Stop Oxy Abuse Act of 2011

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to one of the leaders on this committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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.

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.

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

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.

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. 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).

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. 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).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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.

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).

How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

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 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.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 very good one, and I'm sure we'll find a way to accommodate it. I thank her.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in tentative opposition.

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.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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. 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.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the committee.

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----

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.

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.

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. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining, please.

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. 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.

I yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee and chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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).

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).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

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. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the gentlelady's amendment.

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.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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 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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I claim time in opposition.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

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.