Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1315) to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and for other purposes.

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.

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 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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 359 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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

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

House Resolution 359 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2551, the fiscal year 2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2551. This rule represents a continuance of fulfilling the new Republican majority's pledge to implement a more open legislative process in providing for consideration of a bipartisan list of 16 amendments, which is more than at any time dating back to at least 1988. Twelve amendments were made in order in both the second session of the 103rd Congress and the first session of the 104th.

This is in stark contrast to the past two Congresses in which Democrat domination of this House provided for a collective grand total of four amendments that were allowed to be debated during the past 4 years, when three were made in order during the first session of the 110th and one in the first session of the 111th.

In fact, even considering a Legislative Branch appropriations bill is a change of pace from Democrat control when 2 years yielded no consideration of standalone funding legislation, second sessions of both the 110th and the 111th Congresses. In other words, with the consideration of this single rule and bill, the House Republican majority is making in order four times as many amendments on standalone legislative branch appropriations legislation as were provided for in the previous 4 years of liberal Democrat House domination combined.

Given the terrible budgetary mess we inherited from the liberal Democrats, the underlying bill reflects the Republican House majority's continued drive for restoring the fiscal restraint that is so desperately needed in this city.

The bill appropriates $3.3 billion for legislative branch entities, including $1.2 billion for House operations and $2.1 billion for legislative branch agencies and other offices, including the Capitol Police, Congressional Budget Office, the Library of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and Government Printing Office. This total is $227 million, or 6 percent less than the current funding, and $472 million, or 9 percent less than requested by the offices and agencies covered by this bill.

The cuts come on top of the 2.5 percent, or $115 million, cut from fiscal year 2010 contained in H.R. 1473, which was the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution deal that was ultimately signed into law.

That bill provided $4.5 billion for the legislative branch, including a reduction of $55 million in funding for the House from the year before, and provides a 5 percent cut in Member, committee, and leadership office expenses, except for the Appropriations Committee, which offered a larger 9 percent cut.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I will insert at this place in the Record a budgetary outline of H.R. 2551.

Out of the $1.2 billion provided in this bill for House

operations:

$574 million is provided for operating members' offices,

$39 million (or 6%) less than current funding and $60 million

(or 9%) less than requested.

$293 million for allowances and expenses, $24 million

(representing 8%) less than current funding and $15 million

(or 5%) less than requested.

$153 million for salaries and expenses of House committees,

$10 million (representing 6%) less than current funding, and

$10 million (or 6%) less than requested. -and-

$178 million for functions performed by the various House

officers and employees, including the Clerk of the House, the

Sergeant at Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer, $16

million (or 8%) less than current funding, and $26 million

(representing 13%) less than requested.

Furthermore, the bill provides funding levels for the

following agencies:

$490 million for the Architect of the Capitol, which is $37

million (or 7%) less than the current level, and $129 million

(or 21%) less than requested.

$340 million for the Capitol Police which is equal the

current funding, but $47 million (or 12%) less than

requested.

$575 million for various activities of the Library of

Congress which is $53 million (or 9%) less than the current

level and $91 million (or 14%) less than requested.

$113 million for activities of GPO which is $22 million (or

16%) less than current funding and $35 million (24%) less

than requested.

$44 million for CBO which is $3 million (or 6%) less than

current funding and $3 million (or 7%) less than requested.

$511 million for GAO which is $35 million (6%) less than

current funding and $46 million (8%) less than requested.

Even with all of these funding reductions, it's easy for those who look at Washington, D.C., and see only political dysfunction to oppose providing any funding at all for the legislative branch. While they may see this bill simply as a vehicle for fattening the paychecks of congressional staff and other undesirables, we must remember the important work these support people provide in the function of the most important branch of government.

Contrary to popular belief, congressional staffers work notoriously long hours for relatively little pay and help us represent the views of our constituents. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of constituents throughout the country are helped to navigate the Federal bureaucracy every day by our local case workers working in nearby district offices. Their work here is hardly the self-enrichment many people are led to believe by populist media sources eager to pose the catchiest headlines.

At the same time, we must remember the many important functions this funding provides in serving and protecting the American public. Given ever-evolving security threats, this bill funds the Capitol Police who protect critical infrastructure as well as secure the safety of the thousands who visit Capitol Hill every day. And we thank the Capitol Police for their invaluable service.

Furthermore, this bill's funding provides for the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of 17.4 million square feet of buildings and more than 460 acres of land throughout Capitol Hill, including the House and Senate office buildings, the U.S. Capitol, Capitol Visitor Center, the Library of Congress buildings, the Supreme Court buildings, the U.S. Botanic Gardens, the Capitol power plant, and other facilities which are needed for Presidential inaugurations and other ceremonies of national importance.

The responsible funding level in this bill provides adequate funding for the critical functions of the legislative branch but also represents a step in the right direction towards enhancing government efficiency. During these times of fiscal restraint, this bill underscores the new House Republican majority's will to share in the pain of difficult spending decisions.

Mr. Speaker, not too long ago, it used to be that if funding levels weren't rising fast enough, then Congress was seen as cutting a program. That reality is no longer. When the new House Republican majority says we're going to cut spending, we actually reduce spending. This is the commonsense understanding of the American people which is reflected in the underlying legislation. And I will urge my colleagues over and over to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Colorado would have the American people believe that we can't make any cuts in spending at the Federal Government level, but I don't believe that argument is going to go very far. The American people know that we can make big cuts in spending at the Federal Government level, and Republicans are making sensible cuts in spending at the Federal Government level. In the leg branch, it's not a huge amount of money that we have control over; but we believe, on our side of the aisle, that we should make spending cuts everywhere.

Many millions of Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats took control of this Congress in January of 2007. We had a 4.5 percent unemployment rate when they took over, and now we've had north of a 9 percent unemployment rate for several years. Those people didn't have any choice at all about whether they continued their income or not. What we're saying is, we want to continue the vital functions, those particularly that serve the American people. We want to keep this Capitol looking great.

We want to keep the Capitol Police force at full force. We want to give them the tools that they need. But everybody in Washington, D.C., can work a little harder and spend a little less money to make it easier on the American public, and that's what we're recommending in this bill. And I believe this rule does a very good job of representing the amendments that were presented to the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on about what are the problems that we're facing here, but I think it's better if I quote someone who put some of the situation that we have here in perspective. And so I'd like to quote a Washington Post article by Charles Krauthammer, a brilliant essayist, who put forward this article.

He said other solutions are being suggested by ``the man who ignored the debt problem for 2 years by kicking the can to a commission.

``Promptly ignored the commission's December 2010 report.

``Delivered a State of the Union address in January that didn't even mention the word `debt' until 35 minutes into the speech.

``Delivered in February a budget so embarrassing--it actually increased the deficit--that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected it 97-0.

``Took a budget mulligan with his April 13 debt plan speech. Asked in Congress how this new `budget framework' would affect the actual Federal budget, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf replied with a devastating `We don't estimate speeches.' You can't assign numbers to air.

``The flip-flop is transparently political. A clever strategy it is: Do nothing and invite the Republicans to propose real debt reduction first; and when they do--voting for the Ryan budget and its now infamous and courageous Medicare reform--demagogue them to death.

``And then up the ante by demanding Republican agreement to tax increases. So first you get the GOP to seize the left's third rail by daring to lay a finger on entitlements. Then you demand the GOP seize the right's third rail by violating its no-tax pledge. A full spectrum electrocution. Brilliant.

``And what have been Obama's own debt reduction ideas? In last week's news conference, he railed against the tax break for corporate jet owners--six times.

``I did the math. If you collect that tax for the next 5,000 years-- that's not a typo, 5,000 years--it would equal the new debt Obama racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since-- first in shekels, then in dollars--we would have 500 years to go before we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone.

``Obama's other favorite debt reduction refrain is canceling an oil company tax break. Well, if you collect that oil tax and the corporate jet tax for the next 50 years, you will not have offset Obama's deficit spending for February 2011.''

Mr. Speaker, there you have it: Liberal hypocrisy exposed in another brilliant Krauthammer essay.

The choice before the American people is clear. We can either continue accommodating the passions of the liberal elite in cementing a bloated dependency state fueled by job-crushing tax increases, or we can trim spending so private sector employers and innovators, who are the real creators of wealth, can do what they do best in healing the wounds of unsustainable government largesse.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply cannot stand any kind of cuts. What they want are tax increases and continued irresponsible spending.

Republicans are bringing a different message, a message from the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that Members of Congress should be extravagant in their spending in any way whatsoever, but I think it's up to the voters to hold those Members responsible for what they do. If there is a Member that is leasing a car that's paying an exorbitant amount of money, then the voters should turn that person out if they think they're wasting their money. I would certainly think that person is wasting his or her money. That's up to the voters to take care of.

We're doing our part here in the Congress. We are balancing between making sensible cuts and making sure that the public is well served when it visits Washington, D.C., and the public should be well served by the individual Members. And I hope that if there are abuses on the part of any Member of Congress, no matter which party he or she belongs to, that the voters will look into that and take care of that

person. But that is not our exact responsibility here. Our responsibility is, as it is everywhere, to allow a certain amount of money to be spent in the Members' offices, and then each Member should be held individually responsible.

Mr. Speaker, we have discussed at great length today why America needs this rule and this bill. Voting for these measures will allow the House to continue its work toward resolving the debt crisis currently gripping the Nation. As we continue this debate, we must remember the simple truth that tax increases have been tried before and led us to the mess that we have today.

We should not be raising taxes because tax increases do nothing more than fuel parasitic, wasteful government spending. We are cutting the spending for the leg branch in a very responsible way, and that's what we should be doing. But it is past time that we pursue an innovative idea, one that is unparalleled in modern American history, and that is to cut spending and shorten the long arm of government that is currently choking economic prosperity. That is what is happening in every appropriations bill that we're passing.

As we rapidly approach our Federal debt ceiling, our economy is struggling and people are looking for jobs. Americans crave accountability and belt-tightening in Washington and need the Federal Government to stop draining job-creating resources from the private sector to fund misguided adventures in social engineering. They demand action and they deserve answers.

H.R. 2551, for which this rule provides consideration, reflects the House Republican majority's unending commitment to restore the fiscal discipline that is so long overdue in this city. It represents a sensible balance between the vital need for budget restraint and funding the critical functions of the legislative branch.

Without compromising the safety or security of critical infrastructure, this bill further trims the fat and encourages efficiencies while demonstrating that we are not immune to feeling the effects of much needed spending cuts that are so desperately needed throughout our bloated Federal bureaucracy.

It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill so that we can begin to restore the trust Americans have in their Federal Government.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

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.