Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, sadly, last month, the world lost a great leader in the fight for freedom and democracy. Aristides Pereira was the first President of the Republic of Cape Verde. His work on behalf of the right of all people to self-government began more than sixty years ago, when he joined in the fight for independence for Cape Verde from Portugal. In 1956, he joined Amilcar Cabral in founding the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC) and became General Secretary of the party in 1973. In 1975, the efforts of these patriots came to fruition, and after the change in regime in Portugal that ushered in democracy in that country, Cape Verde became independent. In recognition of his great leadership, Aristides Pereira was the first President of the Republic of Cape Verde. He remained President of Cape Verde until 1991, when he was defeated for the office in a multi-party election by Antonio Mascarenhas Monteiro.

At that point, Aristides Pereira performed his third great service for the cause of the right of people to self-governance. His first effort was his leading role in the effort to win independence for his country. Next he served as its first President for sixteen years and helped establish it as an independent nation. Paradoxically, his third great service was when he was defeated for reelection and accepted the result of a democratic process and retired.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, there have been too few examples of well functioning democracy in many of the nations of the world that received independence after World War II, and we have seen recent sad examples in Africa of presidents refusing to accept the electoral results that were unfavorable to them. In many cases, those voted out of office after a long period were the leaders of independence movements, as was President Pereira. So the contrast between him and, for example, Robert Mugabe, is a very strong one. Aristides Pereira set a very important example of acceptance of democracy, even when its particular results were adverse to his own personal standing.

Today, Mr. Speaker, Cape Verde stands as a shining example of democracy and of the way in which democracy and responsible economic development complement each other. While Cape Verde was not endowed with great natural resources, it has been a success story economically as well as politically, refuting those who believe that economic development can only come at the expense of democratic governance. The economic success of Cape Verde within this democratic framework--again the precedent set by Aristides Pereira--has been recognized by both Republican and Democratic administrations in the U.S. Under President Bush, Cape Verde was in the first group of countries to receive funding under the Millenium Challenge Commission, and under the Obama administration its great economic responsibility has been recognized and it has continued to be one of the stars of that program.

Mr. Speaker, the career of Aristides Pereira is an inspiring one. He committed himself early in life to the fight for the right of people to self-government and remained a leader in that fight by his deeds, by his example and by his dignified presence in his country for a period exceeding sixty years.

Mr. Speaker, I join the people of Cape Verde in mourning the passage of a great leader, and in the pride they are entitled to take in his career and in the record of full acceptance of democratic self- government that is part of Aristides Pereira's legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the latest award recognizing the distinguished career of Dr. Brian Rothschild of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology.

Dr. Brian Rothschild was recently presented the prestigious Oscar Elton Sette Award for ``sustained excellence in marine fishery biology'' by the American Fisheries Society. For many years, it has been my privilege to work closely with Dr. Rothschild on numerous issues involving the fishing industry as well as marine science, maritime safety, and ocean studies. This has included discussions on global warming and renewable energy possibilities in the northeast as well as the development of critical partnerships abroad such as that which now exists between the University of the Azores and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth where he is the Montgomery Charter Professor of Marine Science. He has advised me and my staff on the critical issues that face both fishermen and scientists as these stewards of our oceans work to find that critical balance between sustainable fishing and conservation of fish stocks.

Dr. Rothschild has dedicated himself to public service by working in various government roles that have dealt with both fishery management and oceanography. I submit the following article into the record, which describes how Dr. Rothschild was recently honored by his peers for his important contributions to fishery science. I congratulate him, and thank him for his commitment to our community.

[From SouthCoastToday.com, Sept. 20, 2011]

SMAST Professor Honored for Fisheries Work

(By Don Cuddy)

Dr. Brian Rothschild, a distinguished professor at UMass

Dartmouth's School for Marine Science and Technology, has

again been honored by his peers in the scientific community.

Rothschild traveled to Seattle earlier this month as this

year's recipient of the Oscar Elton Sette Award, presented

annually by the American Fisheries Society to an individual

who has made ``sustained and important contributions to

marine fishery biology.''

Oscar Elton Sette was a pioneer in the development of

fisheries oceanography and is regarded by many fisheries

scientists as the father of modern fisheries oceanography in

the United States. A National Oceanographic and Atmospheric

Administration research vessel based in Hawaii is named for

him.

Rothschild was a friend and colleague of Sette in Honolulu

and while Sette was at Stanford University, and the pair co-

authored a report on skipjack tuna in 1996.

The American Fisheries Society describes itself as ``the

world's oldest and largest organization dedicated to

strengthening the fisheries profession, advancing fisheries

science and conserving fisheries resources.'' Its first

president was elected in 1870.

Rothschild has been working in fisheries for close to 60

years. As director of policy at NOAA, he oversaw the

successful implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act of 1976.

In 1986, Harvard University Press published his book

``Dynamics of Marine Fish Populations.'' This was the first

book to comprehensively address the abundance of fish

populations in historical, life-history and modeling

contexts, according to professor Changsheng Chen, one of his

colleagues at SMAST who put forward the nomination.

Among the major accomplishments credited to Rothschild is

his work on the scallop fishery. ``His innovative sampling

strategy, along with Kevin Stokesbury, for ocean scallops

allowed new assessments to be made, allowing the opening of

scallop beds and preventing the collapse of the most valuable

fishery in the U.S.,'' Cheng wrote in the nomination letter.

The citation on the award reads: ``For sustained excellence

in marine fishery biology through research, teaching,

administration or a combination of all three.''

Rothschild, who left for a global fishery conference in

Gdansk, Poland, on Friday, said he felt honored to receive

the award.

``I would like to thank all of my colleagues,'' he said.

``It's so great to be working in a field that is so important

to so many people.''

Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day in our fight to achieve full equality for all Americans in the face of prejudices of various sorts. To commemorate, I want to read a very extraordinary document. It is headlined, ``Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal.'' It's an official communication.

``Today marks the end of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell.' The law is repealed. From this day forward, gay and lesbian soldiers may serve in our Army with the dignity and respect they deserve. Our rules, regulations, and policies reflect the repeal guidance issued by the Department of Defense and will apply uniformly without regard to sexual orientation, which is a personal and private matter.

``For over 236 years, the U.S. Army has been an extraordinary force for good in the world. Our soldiers are the most agile, adaptable, and capable warriors in history--and we are ready for this change.

``Over the last several months, our leaders, soldiers and Department of the Army civilians have discussed, trained, and prepared for this day. The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have certified that repeal is consistent with military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention. Your professionalism, leadership, and respect for your fellow soldiers will ensure that this effort is successful.

``At the heart of our success is adherence to the Army values. These standards not only infuse every facet of our culture and operations, but also guide us as we adapt to change. Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage are not mere words to us--they are the very principles by which we live, train, and fight.

``Accordingly, we expect all personnel to follow our values by implementing the repeal fully, fairly, and in accordance with policy guidance. It is the duty of all personnel to treat each other with dignity and respect, while maintaining good order and discipline throughout our ranks. Doing so will help the U.S. Army remain the strength of the Nation.''

It is signed by Raymond F. Chandler, III, the Sergeant Major of the Army; Raymond T. Odierno, General, United States Army Chief of Staff; and John M. McHugh, Secretary of the Army and, parenthetically, our former colleague on the Republican side.

Mr. Speaker, we have a history in this country of prejudice being enacted; and through the efforts of many people, the policy embodying that prejudice can be overcome. And as we debate any single effort to overcome prejudice, we are told that the effect of diminishing that prejudice, the effect of repealing that rule will be chaos, will be disorder, will be social unrest; and it is never true.

Seven years ago, the State I am privileged to represent in this House established same-sex marriage; and there were predictions of doom, predictions that this would be a terribly upsetting factor. None of those predictions have come true. Not a one. As we debated last year the repeal of the unfortunate statute which said that brave and patriotic gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender members of the armed services would have to lie about who they were, would have to hide who they were or else lose the right to serve their country, a right which some evade but for which they were prepared to fight, we once again heard predictions that this would be disruptive, that it would cause diminution of the ability of our brave men and women to serve their purposes.

Let me predict today, Mr. Speaker, that every one of those prejudices 3 and 4 years from now will be proven as wrong as the predictions that same-sex marriage would be disorganizing. We will now see gay men and lesbians serving this country openly and proudly as they have been serving this country proudly, but unfortunately not openly, for some time. I hope people are making note of the predictions that were made on the floor of this House, in the Senate, and in the country about the negative consequences of ``don't ask don't tell,'' because they will soon be shown to have been wholly false.

Finally, I want to commend Sergeant Major Chandler, General Odierno, and Secretary McHugh. This is a very profound and important document. They are acting in the highest traditions of their constitutional duty, of patriotism, and of respect for our constitutional principles. I welcome this statement, and I believe it is going to be proven to be a harbinger of a situation in which the full integration of gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender members of the military goes forward with no negative consequences, with all of the positive consequences that come from respecting people and abolishing prejudice.

Madam Speaker, I'm a great fan of the tradition of comedy in America, and I want to salute my Republican colleagues for this tribute to one of our great comedians who died tragically early, Gilda Radner, who in the early days of ``Saturday Night Live'' invented the character of Roseanne Roseannadanna, who would get on the news segment and say something outlandish. And then when she was corrected, her response was, ``Never mind.''

This is the ``never mind'' resolution that the Republicans have brought forward. People should understand what this says. It says that the bill that we passed that kept the government from shutting down-- and I didn't like the bill, but I liked the part of it that kept the government from shutting down. I was ready to vote just for an increase in the debt limit. Singling out the increase in the debt limit and canceling it, that's what this does. What this says is--and here's the problem. We have a majority that has a problem with reality. They have a problem with reality in the field of science. They have a problem with reality in the field of the economy.

One of the manifestations of that is their objection to raising the debt limit that was in large part necessary because of debt they incurred. You know, when the debt limit came up, it struck me: It wasn't my debt limit; I didn't vote for the war in Iraq at a cost of a trillion dollars; I didn't vote to give millionaires a tax cut that they didn't need and that had no beneficial effect on the economy. But I did, out of a sense of responsibility, vote to raise the debt limit. Now, I voted against one of them, but I voted for several others.

What this bill says is this: Yes, we had to, because we were getting a lot of pressure, vote to raise the debt limit, but now that that is safely behind us, we're going to pretend that we were really against it. So this is the ``never mind'' resolution. People should understand this. What this resolution would do would be to undo what just happened.

So we have Members on the majority side who have trouble explaining to their primary voters why they had a temporary embrace of reality. Now they're not comfortable with that. Their primary voters aren't comfortable with that. So having done what they had to do, they now want to pretend that they're going to undo it.

The Senate has already killed this. They don't want it to pass because, understand what it would do, it would put us right back in the debt limit situation crisis.

And, by the way, these are people who are putting this resolution forward who purport to believe that a major concern with the economy today is the uncertainty that faces investors. So what do they do? They bring up a resolution today that would re-create--if anyone took it seriously, and I will give them the credit of saying that they don't. But if anyone took it seriously, it would re-create the greatest source of uncertainty we've seen in a long time, whether or not the Federal Government was going to shut down. So that's the phoniness of this.

Now let's talk about the substance. My colleagues claim to be against spending. Apparently, in their world, the nearly $700 billion that is spent annually by the Pentagon isn't spending. I don't know what it is. We have a situation in which this year in the budget the Republicans brought forward a bill to increase military spending by $17 billion while funds for local police and funds for local street repair were cut. So that's the problem.

Yes, I am for reducing spending. I am for reducing a swollen Pentagon budget. We had the President reduce by 10,000 the troops in Afghanistan. Many on the Republican side, including their leadership, criticized him for that. Do they think 10,000 troops in Afghanistan are paid for with ``funny'' money?

The fact is that while on the one hand we hear these complaints about spending, we have people who are pushing for more and more spending. And I

have to say here that I would include my administration in this. And I think if the President expects us to go along with certain restraints elsewhere, adding billions of dollars to what we have already wasted in Iraq by keeping thousands of troops in Iraq beyond this--and, by the way, why are we keeping troops in Iraq? One of the leading advocates for keeping troops in Iraq, a leading Republican Senator, Senator Graham, said we must keep our troops in Iraq because we have to police the border between the Arabs and the Kurds, that at a time when we are denying funds to our cities to police their own areas.

So, let's be clear. First of all, this sham says, You know what? We had to vote to raise the debt limit. We're now going to engage in this mock exercise of taking back what we did. If anybody takes it seriously, it will send waves of uncertainty back into the economy. But, secondly, going forward, yes, join us. And that includes some on the Republican side--unfortunately, a small minority. Don't give more and more and more for the military not to defend America, not to fight terrorism. Those things are not in controversy, but to subsidize the wealthy European nations.

Madam Speaker, the NATO nations outside the United States spend an average of 1.7 percent of their gross domestic product on the military. We spend 5.4 percent--more than three times as much. And my Republican colleagues have resisted reducing that. What they want to do is subsidize the social safety nets and the spending of Western Europe at the expense of spending here. And how do we do that? By allowing them to hold down the military.

So people who want to keep troops in Iraq; people who objected when the President began a withdrawal that was too timid, in my judgment, from Afghanistan; people who want to continue to spend unnecessarily and unwisely not to defend America but to keep America the worldwide policemen have no credibility in complaining about spending.

Mr. Speaker, many of us in Southeastern Massachusetts--and indeed in Massachusetts as a whole--had very mixed emotions on learning of the decision by University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Chancellor Jean MacCormack to retire. She will be greatly missed, and we cannot help but express our deep regret that she will be moving on from the position from which she has shown such extraordinary leadership educationally, economically and culturally. But given how hard Jean MacCormack has worked, how dedicated she has been to her students, to the faculty, and to the region of which that institution is such an important part, no one can begrudge her the decision to take a pause and move to different work.

I say different work, Mr. Speaker, because no one who knows the energy, passion for helping others and improving the world around her, and great gift for friendship that Jean

MacCormack possesses doubts that she will soon be doing something else of great value. But this is an appropriate time to note the wide range of very important contributions she has made to our region.

As the Member of the House proud to represent what has been for many years the leading fishing community in the United States, New Bedford, and its surrounding towns, I have derived enormous strength from the work that has been done at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth to support the fishing industry with first-rate research, and Jean MacCormack has been an essential factor in that effort.

Under her leadership, UMass Dartmouth has become a very important source of research and leadership for economic development in dealing with our ocean resources in general and UMass Dartmouth has played a very essential role in promoting the economic development of our region both with regard to some specific industries, including textiles and cranberries, in addition to fishing, and in general.

Many people talk about the important synergies that come from making sure that first-rate academic work is coordinated with economic development. Jean MacCormack has done as much as anyone I know to make that a reality. And I was very proud to be one of those who worked under her leadership to create the first public law school in the history of Massachusetts, with the merger of Southern New England Law School into the University of Massachusetts system, headquartered at the Dartmouth branch.

Mr. Speaker, Jean MacCormack was to me not just a great educational leader, but a great friend. No one could be in her presence without being made to feel valuable and to be entertained and instructed at the same time. I join with the population of Southeastern Massachusetts in thanking her for a job very well done and in wishing her well as we watch her move on to her next work.

And Mr. Speaker, as an indication of the impact Jean MacCormack has had, I ask that the excellent article from the New Bedford Standard Times about her career be printed here.

UMass Dartmouth Chancellor Stepping Down After This Year

(By Steve Urbon)

Dartmouth.--Expressing deep concern for the future of

public higher education in America, Jean F. MacCormack

Tuesday announced she will retire at the end of this academic

year as chancellor of the University of Massachusetts

Dartmouth.

MacCormack, 64, notified the campus at the annual faculty/

staff convocation breakfast and in a campus-wide email.

Noting the shrinking financial support for state-run

colleges and universities, MacCormack, both in her address

and in an interview, lamented the dwindling public support

and today's increasing hostility toward the public sector.

``They're angry at the government and it spills over,'' she

said.

But she did not say that was the reason for her retirement;

rather, she cited the wish to pursue other interests after

three decades of working ``24/7'' in college administration.

And despite the fact she has come under criticism

politically, she said politics had no bearing on her

decision.

Citing the 1862 Morrill Act signed by President Lincoln

establishing land-grant colleges, MacCormack said: ``We

simply cannot allow the debate to be dominated by negative

voices and allow the spirit and intent of the Morrill Act to

be hijacked. We cannot accept the new dogmas of the stormy

present to prevail. Too much is at stake for our nation and

our democracy.''

She said in her address that she sees no obvious strategy.

``I would love to tell you that I see a clear pathway for

improvement on the national issues, but instead I think those

possibilities are only slowly emerging from the name-calling

and the rancor. What I am quite certain about is that we must

find our voice in this national debate and become strong

advocates for not abandoning our nation's longstanding

commitment to the clear mission of public higher education.''

New Bedford Mayor Scott Lang, who has conducted hardball

negotiations with MacCormack and the university over land at

Fort Taber to expand SMAST, was effusive in his praise for

the chancellor.

``She's left a very long-lasting, positive legacy for the

university,'' Lang said. ``She's left a tremendous amount of

momentum in key areas that the next chancellor will need to

build on.

``I regard her as a friend. We don't agree on every issue

and we never, never will. But I enjoyed working with her.

It's in the interest of everyone in this region that our

university be extremely successful, innovative and a true

partner,'' Lang said.

During her tenure, which began in 1999 when she arrived

from UMass Boston, the campus expanded greatly, including a

visual and performing arts campus in downtown New Bedford,

the state's first public law school in Dartmouth, the

Charlton College of Business, vastly increased on-campus

housing, establishment of the School of Public Policy and

Education, and the Advanced Technology Manufacturing Center,

among others.

In her letter of resignation to UMass President Robert L.

Caret, MacCormack listed several pieces of unfinished

business that she hopes to complete. They include expansion

of the School of Marine Science and Technology in New

Bedford, the Bio-Manufacturing Center in Fall River, securing

American Bar Association accreditation for the law school,

finishing the renovation of the Claire T. Carney Library, and

``re-engineering enrollment and retention strategies to

address a changing marketplace.''

MacCormack expressed frustration at the difficulty in

getting enrollment up to 10,000 from 6,000. That's important,

she said, because the campus had a 10-1 student-teacher ratio

when it could support 16-1. With growth, she said, comes

fiscal stability because students pay fees and tuition, which

supports programs and development.

It also offsets steadily declining state support, down

below 20 percent of the budget from as much as 78 percent two

decades ago.

And yet, she said, public higher education accounts for 80

percent of enrollment and does--in theory, at least--offer as

good an education as private schools, although perhaps

without the connections a student can make at Harvard, for

example.

MacCormack touted her efforts to connect UMass Dartmouth

with the community, and said she will remain in SouthCoast to

perhaps write a book and take up community-related interests.

But she will retire, not return to teaching, to give herself

a breather after 30 years in administrative jobs that

required all of her time.

``UMass Dartmouth is already a model of a university whose

teaching and discovery is fully engaged in the life of its

community. I am sure that this campus will be attractive to

higher education leaders who strive to be entrepreneurial and

bold,'' she said in her address.

Margaret ``MarDee'' Xifaras, a local attorney and former

chairman of the Southern New England School of Law, which was

absorbed by UMass, said she doubts MacCormack will slow down

all that much.

``Neither one of us is constitutionally capable of doing

that,'' she said.

MacCormack's pending retirement did not strike her as much

of as surprise, she said. ``She always had a sort of a long-

term plan that obviously would include retiring, but she was

anxious to get things done, and she'll make sure certain

things are well under way.''

For merging the law school, Xifaras said, she will be

``eternally grateful'' to the chancellor. ``She was a

critical moving force,'' she said.

``Now its time for her to step back from a lifetime of

commitment to education. She will be missed.''

Fall River developer James Karam, chairman of the UMass

Board of Trustees, said, ``Jean has always understood that

educational opportunity was vital to our area and has worked

tirelessly to make sure that education of the highest quality

was available to all of our citizens.''

He added that MacCormack ``has worked to transform our

lives and in the process has transformed our region. She has

championed the SouthCoast and has our undying gratitude.''

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, August 1, I spoke on the floor to renew a request that I made along with 38 of my colleagues that the President commute the long prison sentence of Jonathan Pollard. None of us condone Mr. Pollard's espionage, and we do not ask that he be pardoned for his crime. We do believe that he has already served a much longer sentence than is close to that served for any comparable offense, and we believe that both compassion for an individual and the interests of strengthening American-Israeli ties in a way that can contribute to important decisions being made that can advance the peace process call for his commutation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the text of the letter and the list of signatories be included in today's Record.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, November 18, 2010.

President Barack Obama,

The White House,

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President, We write to urge you to use your

constitutional power to extend clemency to Jonathan Pollard,

thereby releasing him from prison after the time he has

already served. Mr. Pollard committed serious crimes and he

has expressed remorse. Such an exercise of the clemency power

would not in any way imply doubt about his guilt, nor cast

any aspersions on the process by which he was convicted.

Those who have such views are of course entitled to continue

to have them, but the clemency grant has nothing to do with

that.

We believe that there has been a great disparity from the

standpoint of justice between the amount of time Mr. Pollard

has served and the time that has been served--or not served

at all--by many others who were found guilty of similar

activity on behalf of nations that, like Israel, are not

adversarial to us. It is indisputable in our view that the

nearly twenty-five years that Mr. Pollard has served stands

as a sufficient time from the standpoint of either punishment

or deterrence.

In summary, we see clemency for Mr. Pollard as an act of

compassion justified by the way others have been treated by

our justice system. We urge you to use the clemency power in

this case.

Sincerely,

Rep. Barney Frank; Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr.; Rep. Edolphus

Towns; Rep. Anthony Weiner; Rep. Henry A. Waxman; Rep.

Gary L. Ackerman; Rep. Gregory W. Meeks; Rep. Maurice

D. Hinchey; Rep. Michael E. McMahon; Rep. Janice D.

Schakowsky; Rep. John W. Olver; Rep. Eliot L. Engel;

Rep. Theodore E. Deutch; Rep. Robert A. Brady; Rep,

Donald M. Payne; Rep. Shelley Berkley; Rep. Jerrold

Nadler; Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney; Rep. Steven R.

Rothman; Rep. Ron Klein; Rep. Raul M. Grijalva; Rep.

Steve Kagen; Rep. Carolyn McCarthy; Rep. Chaka Fattah;

Rep. John Lewis; Rep. Frank Pallone Jr.; Rep. Charles

B. Rangel; Rep. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott; Rep. Laura

Richardson; Rep. James A. Himes; Rep. Brad Sherman;

Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy; Rep. Bennie G. Thompson; Rep.

John J. Hall; Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee; Rep. Eleanor

Holmes Norton; Rep. Robert E. Andrews; Rep. Danny K.

Davis; Rep. Niki Tsongas.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year a group of Members sent a letter to President Obama urging him to grant clemency at this point and commute the sentence for Jonathan Pollard.

Jonathan Pollard spied on the United States on behalf of Israel. He should not have done that, and he was punished. But the punishment for that espionage has gone on longer than anything comparable.

I believe that there is a personal argument for the clemency, and there is also the fact that American-Israeli relations are always important, and are particularly important now. We are asking the Israelis to take some steps towards a negotiated peace that may or may not be possible for them to take. Knowing that America recognizes the strength of that friendship is a very important factor in our persuading them of that.

And I believe that in addition to the arguments based on the excessive length of the sentence, I think, the fact that Mr. Pollard has served for so long, clearly the deterrent effect is there, we are not asking that he be pardoned, we are not condoning his crime, we are saying that in addition to the personal argument, it would be a sign of U.S.-Israeli relations that I think would help strengthen the climate for peace. I will be submitting a copy of the letter at a later time that we sent to the President for inclusion.

Madam Speaker, we have a sad spectacle today of a substantive mess brought to us by a procedural bigger mess. But I can't entirely blame Speaker Boehner. We have seen him all week forced to retreat continually from an effort to be conservative but somewhat responsible to a position where today we have a bill that no one thinks will solve the problem because it makes as a prerequisite to raising the debt a constitutional amendment that no one thinks will pass.

I remember Speaker O'Neill when I got here, and there's one thing he and Speaker Boehner seem to have in common, and that's a theme song. Speaker O'Neill's theme song was ``I'll Be With You in Apple Blossom Time.'' By now, Speaker Boehner is entitled to take as his theme song ``It's My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To'' because his party has forced him to retreat, first of all, from the position he tried to take to get this thing done; and, secondly, from a set of promises he made procedurally. As a result of where we are today, with martial law rules and amendments being sprung and amendments not being vetted, there is no procedural promise that the Republicans made that they have left unbroken.

So we have a flawed bill, brought to us by a weakened Speaker, under an unfortunate and undemocratic process. Once it's out of the way, once whatever impulses have driven members of his own party so to undercut him are satisfied, maybe then in an adult way we can sit down and work this out.

Now, I expect to vote for something I don't like because we have to compromise, but this bill doesn't even begin to meet any kind of serious test.

Mr. Speaker, Members often come to the floor to talk about inspector general reports about agencies. And they are almost always critical of reports--reports that document shortcomings.

I'm very proud today to come to the floor to present excerpts from a joint report from the inspectors general of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, in which they give a perfect set of marks to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Those two agencies looked into this agency. This is an agency that is being set up, under fire, unfortunately, in a somewhat unusual situation. And what the inspectors general reported is that they've done everything right; that ``they identified and documented mission-critical activities and legislative mandates''; that the CFPB has developed and is implementing appropriate plans.

They found that they are implementing appropriate plans that support ongoing operations as well as the transfer of employees and functions. They created several agency-wide documents that identified and tracked priorities. ``We found that the agency has completed elements of its implementation plans and is making progress on others.''

It is a joint report from two inspectors general that says they've done everything right; so I want to put that forward.

I want to put it forward, in part, because the individual most singularly responsible for its great success, as she was for the idea and the creation of this agency, is Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren is one of the most able and dedicated individuals that I've ever encountered, who has dedicated herself to public service.

I regret very much that uninformed political opposition denied her the appointment to be the head of the agency, because she was not only the creator of this idea and a great partner for those of us on the Financial Services Committee--I see my colleague from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) who was an important part of this on the floor as we set this up in the face of significant opposition from vested interests and from ideologues--but in having had the idea, she then presided as the appointee of the Secretary of the Treasury and of the President to set this agency up in an extraordinary way. It is now, on the date when it takes off, ready to function. So she was not simply the creator of the idea and a great advocate, but she has shown herself to be a great administrator; and I regret the fact that she is not getting the appointment.

Although I have great confidence in the appointment of Mr. Cordray, whom the President appointed--he was an outstanding Attorney General, and he will be an outstanding Director--I want to reflect for just a minute on why we had such unwarranted opposition to a woman of great sense and of moderation, a woman who understands the market and was ready to help it function.

Part of it, I have to say, was gender bias. Along with Sheila Bair, recently departed as head of the FDIC, Ms. Warren encountered from some people--maybe unconsciously on their part--the notion that a very strong-willed woman with strong opinions might have a place but not in the financial sector; and I regret the loss of both of them. Yet there was also on the part of my most conservative Republican colleagues a recognition that she was a threat. I disagree with the position not to appoint her, but I give credit to President Obama and Secretary Geithner because they helped us get this agency created, and they did put her in the position and gave her their full backing to get it this far.

We would have ideologues here who would have people believe that government is always a bad thing, that less government is always better. We've seen it in this notion that we should cap government at X percent or Y percent--but I don't regard more firefighting as a bad thing; I don't think research into Alzheimer's and cancer is something we need to limit; I am not opposed to fixing bridges and highways. So this notion that government is always bad is mindless. There is a particular problem--and the private sector is a place that will create wealth, and I want us to do what we can to create the right conditions for the private sector, but there will be times when we need the government to protect people from the private sector. That was the rationale of the Consumer Bureau.

The Consumer Bureau was set up--and it's a very popular entity--to protect individual citizens from abuses in the private sector. It's working well. It was well-designed, I must say. It was well set up, as the inspectors general have said. So I believe my most right-wing colleagues are terrified. It is their false notion that the government is always the source of the problem and the private sector is always the source of the good. Sometimes the government does create problems, and much of the time the private sector does create wealth, but there are times when the public sector has to protect people from the private sector. The Consumer Bureau was set up for that.

Now, the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Bachus, said the other day, We don't worry about the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation of the Federal Reserve. What we worry about is an agency that exists solely to protect consumers. He is also the one who said that he thought the bank regulators were there to protect the banks, but we want to have a regulator there to protect the consumers.

So I salute Elizabeth Warren. I regret that she will not be able to continue the excellent work she has done, but it will live on as a tribute to both the idea she had, the political work she did with us to get it created, and the extraordinarily good administrative work she did in setting it up. I believe Mr. Cordray and the others will do a very good job and that we will soon have proof that the public sector can, in some cases, protect citizens from private sector abuses.

Results of the Joint Review

CFPB Identified and Documented Mission-Critical Activities and

Legislative Mandates

Based on CFPB planning documents and interviews of agency

officials, we found that CFPB identified and documented

implementation activities critical to standing up the

agency's functions and necessary to address certain Dodd-

Frank Act requirements. In addition to activities necessary

to establish the primary mission areas identified by the

Dodd-Frank Act, such as supervision and enforcement, CFPB

designed its organizational structure to account for other

mandated functional units as well, including offices for

financial education, fair lending, and service member

affairs, among others. Moreover, CFPB identified the

activities necessary to complete the transfer of employees

and data from the transferring agencies in a timely manner.

CFPB identified in its plans the need to establish a pay and

classification system, information security processes, and

financial management capabilities--areas required by the

Dodd-Frank Act.

In addition, CFPB prepared documentation addressing

critical activities vital to establishing a new agency. For

example, CFPB's plans identified core business activities--

such as securing office space, establishing procurement

capabilities, building payroll and benefits functions, and

designing an information technology infrastructure, among

others.

CFPB Developed and Is Implementing Appropriate Plans

We found that CFPB developed and is implementing

appropriate plans that support ongoing operations as well as

the transfer of employees and functions that will occur on

July 21, 2011. CFPB planned for mission-critical standup

activities and certain Dodd-Frank Act requirements. In July

2010, Treasury officials created a document that, according

to a CFPB official, served as a roadmap for implementation.

Overall, CFPB's approach was to create detailed planning

documents at the division level to provide input for the

agency-wide strategic plan. Most CFPB divisions maintained a

draft strategic plan, organizational chart, and

``dashboards'' that tracked implementation progress and

potential risks. The division-level strategic plans generally

included division-level missions, goals, deliverables, and

coordination activities. We also noted that these plans

included multiple phases that span beyond the designated

transfer date.

CFPB also created several agency-wide documents that

identified and tracked priorities and milestones for

implementation. For example, one priority for CFPB was the

transfer of employees from other agencies. To implement this

priority, CFPB maintained a detailed recruitment schedule,

developed coordination agreements with other agencies, and

allocated resources from the various divisions to timely

complete the employee transfer process.

In reviewing the agency's planning documents and discussing

the standup status with CFPB officials, we found that the

agency has completed elements of its implementation plans and

is making progress on others, including its overall strategic

plan. Nevertheless, CFPB's operational success will depend,

in part, on its ability to effectively execute its plans.

Mr. Speaker, last month, I met in my office with Joseph Petrowski, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Cumberland Gulf Group of Companies, headquartered in the district of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). I was interested in meeting with Mr. Petrowski to get his view of the current debate that is going on as to whether or not we should be taking action at the Federal level to curb speculation in the energy industry. As Mr. Petrowski notes in the accompanying letter, the Cumberland Gulf Group includes ``Gulf Oil, which distributes motor fuels through a network of more than 3,500 gasoline stations in over 27 States, 12 proprietary oil terminals, and more than 70 other supply terminals.'' As he notes, ``Gulf Oil supplies gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, jet fuel and kerosense through its terminal network.''

Mr. Speaker, the central point is that Mr. Petrowski, as someone who is in the business of selling various forms of fuel, for the ultimate purchase by individual consumers, rebuts those who argue that speculation is irrelevant to the price that is paid at the pump and elsewhere by consumers, as Mr. Petrowski notes in the accompanying letter, ``Today with price levels more volatile than ever, prices higher than ever, and open interest larger than ever, and both exchange and off exchange volume of trade a double digit multiple to physical usage, there is little doubt that speculation is a key determinant of prices and may very well be the determining factor in setting prices.''

Mr. Speaker, this point deserves great emphasis--to repeat, because of the centrality of this to our policy debate, the CEO of one of the leading distributors of gasoline, oil and diesel fuel affirms, based on the experience he has had in this industry for many years and the current economics, ``there is little doubt that speculation is the key determinant of prices and may very well be the determining factor in setting prices.''

Mr. Speaker, there has been a totally misguided effort here in this House to slash funds for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and to suspend until late next year the authority given by the Financial Reform bill to Federal regulators to limit speculation. Mr. Petrowski makes very clear that the effect of this is to add to higher prices through unchecked speculation, and given the authority that he brings to this issue, I ask that his very thoughtful letter on this subject be printed here.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to affirming the importance of speculation, Mr. Petrowski makes some other thoughtful suggestions about legislative changes and it is my intention to study these carefully and after that talk with my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee about acting on Mr. Petrowski's suggestions in some respects. But the key point is to affirm here what one of the leading voices in the fuel business thinks about speculation and the impact it has on the prices ultimately paid by retailers.

Cumberland Gulf Group

of Companies,

Framingham, MA, July 7, 2011.

Hon. Barney Frank,

U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Frank: While I understand some of the

criticism of the Dodd-Frank legislation, no legislation and

no reform effort is ever going to be perfect. All

administrative oversight and legislative response is a

continuous process as markets and technologies evolve. Dodd-

Frank was not

the end point of financial reform but a good first step in

addressing market structure in a way that would improve

performance. Having worked in the commodities and energy

business for over 35 years, I am well aware of how the

commodity markets operate and what factors determine the

price of energy, food stuffs, and other essential

commodities. I am a strong advocate of free markets but only

the most naive would claim that free markets can exist and

flourish without parameters and a framework of rules and

procedures that render the process fair. This has always been

so but never more so than today. Globalization, technology,

and securitization among other factors have amplified the

need for effective legislative and administrative oversight.

In my current capacity, I serve as CEO of the Cumberland

Gulf Group. Under that umbrella sits Gulf Oil, which

distributes motor fuels through a network of more than 3,500

gasoline stations in over 27 states, 12 proprietary oil

terminals, and more than 70 other supply terminals. Gulf Oil

supplies gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, jet fuel and

kerosene through its terminal network. Before coming to Gulf

Oil, I served as the Chief Executive Officer and President of

Louis Dreyfus Energy Corp., one of the largest commodities

traders in the world. In both capacities, as a trader and now

a fuel purchaser and supplier, I am intimately familiar with

the inner workings of the derivatives market.

As in any market, supply and demand play a critical role

for energy prices. The perception of the future pace of both

supply and demand are often more of a determinant of prices

than actual supply and demand. This can be frustrating to

members of the general public who sometimes see a price rise

or fall without any tangible change in current supply or

demand. Yet today with price levels more volatile than ever,

prices higher than ever, and open interest larger than ever,

and both exchange and off exchange volume of trade a double

digit multiple to physical usage, there is little doubt that

speculation is a key determinant of prices and may very well

be the determining factor in setting prices. And even if the

disproportionate increase in trade volume to physical usage

were not disturbing and one believed that in the end the

average price was still set by supply and demand forces

rather than financial speculation (an assertion with which I

would disagree), volatility induced by excess speculation is

not in the best interests of efficient markets, the general

public and industrial activity. Simply put, an oil market

that goes from $40/barrel to $147 per barrel and back to $32

per barrel in less than a year is destructive to society and

beneficial to only a very few.

I should note that speculation is not necessarily a bad

thing--it brings liquidity to the market and allows

commercial entities to hedge their risk on future contracts

for the trade of physical goods. However, there has been a

rapid increase of the participation in the market by non-

commercial entities such as hedge funds and financial

institutions. Those entities, depending on their behavior,

have the ability not only to speculate in the market but

manipulate the market. It is the regulation of these entities

that is most necessary and the Dodd-Frank Act brings

regulation to this market through a requirement of mandatory

clearing of swaps and the placement of position limits on

certain futures contracts, including energy. Financial

markets in certain aspects do resemble a casino and I am not

making a moral judgment on casinos but even a casino has

rules of engagement and enforcement that ensure a level

playing field. A rigged casino is certainly not good for most

participants and in the long run is not good for the casino

itself. Instruments of risk sharing and markets of financial

intermediation perform a vital function but they do not grow

spontaneously nor do they exist for long in a state of nature

absent oversight and rule making.

I have set forth some preliminary thoughts below on reforms

we need to improve market performance set forth below and

would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues in more

detail with you, your staff and others on the Financial

Services Committee.

1. Make the exchange requirements of what it means to be a

``Hedger'' much more stringent. Today, almost anyone with a

small and insignificant physical position can qualify as a

``hedger''. Also large entities with massive financial

strength can qualify as a hedger, exceed the speculative

limits in a given index or exchange instrument, manipulate

that index and then trade multiple volume contracts off that

index in non-exchange business. We see a proliferation of

financial and bank entities entering the physical market for

no other reason but to qualify for the more generous

liberties afforded a ``hedger''.

2. Raise the margin requirements for non-hedgers

significantly to minimize speculator-driven volatility and

still allow enough liquidity in the market so that entities

with real business purposes can transact. This will drive

weaker speculators out of the market. It will also

dramatically reduce volatility because the Variance Margin

buffer could be increased dramatically which would stop the

phenomenon of leverage that has often been at the foundation

of many financial train wrecks (see mortgage market). Assume

you are a $10/bbl balance sheet company. You buy 1 barrel of

oil costing $100 and you only have to post $6, the market

goes from $100 to $96, you are poised to sell quickly because

you know if it goes to $90, you are out of business, so you

start selling to make sure you can pull back your initial

margin to cover your variance margin and live to fight

another day (and likely lose as 90% of spec traders do). Now

imagine the same scenario with $30 margin requirements. The

market would never move enough for the trader to be concerned

about not having enough initial margin to pull back to cover

the variance. The fundamental/technical influence would shift

hard back towards the fundamental. I am not certain exactly

what the right margin increase should be (though 500% is not

out of the question from my perspective), but it is clear

that today the margin requirements are too low. The

phenomenon of sharp spikes in the absence of attributing

``events'' is evidence of a highly leveraged market.

3. The government should create a government-backed

exchange that helps long term consumers and producers hedge.

If a small land owner owns a 3,000 bbl/day well in middle

Kansas and wants to lock in his price at $95 a barrel for 5

years, how does he do it? Is he going to sell 5.5 million

barrels of futures on Nymex and post $32,000,000 in initial

margin? What happens if the price goes up $40 per barrel? Mr.

Small Producer is going to pay the exchange $220,000,000 in

margin and claw it back 3,000 bbls a day at a time? I think

not. Right now some of the banks will do that business but

they are enjoying ``healthy'' margins. If the government came

in and provided the credit umbrella (through a government

sponsored exchange) they would bring a lot of production to

the hedging market and would also incentivize both producers

and consumers to think long term. Users should have the

opportunity to lock in costs for longer durations and sellers

should be able to hedge out their revenue streams but credit,

financing costs, and other structural factors remain

impediments to development. While some might criticize this

proposal based upon the recent issues in the mortgage

markets, this would be an important reform to allow small

businesses to participate in the commodities markets. Such

liquidity was not the problem with mortgages, it was

leverage, lack of transparency, complexity, and very simply

in many cases dishonesty, that brought down the housing

market.

In general, all markets operate best when they are

transparent, liquid and not over leveraged. I am hopeful that

Congress will allow the Commodities Futures Trading

Commission to proceed with the implementation of the Dodd-

Frank Act. I strongly believe we will see positive effects

from this regulation on not only the price of oil but many

other commodities upon which our country relies.

Sincerely,

Joseph H. Petrowski,

Mr. Speaker, last week, one of Massachusetts' leading citizens succumbed to a long illness, which she had courageously fought. Myra Kraft was the partner and wife of Robert Kraft, and co-owner of the New England Patriots. Under the leadership of the Kraft family, the Patriots became one of the great sports franchises in America, not simply because of their extremely impressive record of Super Bowl championships, but because of the honorable way in which they conducted their business, and because of the great contributions they made to their community. I have the honor of representing the Town of Foxboro, in which the Patriots play, and in which the Kraft family created a wonderful commercial complex that adds a great deal to the economic and cultural life not just of the town but of the entire region.

Mr. Speaker, I've had the pleasure of walking through the complex with members of the Kraft family and I can report to you that the residents of New England--not just Massachusetts--are understandably great enthusiasts of the work the family has done.

Myra Kraft was an extraordinary contributor to the society around her, not just through the work of the Patriots, but through her great charitable efforts. She was a leading member of the organized work of the Jewish community of Greater Boston, but her good works were not confined.

All of Massachusetts will miss her, even those who did not know of the work she did, because she was not one to seek publicity for her efforts. And those of us who did have the privilege of knowing her are particularly saddened by her loss.

Mr. Speaker, the Boston Globe for Friday, July 22, in its lead editorial expressed what our community feels about Myra Kraft and I ask that because she presented such a wonderful example of good citizenship in a democracy, that this editorial be printed.

[From the Boston Globe, July 22, 2011]

Myra Kraft Was a Role Model for Family Loyalty and Giving

Bob Kraft, the developer turned football impresario, made

the once-derided New England Patriots a symbol of local

pride. Myra, his wife of 48 years, made the Kraft family a

symbol of civic responsibility. Her numerous charitable

works, including chairing the local boards of the Combined

Jewish Philanthropies and the Boys & Girls Clubs, paralleled

Bob's rise in the statewide business community

The Krafts were an unbreakable unit. Bob and Myra's four

sons shared in all their parents' endeavors. On May 3, the

Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce honored the family for

their work on behalf of the community, fueled by Myra's

tireless exertions.

She was too ill to attend the banquet, but her husband,

sons, daughters-in-law, and grandchildren all stood proudly

together on the dais--an honor guard of which any mother

would be eternally proud,

``I got it right the first time,'' quipped Bob, referring

to Myra, whom he married when she was just 20. Myra Kraft,

who died

Wednesday and for whom services will be held today made many

contributions to the Boston area. Foremost among them is the

example she set for family loyalty and shared commitment. It

will live on not only through her offspring, but through

others who tightened their own family bonds, even if in a

small way, in response to her inspiration.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, an organization with which I am proud to work closely on behalf of economic development in the Greater Fall River Area, and for sensible national policies, the Fall River Area Chamber of Commerce, recently published in the Fall River Herald News a very thoughtful article which ``respectfully urges Congress to place the nation ahead of party politics by raising the federal debt limit without delay.'' The Chamber notes that ``failure to increase the statutory debt limit in a timely fashion can have a significant and long lasting negative impact on any potential recovery in the towns and cities of the South Coast.''

Mr. Speaker, the Chamber understandably and correctly notes that they are ``extremely concerned about the level of the federal debt and the unchecked annual budget deficits that have become the new normal in Washington, DC''. I also agree with them that ``the U.S. government must learn to spend more wisely.'' And I believe that they have the sequencing of these issues in the correct form when they close by urging those of us in Congress to ``raise the federal debt ceiling and set in motion a dialogue to curb unchecked federal spending.'' I believe it is essential that we raise the debt ceiling and avoid negative economic consequences, and at the same time commit ourselves to adopting a set of policies that will substantially reduce the deficit over

time. For example, Mr. Speaker, I personally renew my call to our colleagues to put an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which no longer can be justified in terms of national security, and which together costs us well over $100 billion dollars a year, as part of a package of steps that will bring down our annual deficits.

[From the Herald News, July 13, 2011]

Chamber Urges Congress To Raise Debt Limit

(By Jason Rua and Robert A. Mellion)

The Fall River Area Chamber of Commerce and Industry

represents a broad range of businesses in the South Coast

region of Massachusetts.

Our membership employs tens of thousands of people

comprising all sectors of the economy including education and

high tech to healthcare, tourism and hospitality,

manufacturing, service and small businesses. They are also

the individuals who are making the local investments, taking

risks, creating jobs and through their taxes and payrolls,

providing the means for the community to afford the public

amenities we all enjoy.

That is why the chamber, on behalf of its diverse and

vested membership, respectfully urges Congress to place the

nation ahead of party politics by raising the federal debt

limit without delay. Failure to increase the statutory debt

limit in a timely fashion can have a significant and long-

lasting negative impact on any potential recovery in the

towns and cities of the South Coast. For that reason we urge

the Massachusetts congressional delegation to act prudently

by representing the best interests of your constituency.

Raising the statutory debt limit is critical to ensuring

global confidence in the creditworthiness of the United

States. Not acting decisively on this issue will raise

national interest rates and inevitably the ability of

businesses to secure financing.

With economic growth in the commonwealth of Massachusetts

slowly picking up for the first time in three years, we

cannot afford to jeopardize a few steps forward with the

threat of a massive spike in borrowing costs that would

result if our country defaulted on its international

obligations. To the contrary, it is practical economic theory

that the United States stands fully behind its legal

obligations.

In making such recommendations, business leaders in the

SouthCoast also remain extremely concerned about the level of

the federal debt and the unchecked annual budget deficits

that have become the new normal in Washington D.C. Balance to

our fiscal position is critical for national economic

sustainability and tough decisions on federal spending must

be made as part of a long term debate about the future of

this nation. Quite simply, the U.S. government must learn to

spend more wisely.

The chamber trusts that under the continued leadership

offered by the bipartisan Massachusetts congressional

delegation, Congress will again take the necessary steps to

preserve our nation's financial standing in the world. Such

stewardship is required in this 11th hour. Please ensure that

the national and Massachusetts economies continue on a path

toward restored prosperity. Raise the federal debt ceiling

and set in motion a dialogue to curb unchecked federal

spending.

Mr. Speaker, an extraordinary woman died earlier this month and she is mourned by a vast number of her closest relatives--the poor, the people down on their luck, and the homeless. Kip Tiernan had a passion for helping those most in need of help that was coupled with an extraordinary understanding of how to get things done, even in the bleakest situations. She was inspired both by her own passion for battling the pain of her fellow human beings, and by Dorothy Day, another extraordinary woman who, like Kip Tiernan, translated her Catholic faith into a daily routine of charity to the best sense. Among those who worked closely with Kip on behalf of the homeless was my mother, Elsie, and I take great pride that these two women, both now passed away, admired each other strongly, and each often told of their great respect for each other.

Mr. Speaker, on the Fourth of July the Boston Globe ran an article by Bryan Marquard that did a first-rate job of telling those who did not know Kip Tiernan about her, and giving those of us who did know her and benefitted from the warmth that she radiated for humanity, a chance to remember the best of times.

Mr. Speaker, in the hopes that Kip Tiernan's life will inspire others the way she herself was inspired by Dorothy Day, I ask that Mr. Marquard's eloquent obituary of this great woman be printed here.

[From the Boston Globe, July 4, 2011]

(By Bryan Marquard)

Kip Tiernan, who founded Rosie's Place, the nation's first

shelter for homeless women, and whose persistent, raspy voice

echoed from the streets to the State House as she advocated

for the poor, died of cancer Saturday in her South End

apartment.

She was 85.

Usually clad in a canvas hat and work pants, a cross and a

skate key dangling from a leather strap around her neck, Ms.

Tiernan helped create an A-to-Z of agencies that assist the

disadvantaged in Massachusetts. By example, she also inspired

so many people to try to ease suffering that, directly or

indirectly, she may have touched more lives of the poor in

the Commonwealth than anyone else in the past four decades.

``Every day of her life she lived for social justice, and

the lives she saved were untold,'' Mayor Thomas M. Menino

said. ``She always said that someday we will stamp out

homelessness, but until that day we have to make sure

everyone understands that a homeless person could be one of

us. She was a very special person, and there's a big hole in

our lives today because Kip's not here. This nation is going

to miss Kip Tiernan because of her fight for social

justice.''

Along with Fran Froehlich, her partner in advocacy for more

than 35 years, Ms. Tiernan founded, helped found, or was a

founding member of a number of agencies and panels, including

Boston Health Care for the Homeless, Boston Food Bank,

Community Works, Aid to Incarcerated Mothers, Finex House,

Food for Free, John Leary House, My Sister's Place,

Transition House, the Greater Boston Union of the Homeless,

and Boston's Emergency Shelter Commission.

The range of suffering was such that ``sometimes you think

there aren't any tears left,'' Ms. Tiernan told the Globe in

1988, ``and you find yourself sobbing.''

Strong words were her response more often than tears,

however. Drawn by faith to her calling, she brought

unconditional love to each encounter with the homeless, and

she didn't hesitate to criticize the powerful if they backed

what she believed were unfair policies or tried to slide by

with words of pity.

The cross she wore was more than a symbol.

``A rooted woman, Kip always wears that cross,'' Globe op-

ed columnist James Carroll wrote in 1996, ``which marks her

not for piety or for a religion of easy answers, but for

being, in her words, 'an angry daughter of Christ. . . . I

find that the cross of Jesus is the radical condemnation of

an unjust world. You have to stay with the one crucified or

stand with the crucifiers.' ''

Sue Marsh, executive director of Rosie's Place, said in a

statement the she was ``so sorry to be saying goodbye to a

good friend of mine. . . . She has been the fiery, feisty,

and beloved touchstone for the mission and vision of Rosie's

Place, a compassionate friend to every woman in need.''

On behalf of housing, health care, and an array of social

justice issues, Ms. Tiernan lobbied, fasted, marched in

protest, and was arrested during sit-ins at government

offices. In November 1990, she began a fast in Arlington

Street Church and explained why in an op-ed essay for the

Globe.

``We should atone for what we have allowed to happen to all

poor people in this state, in the name of fiscal austerity or

plain mean-spiritedness. . . . We have, as citizens, much to

repent for, for what we have and have not done, to ease the

suffering of our sisters and brothers who have no lobby to

protect them.''

Before founding Rosie's Place in 1974, Ms. Tiernan traveled

to meet with legendary Catholic activist Dorothy Day, from

whose life she drew inspiration and spiritual sustenance for

the decades that lay ahead.

Beth Healy, a Globe reporter who is writing a biography of

Ms. Tiernan, said: ``She had this soft spot in her heart for

broken people, whether they were sick or mentally ill or

struggling with addiction. Kip would hug a person dying of

AIDS back in the 1980s when everyone else was running away.

She would talk to someone living on the streets that no one

else would talk to.''

Ms. Tiernan, Froehlich said, combined compassion with ``a

pragmatic approach to solving issues, like: Hungry? Food.

Homeless? Housing. And she challenged people with that

clarity.''

Though Ms. Tiernan asked ``hard questions, at the same

time, I was always impressed that she embraced people of all

persuasions because she wanted them to see what she saw,''

Froehlich said. ``And I mean really embraced them. She would

hold somebody's hand while they were disagreeing with her.

She really wanted you to join her in this pursuit of justice

for people who have nothing.''

Born in West Haven, Conn., Ms. Tiernan was 6 months old

when her father died and 11 when her mother died. Raised by

her maternal grandmother, she learned during the Great

Depression to help others.

``Her grandmother always had soup or stew on the stove,''

Froehlich said, ``and when people came to the house who were

down on their luck, she always had bowls of soup or stew

ready for them.''

By her teens, she was learning to fly a plane and play jazz

piano. She also was expelled from a Catholic boarding school,

telling the Globe she had failed math and asked too many

difficult moral questions.

She worked as a newspaper reporter and moved to Boston in

1947 to attend the Boston Conservatory on a scholarship, only

to be expelled for drinking. ``I was raped once,'' she told

the Globe in 1988. ``I was 19. Drunk.''

Speaking of the women she served at Rosie's Place, she

added: ``I'll tell you one thing. It helps me identify with

what some of these women have been through.''

Ms. Tiernan joined Alcoholics Anonymous, learned from

recovering street drunks how to stay sober, and became a

successful advertising copywriter with her own agency. In

1968, she did some free work for priests who had invited

activist Daniel Berrigan to speak at a church.

Listening to him, she later recalled, it was as if a voice

inside her head said, ``I have just passed through a door,

and there is no going back.''

Leaving the affluence of her advertising life, she moved

into Warwick House, an urban ministry center in Roxbury.

Using her copywriter's facility. with language, she became

one of Boston's most quotable advocates for the poor, coining

phrases such as ``from the Great Society to the Grate

Society.''

A service will be announced for Ms. Tiernan, whose longtime

companion of decades, Edith Nicholson, died in the 1990s.

Ms. Tiernan helped raise Nicholson's three children and

leaves one of those children, Peg Wright of Saugerties, N.Y.;

seven grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren. For the

past 15 years, Ms. Tiernan and Donna Pomponio have been a

couple. They married in 2004.

``The tragedies in the world continued to propel her to fix

things and make them better,'' Pomponio said of Ms. Tiernan.

``She knew that as human beings, we could do better for each

other. There was a support and strength that came from that

woman, and having her by your side and in your life, you knew

that you could do it, too.''