Responsible Consumer Financial Protection Regulations Act of 2011

First, I want to express my objection to the rule. The chairman of the Rules Committee said maybe I can get a unanimous consent agreement to modify it.

All amendments are not created equal. This rule gives a total of 10 minutes for each amendment, five and five. That is simply inadequate-- grossly inadequate--for discussing some of these important issues. There are two amendments in particular where I will be approaching my colleagues in the majority to see if we can get an extension of time. If that is not the case, I will be very, very disappointed that major issues here on this important subject of consumer protection would be given only 5 minutes on each side. Now let's get to the substance.

My Republican colleagues have had a little bit of a change of heart since last year. When we debated this bill in committee--actually, we debated it in 2009 in committee, this particular section--they wanted to kill the whole bureau. They were opposed to the notion of an independent consumer bureau.

Understand where we are. Consumer protection has always, until last year, been consigned to the financial regulators. Indeed, the largest single share of consumer protection was given, of all entities, to the Federal Reserve--and it's been, at best, a second thought for them and for some a non-thought. And the Republican position during the debate on this was: Do not set up a separate agency. Now they say, well, we're not opposing a separate agency, we just want to dismantle it, in effect. So we will get into the specifics, but let's be clear: This is as close as they dare come now because of public opinion to abolishing the whole agency. They want to weaken it, and then they will want to undercut it altogether.

Of course, this is the third major assault they've made on the financial reform bill. Yesterday in committee, incredibly the Financial Services Committee voted to reduce the liability that rating agencies will face if they put an inaccurate statement into a prospectus. And if you buy that security based on inaccuracies in the rating agencies, they want to lessen what we try to give people in the bill as a right to sue. And of course consistently the Republicans have voted specifically to deny to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the funds that they would need to deal with speculation in energy. And Mr. Kingston, on behalf of the majority, said speculation's got nothing to do with the oil prices. No one believes that except apparently him and maybe those Republicans who voted with him. Today there is an assault on the most important thing that's ever been done to protect consumers in the financial area.

Now the Republicans have been saying, we're not trying to kill it, we just want to make it work a little better. But last year--and I will put in the Record statements from about a dozen of the Republicans--Mr. Garrett, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Price, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Bachus, many others--making very clear they didn't want the whole agency. So this notion that they're just trying to improve it is belied by the fact that they tried to kill it.

But even then, Mr. Bachus sometimes has trouble sticking to his own line. Here's what he said this morning on CNBC: ``We're not trying to kill it. That has been totally misrepresented. Republicans stand strongly behind consumer protection. We, however, think that safety and soundness has to be considered. So we don't worry about a Federal Reserve or an FDIC, but we do worry about a consumer protection agency whose sole goal is to benefit consumers without considering how that benefit affects the stability of our financial institutions.'' Well, it doesn't go the other way. They don't worry about what the financial institutions do to the consumers. But let me read again what he says, We do worry about a consumer protection agency whose sole goal is to benefit consumers without worrying about the poor banks.

What the bill will do will be to put the bank regulators back in charge of consumer protection--and these are the bank regulators of whom Mr. Bachus, the chairman of the committee, earlier said the regulator's job is to serve the banks. So in roundabout ways they are trying to accomplish here what they admitted they want to accomplish before.

The consumer agency does not have an aggressive role. It doesn't go out there and do things in a positive way; it is a protection agency. Now we passed a credit card regulation bill--and many on the Republican side were very opposed to that a couple of years ago; it has worked very well. One of the main authors, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), is here. That has helped people, it hasn't hurt them.

One of the things the consumer agency gets under our bill is the power to cover currently nonregulated entities--payday lenders, mortgage lenders--who aren't covered. Frankly, that's in the interest of the consumer. The Credit Union Federation likes much of the Republican bill, but they don't like the part that would slow down the takeover of regulation over their competitors.

Bad mortgages were not just a problem for individuals, they were a problem for the whole economy. We want to strengthen the ability to go after bad mortgages. They don't want that to happen. So let's be very clear: This is a party, the Republican Party, that tried to kill this-- --

Madam Speaker, what we have is, as the statements that I am submitting show, the Republicans wanted last year to maintain the status quo in which the regulators of the banks--whose job it is, according to the Republican chairman of the committee, to serve the banks--would maintain this. And they worry about an institution whose sole goal is to protect consumers. He says, We don't worry about the Federal Reserve, we don't worry about the FDIC, we worry about an institution whose sole goal is to protect the consumers.

They do understand that politically it's not a good idea to be fully straightforward about their intention--when they would really like to repeal it--but what they are trying to do instead today is substantially weaken it. And the most important thing they will do will be to put back in charge of the independent consumer regulator the very bank regulators who historically have not protected the consumer-- because some of them agreed with the chairman of the committee, the Republican chairman, that their job was to serve the banks--and it would substantially weaken consumer protection. I do not think that is the right way to go.

Excerpts From the Financial Services Committee October 2009 Markup of

H.R. 3126, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act

Rep. Price

``I think more appropriately, this bill would be called

`The Restricting the American Dream and Jobs Destruction

Act.' And I say that with all sincerity, pointing out that

there are multiple, multiple entities that cover literally

millions of jobs out there, that have gone on record and

said: This is absolutely the wrong direction in which to head

at this time, especially this time, a time of remarkable

economic challenge.''

Rep. Royce

``I'm afraid this legislation and the establishment of a

product approval agency will create more problems than it's

going to resolve, especially with respect to this safety and

soundness.''

Rep. Manzullo

``This is not the time to have additional rules and

regulations on products which are already regulated. And

then, to take 400 million dollars away from the Federal

Reserve, which could have outlawed 327s and 228s and the so-

called teaser mortgages, it doesn't make sense. This is like

cutting the police force by 20 or 30 percent. That's why I

have a big problem with why we're even considering this bill

when no agency wants it.''

Rep. Biggert

``What's the answer to the financial meltdown? How do we

prevent it from happening again? What's not the answer is to

create another federal agency. Allegedly, to protect

consumers. We already have the OCC, the OTS, the NCUA, the

FDIC and the Fed. The underlying bill would pile 50 state

regulators on top of that. Why not address the real problem

with these agencies instead of creating another one? Are we

creating another agency or a problem? Are we creating a

guarantee for consumers that they will certainly never be, or

less likely to be, caught up in a bad financial situation? Or

a product that they really shouldn't have signed the dotted

line for?

``No, there is no guarantee.''

Rep. Bachus

``Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that I believe this

underlying legislation creates a new large and expensive

government bureaucracy with broad and ambiguous powers that

will ration credit and limit consumer choice. The legislation

gives this new agency and its czar-like chairman or director

the power to impose both fees and taxes on all financial

products, which are broadly defined. It is not about consumer

protection. It is about creating a financial product approval

agency with the powers to review and approve financial

products. Real consumer protection must include consumer

choice, competitive markets, vigorous enforcement of anti-

fraud law, effective disclosure, and product innovation.

Regrettably, that is not what the Democratic proposal does.

Placing broad rule-making authorities in the hands of an

untested agency will limit innovation and restrict credit . .

. Congress should not create another layer of federal

bureaucracy whose mission includes rationing credit and

limiting choice.''

Rep. Bachus

``What we are creating here is a new Financial Products

Approval Agency that has the power to review and approve all

financial products. That means they have a right basically to

fix prices because they may not approve them unless a certain

price is agreed to. They could actually set a price.

They can ration credit, whatever else the credit card

legislation did last year and any benefit it had, it has

already resulted in people's credit limits being lowered, it

has resulted in interest rates going up on account, it has

resulted in annual fees being imposed. Consumers today have a

broader array of choices, and choice is good. Innovation is

good. In fact, I think the greatest form of consumer

protection is giving individuals a choice, if they have a

credit card and they want to choose a different credit card

or drop that credit card.

This bill is going to limit competition. It is not about

enforcing anti-fraud laws. It is not about effective

disclosure. It is not about protecting people from unethical

behavior.

It is placing broad rulemaking authority in the hands of an

untested agency, one that is going to be created from

scratch, one that has no appreciation for safety and

soundness, that has no history of financial regulation.

Now is not the time to restrict choice and credit. It is

not the time to start rationing these things. We have seen in

health care proposals to ration health care. We have seen

instances where the Government wants to come in and begin to

regulate the energy and how we create energy and said no to

nuclear energy.

Now we see it in financial services. We are witnessing a

broad expansion of Government interference and involvement.

None of those things, it was not choice that created the

financial crisis that we faced last year.''

Rep. Biggert

``You know, there is no question that our financial service

regulatory structure is broken, and for both consumers and

the health of our financial services industry and the

economy, we need to clean it up. However, I fear that we are

moving in the wrong direction when we strip from the banking

regulators their mission to protect consumers; instead, we

place the responsibility with a new government bureaucracy.''

Rep. McHenry

``What we have here is an agency that will restrict credit,

will restrict new products from being offered, innovation in

the private sector and in the financial marketplace, and in

the end, it will hurt consumers, not help them. This is a

credit constriction agency, not a consumer protection

agency.''

Rep. Bachmann

``I would also like to add to the conversation that I too

support the Biggert amendment, because the CFPA, in my

estimation, it would ultimately increase the costs on

American consumers and reduce the customized type of

products that are available to them, increase costs,

reduce the type of products.''

Rep. Hensarling

``Ultimately, we do not view this as a bill that promotes

consumer protection. Ultimately, what we have is a brand new

large draconian Federal agency with new sweeping powers that

is going to have the ability to declare financial products

and services unlawful based on subjective opinions about

``unfairness'' and subjective opinions about what is

'abusive.''

Rep. Neugebauer

``When you look at this bill, we're going to give

unprecedented authority to one individual, who's not elected,

to really, basically determine whatever kind of consumer

protection rule or regulation that they want to put on the

books. And they get to do that. You know, the American people

send their Members of Congress up here to make those

decisions. To look after their interests. And now, we're

going to relegate that decision, that empower this one

individual to do that. Somehow, I don't think that's in the

best interest of the American people.''

Madam Speaker, if I had to stand up here and defend weakening consumer protection in the area of financial activity, I wouldn't be too eager to do it either. So I understand the absence of discussion here.

Let me make one general point. When we legislate, you have to take history into account and what the balance is. The argument essentially of the Republican Party here is--and I wish it weren't partisan, but it is. They have made it partisan, not us. The position of the Republican Party is that there is a serious danger that we will overprotect the consumer. That the Federal regulators will do too much for the consumer. That's an extraordinary fear indeed to have. That's not a fear. It's a phobia. It is based on unreality.

The fact is, as we've seen this now, we were able to get that legislation enacted with the brilliant work of Elizabeth Warren, whose nomination did not come as it should have, although I very much admire the man who was nominated, Mr. Cordray, but what we had was an unusual moment because the irresponsible practices of many, not all, in the financial community--and by the way, let me repeat: Much of the problem came from the unregulated, not from the financial institutions. And one of the things we do in this bill, which is supported by the Credit Union National Association, is to cover the unregulated so that community banks and credit unions which did not cause this problem are protected from the pressures of unfair competition by the unregulated. But what we had was an unusual moment in which there was a great deal of public awareness of the need to deal with this. So we were able to get an independent consumer agency through, over the unanimous opposition of the Republican Party.

But as things go forward, the average citizen has got other things to worry about. So what we'll see is the bank lobbyists and the nonbank lobbyists and all the people who represent these mortgage lenders already trying to erode things. Apparently, my colleagues would like people to believe that they seriously think that the danger is we will protect the consumer too much. I defy anyone to show me a moment in American history when we did too much to protect consumers in the financial area. What we try to do here is to put something in place that will go against that overriding tendency to underprotect the consumer. And the Republicans say, Oh, no, we're for consumer protection. We're not trying to abolish this agency. Yes, they are.

Let me cite the bill they sponsored last year. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) supported the bill. What it did was, it would take the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, extend it to 14 members. It would put on there for consumer protection a whole range of Cabinet officers and others. And it would give them the power to study this issue. But it is very, very clear that this council would have no power.

Here's what it says. This is the Biggert bill that was submitted instead of an independent consumer agency with enforcement powers. Page 5: No provision of this subsection shall be construed as conferring any enforcement authority to the Council. Here's what it does to come to the aid of the beleaguered consumer. It sets up a hotline. I don't know what movies they've seen, but I can't remember one where a hotline rode to the rescue of the imperiled.

So they establish a toll-free hotline and Web site to contact regarding inquiries or complaints related to consumer protection. And what does this powerful council do with this important hotline? It refers the inquiries of complaints to the appropriate council member. You know who your council members are? The bank regulators, the Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency. So instead of having an independent agency--and yes, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Bachus, said, We think that safety and soundness has to be considered; so we don't worry about a Federal Reserve and FDIC. They had no interest in the fact that they underprotected consumers and allowed consumers to be abused, historically. We do worry, Mr. Bachus says, about a consumer protection agency whose sole goal is to benefit consumers without considering how that benefit affects the banks, because he believes the regulators are there to serve the banks.

So here's the Republican plan. It takes the bank regulators, you throw in a few other Cabinet officers, you get it to an unwieldy size. You let them do studies, and you let them set up a hotline. You let them set up a hotline. What a powerful tool. And when things come in over the hotline, they then refer them back to the very same bank regulators who failed to do this. Now, that's what they really wanted.

We were able to get this passed. And they know it's popular. They understand what the public thinks. The public does not think that the poor banks

need to be protected against these rapacious consumers. So they come up with--instead of repealing it outright--with ways to weaken it. We ought to reject this because this particular bill is a proxy for what they really want to do--abolishing the whole agency.

First, Madam Speaker, I want to reassure the gentleman from Texas I don't think he's sinister. I think he is opposed to effective consumer protection. I think he and the other Republicans, some of them believe--the chairman of the committee--that the regulators are there to serve the banks. I do believe that they were opposed to it last year. And I appreciate his honesty, his approach towards openness when he said perhaps they're against it. Perhaps they're against it. They understood it would be a bad idea to go all out to try to weaken it.

But let me respond to his point about confirmation. It's bogus, Madam Speaker. He said we're just trying to hold this up until there's a confirmation. But 44 Republican senators have announced that they will not allow any confirmation to go forward--they will filibuster it, and they have more than the 40 they need to do that--until the agency is weakened. They have said they will not allow it to go forward until we allow the bank regulators, who Republicans think are there to serve the banks, can overrule this. And they weren't just saying that about Elizabeth Warren. Forty-four Republican senators contradicted the gentleman from Texas. He talked about this wonderful confirmation process. It can't happen because 44 Republicans have said until we give in and weaken the agency, they won't confirm anybody.

My friend is unfair to the Republicans, because they do create more jobs in this bill. The CBO says this bill will cost $71 million because instead of the single administrator, they want to create four more bureaucrats, with more staff. CBO says this will cost $71 million.

So, in fact, there are some jobs they're going to create. They will be for bureaucrats who can dilute the activity of the consumer bureau.

Will the gentleman yield?

First, I would say the Comptroller of the Currency, which is in the Treasury for administrative purposes, is legally independent, and the Secretary of the Treasury has no right to interfere. The Comptroller of the Currency is not subject to appropriation; so the Comptroller of the Currency is even more independent.

The gentleman made a statement. I am ready to get to it. Do you want me to answer?

You made a statement about the Comptroller of the Currency, a statement which I thought was inaccurate, and I wanted to correct it.

Now, as to Elizabeth Warren, yes, that's what she originally proposed, and I decided and others on our side decided that this would be more effective. We thought, after listening, that the five-member commission wouldn't work as well, particularly with the Senate refusing to confirm with the 44 Senators.

So, yes. We listened, and we decided it would be a stronger agency.

A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I won't quite ask for them to take my words down, but the gentleman just simply misstated, blatantly, what I said. He said I want a single accountable czar. He was not quoting me. I said I wanted a single person.

It is that the gentleman misstated my words quite clearly, and I believe they should be taken down if he is not ready to rescind them.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 358 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The question before the House is, shall the House now consider H. Res. 358? That is really the question here.

While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. The waiver is simply made up in nature.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has issued cost estimates for each of the three bills included in the Rules Committee Print of H.R. 1315. The following statements were issued by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:

``H.R. 1315 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of State, local or tribal governments.''

``H.R. 1121 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of State, local or tribal governments.''

``H.R. 1667 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of State, local or tribal governments.''

Madam Speaker, these are the three sections--the bills--which are contained within the rule. As we have stated, as a result of what has been defined, there are no mandates. There is nothing in this bill which would cause the point of order to stand.

However, my friends on the other side of the aisle have also raised concerns about the amount of debate time provided for in this rule. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee takes great pride in its degree of openness; and under the leadership of Chairman David Dreier and of our Speaker, John Boehner, we have tried to accommodate this request. This rule continues that record of accomplishment by making in order 11 out of the 14 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. Of the three amendments not made in order, one was withdrawn by the sponsor; one was not germane to the bill, and one was duplicative of another amendment submitted.

I would also like to note for the record that the bill being considered today and every bill included in the Rules Committee Print went through regular order. The Financial Services Committee held hearings, a subcommittee markup, and a full committee markup of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I see that my friends are trying to make a point of order that simply does not exist. In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 358 provides for a structured rule, designated by the Rules Committee, for consideration of H.R. 1315. This rule allows for 11 of 14 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order.

Madam Speaker, this rule provides for debate and amendment opportunities for members of the minority and the majority to change the legislative text of the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This legislation, the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act, was introduced by my dear friend from Wisconsin, the Congressman Sean Duffy, on April 1, 2011. The bill went through regular order, with hearings, subcommittee markup, and a full committee markup.

I applaud my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama, Spencer Bachus, for providing such an open process and an opportunity for all members of the Financial Services Committee to participate in reforming and changing this bill.

Additionally, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman David Dreier, has once again provided Members of this body with a Rules Committee vote to ensure that we have transparency and an accountable structure under the rule which we're discussing today allowing Members from both sides of the aisle this opportunity to offer amendments and to join in the debate of the underlying legislation.

Today marks the first anniversary that President Obama signed into law the 1,300-page unprecedented Federal overhaul of the financial services industry, the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform Act.

I have the opportunity to discuss this bill today, and also I did last Congress. And we spoke at that time about its overarching reforms that were being made in that legislation. Additionally, I will discuss why and how it is bad for our current economy and what with the Republican underlying bill will do to protect consumers, ensure credit, and allow for economic growth.

Last year, I stood before this body to state that our friends on the other side of the aisle, that they were once again allowing the government to overstep its boundaries well into the private marketplace. One of the most far-reaching provisions of the Dodd-Frank bill that was signed into law last year is the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, best known as CFPB. The CFPB is a classic example of the government unnecessarily crippling its authority into the free enterprise system. This massive new Bureau will be led by a credit czar, who will have unprecedented and unchecked authority to restrict product choices for consumers and impose fees on consumer products and financial transactions. Just about any business or financial institution who offers any form of credit falls underneath the jurisdiction of the CFPB.

The new bureaucracy would raise costs for consumers. I will say this again--will raise costs for consumers. It will reduce the number and types of products available to them. It will increase the micromanagement of financial services firms and will greatly increase the confusion caused by differing and conflicting consumer laws across the United States.

The underlying bill we are voting on today is designed to promote greater accountability and transparency at the CFPB, and to ensure that the CFPB fulfills its consumer protection mandate without undermining the safety and soundness of the financial system. This bill achieves this mission by making the leadership structure of the CFPB a collegial body, streamlining the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or what is known as FSOC, their review and oversight of CFPB rules and regulations, and delaying the transfer of functions from other Federal regulatory bodies to the CFPB until the date on which the Chair of the Commission of the CFPB is confirmed by the Senate.

This comes, and it is of a great deal of importance since it was just this week that President Obama nominated Richard Cordray as the Director of the CFPB, which officially begins its oversight of banks with more than $10 billion in assets today.

So no Director, no mission statement, no accountability, no hearing in the Senate to confirm the person who would have this extensive authority and responsibility.

The Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act makes three important changes to the current CFPB:

First, it would change the vote required to set aside a CFPB regulation from two-thirds of the FSOC membership to a simple majority vote, excluding the Chair of the CFPB. A letter from the American Bankers Association, from May 3, 2011, states, and I quote, ``The very purpose of the FSOC was to avoid problems that could lead to risks that threaten the economy. To ignore the majority viewpoint of the regulators with this responsibility is completely counter to its mission statement and that of the council.'' This first provision ensures that the council carries out the intended mission and goal;

Second, the bill would clarify that the FSOC must set aside any CFPB provision that is inconsistent with the safe and sound operation of U.S. financial institutions;

Lastly, the bill amends Dodd-Frank which provided for the CFPB to be headed by a Director to be replaced with a bipartisan commission with the responsibility of exercising the Bureau's authorities. This was in the original House version of the bill and was changed by the Senate during conference.

In a letter sent by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, dated May 23, 2011, the U.S. Chamber expressed support, saying, ``The Chamber strongly supports this reform because it would conform the bureau to other independent agencies, ensure impartial decisionmaking, minimize the risk of regulatory capture, and ensure continued stability over the long term.''

Reforms to the CFPB as it stands are necessary to avoid business closures,

limitations to start-up companies, slower economic growth, and ensure that we do not hinder the free enterprise system. These are all in the best interest of consumers and our country.

The underlying legislation ensures that the original intent of this legislation is carried out in a fair and unbiased manner to ensure the future safety and soundness of our Nation's financial institutions.

I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in an encouragement to my dear colleague Ms. Slaughter, I would like to inform her that I have fewer speakers as a result of committee hearings and would encourage her to run through perhaps two of her speakers at this time and then I will be available with mine.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from San Antonio, Texas, a freshman member of this body, Congressman Francisco ``Quico'' Canseco.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm going to have to stand up for what we're here for today, and that is, Madam Speaker, that after this bill was passed, it took almost one year for the President to appoint the person who would run the CFPB. The person who runs the CFPB is required to have Senate confirmation. During Senate confirmation--and it's a process that takes place for senior administrators who run our government--during that period of time this person who is nominated by the President would be expected to come in on behalf of the agency as a result of understanding their mission statement and the things that they do and would be expected to come to the United States Senate and to express their ideas. This is a brand new agency. How it would be run, what their mandate would be, how they would manage the assets and resources not only of the agency but how they viewed that mission statement vis-a-vis the industry.

The President took a year to nominate this person. That person has not even begun their hearings. I think, and this is what Republicans think, and this is what our bill says today. I know the gentleman, Mr. Frank, said, Oh, no, Republicans have something far greater and bigger. It's that they don't want this agency. Well, perhaps we don't want the CFPB. Perhaps we don't. But that's not what we're here today saying. We're here saying that until that head of that agency has a chance--a brand new agency--has a chance--after all, it's taken a year to come and speak forthrightly to elected officials that are called Members of the Senate to answer questions about how they would run this agency, what the philosophies should be, what the intent of the agency is, how the interaction between other agencies really should be done, what they think of the law, and what they see their job as being. Those are important issues. And so Republicans are saying we should not move forward on that until such time as we are able to go through that process. So that's really what Republicans are here for.

I know there are a lot of people listening and watching and think there's something sinister about Republicans. This is common sense. Republicans are here talking about an agency that will have broad and almost unlimited access to the marketplace. To overregulate, if you look at the possibilities. And we're trying to say before we kick this thing off, let's make sure we have an idea of what the leader would say. Otherwise, we should go to a group of people who will run this, not just one.

So that's what we're here to do today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's perspective of looking into my brain and knowing what I think or talking about how 44 senators override what I'm saying. I would tend to offer the argument that as we near now the August recess, they had every understanding that the President, without this person going through hearings, having to come to Congress, to the Senate, to talk about and go through these hearings, that the President would just offer a recess appointment. In other words, bypassing exactly what we're talking about should happen, and that is where this brand-new nominated person, after a year, waiting until just a few weeks before the August recess.

Madam Speaker, what we're saying is we're not going to allow, in the Senate, the 44 Senators saying they're not going to allow a recess appointment where this person is appointed, nominated, and just gets it done because the Senate is gone. We're not going to allow him to skip out of coming and having to be thoughtful and talking about what he's going to do as the head of this CFPB.

So to say that 44 Senators really are trying to do the wrong thing or that I'm here trying to suggest something different is not true. We believe that this new agency must have the person who's going to head it to come to Congress, be forthright and open to hearing questions and responding back. I think that's open, honest, transparent, and legitimate. And if the President waited a year, he should expect that we would probably have an opinion that we would not want a recess appointment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Birmingham, Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

I appreciate the question.

I have no further requests for time.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has an opportunity today to ensure that we protect consumers and American business. Additionally, we have an opportunity to ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions in the United States. That's what we are also here to do.

Reforms to the CFPB are necessary and, I believe, timely. Congress must

and has a responsibility to do everything that we can to encourage economic growth, jump-start the free enterprise system and put Americans back to work. Growing our economy and slowing Federal spending will be the best way that we can work together to get our economy back on track, to get out of rising debt and also out of the financial malaise that's underway. This legislation provides for some of these necessary steps.

I applaud my colleagues. I thank my colleagues also on the Republican side who were here to not only defend what we're doing but to talk about the need for such action. This bill that we are facing here today has the support of the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the chairman of the Rules Committee, and I applaud them for providing such an open and transparent process. I also encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a reflection of the Nation's values. It embodies the ideals of fairness, accountability, and equality, values that help us define who we are as a people. Just as importantly, the CFPB brings accountability and transparency to the financial sector and reduces the risk that consumers will be sold financial products they don't understand and can't afford to buy.

The CFPB is already hard at work. This agency has started by proposing a simplified disclosure of mortgages so the consumers can read them--isn't that refreshing?--in plain language, the terms of an agreement, before signing on the dotted line.

Despite this valuable start, today's bill is designed to effectively neuter the agency before it can fully begin to serve the middle class. In so doing, this bill is a giveaway to special interests in the financial sector that fear they will finally be held accountable by the law.

Apparently unchastened by the economic crisis they plunged us into, financial firms continue to take advantage of unknowing consumers. Just this past year, a robo-signing scandal led to banks foreclosing on many families who had done absolutely nothing wrong. These firms will not stop trying to take advantage of people unless someone forces them to stop. Despite all this, the majority proposes that we weaken the very agency designed to protect consumers against illegal practices and unfair play.

The CFPB was launched thanks to the great work of Professor Elizabeth Warren and the team of professionals that she has assembled to launch the agency. Their work has been tireless and invaluable. Professor Warren acutely understands the struggles of American families and her words summarize nicely the choice Members of Congress are being asked to make today.

While speaking about the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB, Professor Warren said, ``I remain hopeful that those who want to cripple this consumer bureau will think again and remember the financial crisis--and the recession and job losses that it sparked-- began one lousy mortgage at a time. I also hope that when those Senators and Congressmen next go home they ask their constituents how they feel about fine print, about signing contracts with terms that are incomprehensible, and about learning the true cost of a financial transaction only later when fees are piled on or interest rates are reset.

``I hope they will ask the people in their district if they are opposed to an agency that is working to make prices clear, or if they think budgets should be cut for an agency that is trying to make sure that trillion-dollar banks follow the law.'' Members of this House would do well to remember her words.

Will we vote today to protect the middle class and the millions of consumers struggling to make ends meet, or will this body stand with financial lobbyists and leave the middle class to go it alone? In strongest possible terms, I urge my colleagues to take a vote that reflects our values and vote against this rule we're considering today and against the underlying bill.

Please let's stand up for the American families and help the helpless people who are simply struggling to get by despite what we have done for them.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas how many speakers remain on his side.

I would like to inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this rule and this bill will do nothing but get in the way of the important work of an agency designed to help consumers who are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lenders. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is not even up and running yet. There is no reason to think it won't work exactly as intended. Is that what the majority is afraid of?

Are they afraid that CFPB will make prices clear? that they will make terms and conditions clear? that they will ensure that mortgage disclosures are short, relevant and understandable by the consumer and the lender?

Are they worried about letting consumers shop for the best product at the lowest price? to help consumers understand the true cost of a financial transaction? that a cop on the beat will make sure the largest financial institutions in this country are following the law?

If that's what they're afraid of, then we don't want to join them, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill so that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can do its job without Congress getting in the way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank my colleagues for raising this issue.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is needed. House Republicans have today officially launched their legislative effort to make sure these protections will never have the chance to do the job of protecting our consumers and safeguarding the larger economy. It is as if our friends across the aisle are blind to the painful lessons of the Great Recession. It's the group that says let's pretend the recession never happened. The Republican strategy to defang, defuse, and delay the consumer protection agency ignores critical issues that contributed both to the credit bubble and the financial meltdown.

Deceptive and misleading practices, predatory lending, unsafe credit standards--these practices cost Americans dearly. According to the Federal Reserve, between 2007 and the final quarter of 2009, United States household wealth fell by $16.4 trillion of the net

worth, and that is terrible. That is a sum that would be more than enough to pay for the United States national debt. If the CFPB had been in place in 2001, we might have avoided this painful, disruptive economic downturn that has hurt our overall economy, our standing in the world, and our consumers. We must let the CFPB go into effect to protect our economy and protect our consumers.

I congratulate the gentlelady on her leadership.

I thank the great leader from New York State for her leadership on this committee and in this great Congress, and for fighting every day for the American people and New York State.

Madam Speaker, 1 year ago today, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This landmark law helped restore faith in our institutions and markets, helped our economy, and helped consumers. Yet on this historic day, my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing everything they can to defund, defang, and derail the important consumer protection office.

Now, what is this office supposed to do? It is going to make prices clear to consumers, risk clear to consumers, and make markets work for the American middle class families. We need this independent office.

For too long, no one was looking out for consumers and we paid dearly for it in the financial crisis. But now with the CFPB, everyone who takes out a student loan, everyone who takes out a mortgage, everyone who takes out any financial product will have a financial consumer protection agency on their side.

And we need this protection. Just yesterday, it was reported that one of our largest institutions received the largest fine ever, $84 million for illegally pushing borrowers into subprime mortgages--10,000 Americans in this suit alone--for falsifying loan documents. If a CFPB had been in place, that could have helped the 10,000 people.

Let me tell you I'm calling this Republican bill: Let's just forget that the financial crisis ever happened. Let's just forget the pain that it caused to people and the painful lessons of the great recession.

These practices cost our country dearly. According to the figures from the Federal Reserve, between the spring of 2007 and the first quarter of 2009, U.S. household wealth fell by about $16.4 trillion. That is pain to the overall economy and to American families. That is a sum that would be more than enough to pay off the entire U.S. national debt. And if the CFPB had been in place in 2001, we might have avoided the most painful and disruptive economic downturn in our lifetime.

We must fight to keep this in place to protect consumers. I believe when it comes to great recessions, once is more than enough. Let's stop these practices that hurt consumers. Protect our overall economy and protect our people. The American people agree: 73 percent favor it; 93 percent favor it. The American people favor the CFPB. We should let it open its doors to protect consumers.

I thank my good friend from Ohio for the time.

Madam Speaker, the Republican majority would like the American people to believe that a near financial collapse never happened, never occurred. To hear the majority's narrative over the course of the 112th Congress, you would think that nothing is wrong with the economy that deregulation and tax cuts for multi-millionaires and billionaires can't solve.

What the Republican majority refuses to acknowledge in their revisionist narrative is that their tax cuts for multi-millionaires and billionaires helped lead our country from surplus into massive deficits.

The majority's revisionist narrative also omits the fact that years of deregulation and lax oversight of financial institutions is what caused the economic downturn we are struggling to fully recover from.

Madam Speaker, the near collapse of the national economy not only cost the American people billions of dollars in bailouts but also resulted in millions of Americans losing their jobs, their homes and life savings through no fault of their own.

The number one priority of the 112th Congress should be to continue the economic recovery work of the 111th Congress. The American people expect the other side to work with the President and congressional Democrats to put Americans back to work.

So I find it unbelievable, Madam Speaker, that, in the face of 9.2 percent unemployment and when millions of Americans are struggling simply to stay in their homes, the majority would declare war on the very agency that would prevent a similar financial crisis from ever happening again.

By decreasing accountability, muddling decision-making and starving it for funds, the Republican majority is threatening to turn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau into a gridlocked agency that cannot possibly fulfill their mandate as a financial industry watchdog, leaving the American people once again vulnerable to the predatory lending that precipitated the financial collapse in the first place.

Madam Speaker, the 112th Congress has been in session for over 6 months, and we still have not had one comprehensive jobs bill, nor have we voted on one single bill that would help struggling homeowners stay in their homes. We have, unfortunately, been forced to vote to protect tax cuts for multi-millionaires and billionaires, we have voted to protect the profits of companies who ship jobs overseas, and we have voted on bills that undercut the social safety net for Americans at a time when the most vulnerable amongst us need it the most. In other words, Madam Speaker, we have wasted the American people's time.

If the Republican majority claims to speak for the American people, then perhaps they should listen to the American people, stop playing games and bring legislation to the floor that addresses the number one priority of the American people: jobs.

By bringing this bill to the floor, the Republican majority either doesn't remember the recent financial crisis or simply doesn't care about the hardships facing the American people.

I support the gentlewoman from Ohio in bringing this point of order.