to get housing, they 
use it to offset their extra bureaucracy here in this bill.
  Beyond that, I want to talk again about the fundamental issues. Some 
on the Republican side have apparently undergone a conversion. I don't 
want to not take ``yes'' for an answer. Apparently they are now in 
favor of an agency that they vigorously opposed last year and the year 
before.
  We had a special markup. The gentleman from Alabama incorrectly said 
he never voted against this. Well, someone claiming to be the gentleman 
from Alabama attended a markup when we voted on this in committee and 
voted against it, as did the gentlewoman from West Virginia, as did 
virtually everyone on the Republican side. Instead, they supported a 
substitute from the gentlewoman from Illinois which did nothing--well, 
I take it back. It said that all the regulators could get together, 
plus the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury--I don't 
know who else--and they could set up a hotline for consumers and have a 
Web site, but any information taken in would go back to those same 
regulators.
  So they have consistently opposed it, and that's why they're so 
wounded. How dare we say that they're not in favor of this agency? 
Because we were there when they tried to kill it, we there when they 
voted against it, and we understand that they don't want to see it go 
forward. They are prudent, however. They understand that it would not 
be a good idea to attack it head-on, so they're trying a sideways 
attack, most importantly by saying that the bank regulators--they 
wanted to leave consumer protection with the bank regulators. That was 
the Biggert substitute.
  The FDIC, the Federal Reserve more than anybody else, because they're 
the key bank regulator of consumer affairs--I don't know who came up 
with that--they would put the bank regulators back in charge of this 
agency by letting them overturn by majority vote anything the agency 
does. They say, Well, we're just going back to where you were. No, we 
were never for that. In fact, we're totally reversing.
  And now we have the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York, and 
the gentlewoman from West Virginia--you know, there's a children's book 
where somebody says, I can believe 10 impossible things before 
breakfast. Well, I'll give the gentlewoman credit for moderation. She 
only said one impossible thing before dinner. She said we must have a 
confirmation. Confirmation is important. She should tell that to her 
Senate colleagues. Forty-four Republican Senators, not the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Brown) or the Senators from Maine, Ms. Collins and 
Ms. Snowe, 44 of them, enough to filibuster, have said, We wouldn't 
confirm anybody.
  So I hope someone will explain to me: How can the manager of the bill 
get up and say confirmation is important, we can't allow this to go 
forward unless there's confirmation, we won't allow the powers to go 
forward unless there's conformation, knowing that there can't be 
confirmation, not because the President was late, as he was--and I was 
critical of him for doing that--but because the Republican majority 
says they won't confirm?
  And then they complain there might be a recess appointment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Rigell

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 112-172.
  Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the of the bill the following new section:

     SEC. 7. ANALYSIS OF REGULATIONS.

       Section 1022 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
     Consumer Protection Act is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Analysis of Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each time the Bureau proposes a new rule 
     or regulation, the Bureau shall--
       ``(A) carry out an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
     for such proposed rule or regulation, which shall be carried 
     out as closely as possible to those initial regulatory 
     flexibility analyses required under section 603 of title 5, 
     United States Code, but which shall analyze the financial 
     impact of the proposed rule or regulation on all financial 
     entities, regardless of size; and
       ``(B) carry out an analysis of whether the proposed rule or 
     regulation will impair the ability of individuals and small 
     business to access credit from financial institutions.
       ``(2) Report.--The Bureau shall issue a report to the 
     Council on the analyses carried out under paragraph (1), and 
     make such analyses available to the public.
       ``(3) Use of existing resources.--The Bureau shall use 
     existing resources to carry out the requirements of this 
     subsection.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 358, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, Americans across this great land are 
hurting. Families are being hurt by excessively high unemployment. It 
is right now at 9.2 percent. In the Second District, it's high, and my 
wife, Teri, and I have dear friends who have lost their family 
businesses because of, I think, policies that have come out of this 
very institution, a hyperactive Federal Government.
  So I rise today to offer an amendment that would directly address one 
of the principal reasons that I believe that our small businesses are 
having such a difficult time--and I know this firsthand because I am a 
small business owner--and that's a lack of credit.
  My amendment would require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
to submit a financial impact analysis on each proposed rule or 
regulation that it intends to layer upon our Nation's lenders. It would 
expand the cost analysis to include financial institutions of all 
sizes, not just the smaller ones that are currently under the cost 
analysis portion of the bill. Most importantly, though, the amendment 
would require the bureau to submit an analysis to the council on how 
the proposed regulation would impair the ability of individuals and our 
small businesses to access credit.
  I've spent a lot of time, Mr. Chairman, in our district listening to 
small business owners and our local community bankers, not the big 
banks up in New York but the local banks. They've given me a clear 
indication of the struggle that our small business owners are having 
when it comes to acquiring credit. They're saying, Scott, we're not 
hiring account executives to go out and meet with our small business 
owners. We're hiring regulatory analysts to figure out and sort through 
Dodd-Frank, and now there's just yet another layer that's coming upon 
our local lenders. They're really struggling.
  Mr. Chairman, what I've done in this amendment is to offer a 
reasonable solution that just would require that bureau to pause and to 
calculate and to

[[Page 11723]]

distribute to the public a clear indication of the impact that the 
regulation would have both on the lending institution and on credit for 
our small business owners and individuals.
  I believe this is a very prudent amendment. Given the hyperactive 
nature of our Federal Government, it continues to grow, it continues to 
reach out and, I think, choke out the life of the small business 
entrepreneur.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It really is 
about confidence. The hardworking folks that I know in the district, 
they want to know that we really are going to start in a reasonable and 
responsible way to contain this ever-expanding Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I close with this. I am not an advocate for no 
regulation, I'm an advocate for smarter and lighter regulation, and I 
think this amendment meets that test. I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Himes).
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, I was moved to come to the floor to argue in 
opposition to this amendment and in opposition to the underlying 
legislation. I was moved because the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
are both about reports and analyses that this new agency will be 
required to produce. And it's odd, because to give my friends on the 
other side credit, they usually stand for more streamlined and 
efficient government, sometimes to the point that government ceases to 
function; but they are about efficiency and streamlining, and yet here 
we're hearing about more reports and more analyses, for the simple 
reason that this is part of a larger strategy to weigh down, to 
underfund, and to decapitate an agency they have no interest in seeing 
survive, an agency that would protect consumers, that would protect 
that group that was badly and most severely harmed in the disaster that 
we just went through.
  Why? One can speculate. Perhaps it's to stand for the industry, for 
the financial concerns. But why do that? Why do that when it has been 
proven time and time again, not just in the last 3 years but over 
hundreds of years, that financial services is a very volatile and very 
risky pursuit that if not adequately regulated will do what it has done 
in the last 3 years, will do what it did in the late 1920s, what it has 
done hundreds of years prior, collapse in upon itself.

                              {time}  1800

  This is regulation that is smart, that is commonsense, and that will 
protect the American family from products that could destroy that 
family. So let's not weigh down this agency. Let's not decapitate it. 
Let's not underfund it. Let's let it survive to protect American 
families.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Sometimes it really is helpful, when 
you want to amend the law, to read the law. This amendment is almost 
completely redundant, and where it is not redundant, it is annoyingly 
pointless.
  This is what the law already requires:
  Before the CFPB can adopt a rule, it has to consider the potential 
benefits and costs to consumers and to the financial industry. It has 
to consider the impact of the rule. It has to consider whether it 
constricts credit, whether it makes it harder for small businesses or 
individuals--households--to get credit. All this amendment would 
require is already in the bill.
  The CFPB's rulemaking requires that they give notice that they're 
going to consider a rule, and then they've got to take comment. Then 
they've got to propose a rule, and then they've got to take comment 
again. They know that, if anybody is against it, they've got to be 
prepared to defend it in court, and they've got to show that they 
developed the evidence that supports the rule and supports what the 
benefits are and what the costs are and whether it keeps people from 
getting credit.
  What this amendment would also do is to make the CFPB prepare this 
report when nobody is against it, when everybody is perfectly fine with 
it, when it doesn't hurt anybody, when it doesn't bother anybody. It's 
minor. It's procedural. It would still require this silly, pointless 
report for a rule that nobody is against.
  I understand that most Members do not want to make government 
unwieldy and filled with red tape. This amendment would just make 
government more unwieldy and filled with more red tape. So I oppose the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112-172 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
  Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mrs. Maloney of New York.
  Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Rigell of Virginia.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 239, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 615]

                               AYES--170

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

[[Page 11724]]


     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--239

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

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bachmann
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Butterfield
     Castor (FL)
     Costa
     Denham
     Ellison
     Giffords
     Griffith (VA)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Landry
     Larson (CT)
     Lynch
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Rogers (AL)
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Wilson (FL)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1829

  Messrs. BENISHEK and CRITZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ALTMIRE, PALLONE, CLEAVER, CARNEY, Mrs. DAVIS of California, 
Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, LARSEN of Washington, GRIJALVA, and 
GARAMENDI changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 615, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 615 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


        Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Miller of North Carolina

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). The unfinished business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 238, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 616]

                               AYES--175

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce

[[Page 11725]]


     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bachmann
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Butterfield
     Castor (FL)
     Costa
     Doggett
     Ellison
     Giffords
     Griffith (VA)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Landry
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1834

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 240, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 617]

                               AYES--175

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--240

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

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bachmann
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Butterfield
     Castor (FL)
     Costa
     Ellison
     Giffords
     Griffith (VA)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Landry
     Pelosi
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute left in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1837

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 244, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 618]

                               AYES--168

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey

[[Page 11726]]


     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--244

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

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bachmann
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Butterfield
     Castor (FL)
     Clarke (MI)
     Costa
     Ellison
     Giffords
     Griffith (VA)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Landry
     Mack
     Pelosi
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1841

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Rigell

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Rigell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246, 
noes 167, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 619]

                               AYES--246

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

                               NOES--167

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson

[[Page 11727]]


     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bachmann
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Butterfield
     Castor (FL)
     Costa
     Ellison
     Giffords
     Griffith (VA)
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Issa
     Landry
     Pelosi
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1845

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 1315) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial 
Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of 
Consumer Financial Protection, and, pursuant to House Resolution 358, 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. MICHAUD. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Michaud moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1315 to the 
     Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 1, after line 4, insert the following new section (and 
     redesignate succeeding sections accordingly):

     SEC. 2. PROTECTING SENIORS FROM ABUSIVE, PREDATORY, UNFAIR, 
                   AND DECEPTIVE FINANCIAL PRACTICES.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act, or the amendments 
     made by this Act, shall limit the authority of the Bureau of 
     Consumer Financial Protection with respect to a rule or 
     regulation issued by the Bureau, where the primary purpose of 
     such rule or regulation is the prevention of abusive, 
     predatory, unfair, or deceptive acts or practices that prey 
     on the financial security of seniors, including fraud 
     relating to their Social Security and Medicare benefits, 
     foreclosure, robosigning and reverse mortgages, and pensions 
     or other retirement savings.
       (b) Senior Defined.--For purposes of this Act and section 
     1023(c)(3)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
     Consumer Protection Act, the term ``senior'' shall have the 
     meaning given the term ``older individual'' under section 
     102(40) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
     3002(40)).
       Page 1, line 12, insert the following before the quotation 
     marks: ``, except that the affirmative vote of \2/3\ of the 
     members of the Council then serving shall be required if the 
     primary purpose of the regulation is the prevention of 
     abusive, predatory, unfair, or deceptive acts or practices 
     that prey on the financial security of seniors, including 
     fraud relating to their Social Security and Medicare 
     benefits, foreclosure, robosigning and reverse mortgages, and 
     pensions or other retirement savings''.

  Mr. MICHAUD (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maine?
  Mr. DUFFY. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Maine is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I offer this final amendment today for two 
reasons. First, to improve the bill one last time before we vote on 
final passage. And second, to provide Congress an opportunity to come 
together on an issue that all of us can agree on: protecting our 
seniors.
  In the last 8 years that I have been a Member of Congress, I have had 
the opportunity to work with Republicans and Democrats alike to ensure 
that older Americans have the security and the quality of life that 
they deserve.
  I am hopeful my amendment today will present another chance for my 
friends on both sides of the aisle to vote for something because it is 
good policy, regardless of our different politics.
  This final amendment would ensure that nothing will prevent the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from issuing rules or regulations 
that protect our seniors.
  Specifically it makes sure that the bureau is fully able to protect 
seniors' Social Security and Medicare benefits, mortgages, pensions, 
and other retirement savings from fraud.
  In my State of Maine, seniors are frequent targets of predatory 
practices intended to cheat them out of their money. Our Republican 
Governor Paul LePage recognized this disturbing reality when he 
announced new efforts to guard seniors from these scams just last month 
on Elder Abuse Awareness Day. The governor's efforts and my amendment 
are badly needed to protect our seniors. A 2010 survey of 7.3 million 
older Americans found that one out of every five citizens over the age 
of 65 has been a victim of a fraudulent scheme.
  Even more are at risk of becoming victims, 37 percent of seniors are 
currently being contacted by people calling them asking for money, 
lotteries, and other scams.
  I think we all can agree that Congress needs to act now to stop 
people from preying on seniors' finances and to protect their Medicare 
and Social Security benefits from scams. My final amendment to this 
bill will do just that.
  I want to highlight two stories of fraud targeted at older Americans 
in my State of Maine. These heartbreaking examples show why it is so 
important for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be able to 
protect our seniors.
  Carolyn and Ray Thompson live in Brewer, Maine. And like many 
Mainers, they are big advocates of green energy and like a good 
opportunity when they see one. So when they heard from their friends 
about a man who owned a patent for a new form of windmill technology 
and was looking for investors, Carolyn and Ray were excited about the 
possibility of investing in windmill projects. So they did invest, to 
the tune of $30,000, thinking they were putting their money in an 
investment that would provide a secure future for their children.
  But on a trip to view the windmill technology, they were not 
impressed by what they saw and became suspicious. Their suspicions were 
justified, and the opportunity proved to be a scam that took tens of 
thousands of dollars of their savings. Thankfully, the scammer was 
convicted of fraud earlier this month, but the Thompsons are unlikely 
to get their money back.
  The second story is about Lucianne, a retired teacher from Caribou, 
Maine, who passed away last year from breast

[[Page 11728]]

cancer. Three years before she died, she met with an insurance agent 
from Maine who took advantage of her age and repeatedly gave her bad 
financial advice for his financial gain. He convinced her to buy and 
finance a snowmobile for him to use. He got her to buy a long-term life 
insurance policy that she couldn't afford. And he advised her to cash 
out some of her stock portfolio to make financial expenditures that 
were bad and that really caused her Medicare premiums to skyrocket.
  Lucianne passed away in November and did not live to see the agent 
lose his license. But her story lives on today as compelling evidence 
that Congress needs to protect our seniors from fraud.
  So I ask my colleagues to join me today to support my amendment. We 
all have constituents like Lucianne and like Mr. and Mrs. Thompson.
  This final amendment will not prevent this bill from moving forward. 
If it is adopted, it will simply be incorporated into the bill, and the 
bill will be immediately voted on.
  I offer this final amendment today to protect our seniors, and I hope 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting it. 
I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this final amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in 
opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, this motion on the floor today is just a 
political stunt that is going to undo the goodwill of my bill. Let's be 
clear, after nearly 20 hours of hearings and debates in our 
subcommittee and in our committee, this issue specifically has not been 
raised by my friends across the aisle. And then today, we spent nearly 
3 hours on the floor and not once was this specific issue raised. This 
is no more than political theater.
  But I have good news for my friends across the aisle, because in our 
committee we dealt with a similar issue, one where I made a motion to 
designate one of five commissioners to specifically deal with the 
protection of our seniors. The bad news is that every Democrat voted 
against that amendment.
  Let's be clear. Everybody in this House wants to make sure their 
friends, their family members, their neighbors and constituents, when 
they deal with banks, their transactions are fair and transparent. We 
want to make sure of that. But I want to specifically talk about one 
very important issue that is raised in my bill that fixes the 
underlying law, because when you look at the CFPB as currently written, 
there is the ability to have rules reviewed, but the only way a rule 
can get reviewed is if you are a big bank on Wall Street. If you are 
one of those banks that participated in the financial crisis, if you 
are a big bank that is too big to fail, the way the underlying law has 
been written, Mr. Speaker, you have a voice with the way the current 
law is written with the CFPB.
  What my bill does is it actually gives a voice to small community 
banks and credit unions who deal with families all across America.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. Speaker, my bill doesn't just give a voice to Wall Street banks, 
the big banks. What my bill does is it gives a voice to small community 
banks, gives a voice to credit unions. So if a rule comes out that 
affects negatively the small community banks and the credit unions, 
they have a voice to ask that it be overturned. And it's those very 
small banks and credit unions that our families across this country 
look to when they want to get a loan for a car or mortgage for their 
home. Not only that, it's those small banks and credit unions that give 
capital to small businesses that expand and grow and create jobs for 
our hardworking families right here in America.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is commonsense reform. This is reform that 
is going to do justice to the CFPB. I would ask that you join with me 
and Main Street America and vote against this motion to recommit and 
vote for the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 232, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 620]

                               AYES--183

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--232

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo

[[Page 11729]]


     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bachmann
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Butterfield
     Castor (FL)
     Costa
     Ellison
     Giffords
     Griffith (VA)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Landry
     Pelosi
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1919

  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CUELLAR and Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 173, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 621]

                               AYES--241

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

                               NOES--173

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bachmann
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Butterfield
     Castor (FL)
     Costa
     Ellison
     Giffords
     Griffith (VA)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Landry
     Pelosi
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Speier
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1927

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

                          ____________________