Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
CONSUMERS OR IF THEY ARE
PROTECTING SLEAZEY BANKS THAT
STAY IN BUSINESS, WHOSE HOLE
BUSINESS MODEL IS IS CHEATING
CONSUMERS -- IS CHEATING
CONSUMERS.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLELADY FROM WEST
VIRGINIA.
YES, MR. CHAIRMAN,
I CLAIM TIME IN OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLELADY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA'S
AMENDMENT.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST START
IN THE FIVE MINUTES THAT I HAVE
TO REMIND EVERYBODY WHO IS ON
THE COUNCIL THAT IS GOING TO BE
ABLE TO ALLOW SLEAZEY FINANCIAL
PRODUCTS TO GO FORWARD TO SAVE
THE SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS OF AN
INSTITUTION.
THAT'S WHAT THE GENTLEMAN SAID.
SO WE'VE GOT THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY, WE HAVE THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE,
THE DIRECTOR OF THE CFPB WHO IS
THE PERSON WHO IS MAKING THE
REGULATIONS, CHAIRMAN OF THE
FDIC, COMPTROLLER OF THE
CURRENCY, CHAIRMAN OF THE NCUA,
CHAIRMAN OF THE S.E.C., CHAIRMAN
OF THE CFTC, DIRECTOR OF THE
FHSA AND AN INSURANCE
REPRESENTATIVE.
THAT'S 10 PEOPLE.
PROFESSIONAL REGULATORS THAT ARE
WORKING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE
FINANCIAL MARKETS AND ARE
OVERSEEING OUR FINANCIAL
STABILITY.
. IT'S NOT TOM, *** AND
HARRY DECIDING WHETHER A ***
PROVISION SHOULD GO FORWARD.
AND I THINK IN ORDER TO CONVINCE
THESE FOLKS OR TO PUT YOUR
ARGUMENT FORWARD AS TO WHY THE
RULE OR REGULATION WOULD HARM
THE SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS OF AN
INSTITUTION, I WOULD IMAGINE
THAT THESE PROFESSIONALS WOULD
REQUIRE MUCH DUE DILIGENCE AND
PROPER BACKGROUND WORK PROBABLY
TOUCHING ON SOME OF THE THINGS
THE GENTLEMAN TALKED ABOUT, WHO
WOULD BE INFLUENCED AND AN
ANALYSIS OF THE PRACTICES, THE
OR PROVISION.
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REGULATION
I THINK THAT THE STANDARD IS
HIGH AND -- IN ANY SCENARIO.
CERTAINLY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE IN
THE EXISTING BILL, MR. DUFFY'S
BILL WHICH BRINGS THE STANDARD
DOWN MORE IN LINE OF PROTECTING
COMMUNITY BANKS AND CREDIT
UNIONS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS ON
MAIN STREET AND THE CONSUMERS
THAT SO RELY ON THEM, THAT I
THINK REALLY THIS AMENDMENT JUST
FURTHER COMPLICATES PLACES IN
JEOPARDY, I THINK -- MAKES IT
MORE CUMBERSOME, MORE IMPOSSIBLE
TO MEET A STANDARD WHERE THE
FSOC WOULD BE ABLE TO OVERSEE A
CERTAIN RULE AND REGULATION SO I
WOULD OPPOSE.
THE
GENTLELADY RESERVE?
I RESERVE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NORTH CAROLINA.
HOW MUCH TIME DO I
HAVE REMAINING?
ONE MINUTE.
ONE OF THE CHANGES
THAT DOES PRESIDENT SOUND LIKE
IT DOES MUCH BUT IT DOES WHEN
YOU CHANGE THE WORD FROM MAY TO
SHALL.
IT NOT ONLY CAN THIS FSOC
OVERTURN A RULE WHEN THEY THINK
IT MIGHT AFFECT THE SAFETY AND
SOUNDNESS OF THE SYSTEM, THEY
HAVE TO OVERTURN IT.
THEY HAVE TO OVERTURN IT IF THEY
THINK IT WILL PUT A SPECIFIC
BANK OUT OF BUSINESS.
THAT'S NOT A SMALL CHANGE OR A
HIGH STANDARD, BUT A VERY LOW
STANDARD AND ONE THAT CRIPPLES
THE BILL.
I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME
TO MR. FRANK.
IF SOMEONE HAD PUT
COUNTRYWIDE OUT OF BUSINESS WE
WOULD HAVE BEEN IN GOOD SHAPE.
A LATER AMENDMENT WILL REQUIRE
THE CONSUMER BUREAU TO SUBMIT
THIS KIND OF INFORMATION TO THE
FINANCIAL STABILITY COUNCIL.
SO IT IS NOT RECIPROCAL.
IF THE CONSUMER BUREAU HAS A
RULE OR REGULATION AND HAS TO
GIVE THIS INFORMATION TO THE
COUNCIL, BUT NO ONE ELSE DOES.
ONE MORE EXAMPLE HOW THE
CONSUMER BUREAU IS NOT THEIR
FAVORITE.
THE THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NORTH CAROLINA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
NOES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
I ASK FOR A RECORDED
VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6,
RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA
WILL BE POSTPONED.
NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 6 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-172.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM TEXAS RISE?
I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 6
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-172
OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON LEE OF
TEXAS.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 358, THE GENTLEWOMAN
FROM TEXAS, AND A MEMBER OPPOSED
WILL EACH CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM TEXAS IS
RECOGNIZED.
MY FRIENDS ARE
BACK AGAIN AND I'M REMINDED OF
MY COLLEAGUE, CONGRESSWOMAN
COUPLINGS WHO MENTIONED THE --
CUMMINGS WHO MENTIONED THE
AMOUNT OF FOR EXAMPLE THAT OUR
CONSTITUENTS EXPERIENCED.
THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION BUREAU, LET ME MAKE
IT CLEAR, IT MAKES PRICES CLEAR,
TERMS AND CONDITIONS CLEAR AND
ENSURES THAT MORTGAGE
DISCLOSURES ARE SHORT AND
UNDERSTANDABLE BY CONSUMERS,
LENDERS AND MILITARY FAMILIES
AND HELPS CONSUMERS UNDERSTAND
THE TRUE CAUSE OF A FINANCIAL
TRANSACTION.
IT ACTS LIKE A COP ON THE BEAT
FOR OUR CONSUMERS THE FINANCIAL
STABILITY OVERSIGHT BOARD HAS A
ROLE TO REVIEW THE ACTION.
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THIS BILL
HAS JUST DONE.
IN THE DODD-FRANK BILL IT HAS
BEEN A TIMED REVIEW TO TAKE
PLACE.
IF YOU ARE HANGING WITH A BAD
FORECLOSURE OR SOME BAD ACTION,
THIS OVERSIGHT BOARD CAN REVIEW
QUICKLY THE DECISION THAT THE
CONSUMER BOARD DID TO PROTECT
YOU.
YOU KNOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED NOW?
THEY HAVE GIVEN THE OVERSIGHT
BOARD AN INDEFINITE AMOUNT OF
DIME.
THIS IS IN THE BACKDROP OF
UNDERGRADUATES CARRYING RECORD
HIGH CREDIT CARD BALANCES.
WHAT MY AMENDMENT DOES, IT
RESTORES REALITY AND RESTORES A
TIME CERTAIN THAT THE OVERSIGHT
BOARD CAN REVIEW THE REGULATION
THAT IS GIVING YOU RELIEF SO
THAT YOU CAN BENEFIT FROM THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION.
IS THAT NOT A SIMPLE PREMISE?
I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO ACCEPT
THIS AMENDMENT.
AND I RESERVE.
THE GENTLELADY
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM WEST
VIRGINIA.
I CLAIM TIME IN
OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLELADY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE
IN OUR BILL AS THE GENTLEWOMAN
SAID IS TO GIVE THE FSOC AS MUCH
TIME AS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE
THE EFFECTS OF THE CFPB RULE.
IT'S EASY TO IMAGINE UNDER ANY
SCENARIO THAT SOME OF THE
EFFECTS, GOOD EFFECTS OR BAD
EFFECTS TAKE MORE THAN THREE
MONTHS TO REALLY SURFACE.
I MEAN, WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED
WITH THE SUBPRIME ISSUE.
IT DIDN'T BUBBLE UP IN 90 DAYS.
IT BUBBLED UP OVER A PERIOD OF
TIME.
ABSOLUTELY.
SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN STOPPED?
WERE PEOPLE ASLEEP AT THE
SWITCH?
ABSOLUTELY.
AND THAT'S WHY WE THINK THAT YOU
SHOULD HAVE NOT CONSTRAINTS ON
THE TIME, BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE AN
OPEN-ENDED TIME PERIOD TO FIND
OUT ANY DIFFERENT PITFALLS THAT
MAY OCCUR FROM A CERTAIN RULE
AND REGULATION.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I WOULD OPPOSE
THE GENTLELADY'S AMENDMENT GOING
BACK TO THE 890 DAYS.
AND I WOULD -- 90 DAYS AND I
WOULD RESERVE.
THE GENTLELADY
RESERVES.
I HAVE GREAT
RESPECT TO MY FRIEND FROM WEST
VIRGINIA AND I'M GLAD SHE SAID
90 DAYS.
THAT IS THREE MONTHS.
THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY 90 DAYS
AND PUT IT FOREVER, ALMOST LIKE
DOROTHY.
WE ARE GOING TO THE WIZARD OF
OZ, FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER SO
INDIVIDUALS LIKE MICHELLE WHOSE
HOME WAS DAMAGED DURING THE
HURRICANE, WHO GOT COSTLY
REPAIRS BUT HAD WAGE CUTS AND
FOUND THAT THE HOUSE MIGHT BE IN
FORECLOSURE THEY SENT THE
COMPANY $1,400 AND THEY SAID
THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO
AND THEY WERE FORECLOSED ON.
THE BILL TO PROTECT THEM FROM
THAT HAS OVERSIGHT ON POSITIVE
REGULATION TO REVIEW IT AND IT
GOES ON WHILE MICHELLE AND HER
HUSBAND WALKS THE STREET.
OR JACOB WANTED TO BUY A CD AND
WANTED TO SPEAK TO A FINANCIAL
ADVISER.
THE MAN HE TALKED TO WASN'T IN
THE BANK AND ONLY MADE $25,000,
HE WOUND UP LOSING $12,000.
THEY WANT HIM TO WAIT FOREVER
AND EVER AND EVER.
WITH THAT, I RESERVE.
THE GENTLELADY
RESERVES.
THE GENTLELADY FROM WEST
VIRGINIA.
I APPRECIATE THE
GENTLELADY'S PASSION FOR THIS
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT MY
OPPOSITION -- AS THE 90-DAY RULE
STANDS RIGHT NOW, IT DOESN'T SAY
THAT THE RULE CAN'T GO FORWARD,
IT SIMPLY SAYS THAT THE ABILITY
TO HAVE A LOOK BACK TO WHAT
CONSUMER RULES OR REGULATIONS
ARE PUT FORWARD, IT WIDENS THE
WINDOW THERE.
SO SOME OF THE EFFECTS OF RULE
AND REGULATION THAT MAY, AS I
SAID EARLIER, MAY NOT BUBBLE UP
UNTIL A YEAR OR TWO.
IT MAY HAVE A CUMULATIVE EFFECT,
IT MAY BE -- MAY HAVE A REGIONAL
EFFECT.
WE HAVE FRIENDS IN GEORGIA RIGHT
NOW WHO HAD A LOT OF BANK
FORECLOSURES THAT IS MORE
REGIONALLY PLACED.
I LIVE IN A PLACE WHERE WE
AVOIDED A LOT OF THE FORECLOSURE
PROBLEMS BUT I UNDERSTAND MY
FELLOW MEMBERS FROM CALIFORNIA
AND FLORIDA AND TEXAS AND
MICHIGAN AND OHIO, THEY HAVE
REGIONAL ISSUES.
SO I THINK IT DOESN'T ALLOW THE
RULE -- IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T
ALLOW THE RULE TO GO FORWARD, IT
SIMPLY SAYS THAT IT ALLOWS YOU
TO LOOK BACK FOR A LONGER PERIOD
THAN 90 DAYS.
AND I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLELADY YIELDS
BACK.
THE GENTLELADY FROM TEXAS.
I'M ASKING MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT MY
AMENDMENT.
THERE ARE PEOPLE IN AMERICA THAT
DON'T KNOW THE INTEREST RATE ON
THEIR CREDIT CARDS.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION BUREAU
WILL HELP THAT.
WE NEED OVERSIGHT TO BE ABLE TO
PROTECT THE CONSUMER.
WITH THAT, I YIELD TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
1 1/2 MINUTES.
ONCE AGAIN WE SEE
THIS PATTERN AND THE GENTLEMAN
FROM NEW JERSEY WHO SAID I WAS
IMPUTING MODUS TO THEM BECAUSE
THEY SAID THEY KNEW WHAT THEY
WERE DOING LAST YEAR WHEN THEY
OPPOSED AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY.
I DON'T KNOW WHO IS KIDDING WHO.
THEY DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF AN
INDEPENDENT AGENCY.
SO THE TACTIC IS TO CHIP AT IT
HERE AND THERE AND DO A SERIES
OF NON-RECIPROCAL REQUIREMENTS.
IT IS THE CINDERELLA OF THE
REGULATORS AND CAN BE JOFRLEDE.
THEY SAY HOW CAN YOU HAVE AN
INDIVIDUAL ENTITY, BUT MEMBERS
WHO HAVE BEEN HERE 20 YEARS,
COMPARABLE TIMES, THEY NEVER
MOVED TO MAKE THE CONTROL OF THE
CURRENCY A COMMISSION AND NEVER
MOVED TO SUBJECT IT TO THE
APPROPRIATION.
THE CONSUMER CHIEF IS JUST LIKE
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE AGENCY.
BUT THAT'S THE BANKING AGENCY.
AND AS HE SAID IN HIS STATEMENT
TODAY, THEY DON'T WORRY ABOUT
THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND FDIC
WITH THE TERRIBLE RECORD THAT
THE FEDERAL RESERVE HAS HAD.
HE SAID, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE, HE SAID IT IS THE
CONSUMERS.
SOLE GOAL TO PROTECT THE
ONE MORE THING, WHEN IT COMES TO
OTHER AGENCIES, MY COLLEAGUES ON
THE OTHER SIDE WANT TO IMPOSE
DEADLINES.
BUT, NO.
IT'S TREATING IT DIFFERENTLY.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLELADY FROM TEXAS.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
AYES HAVE IT.
I ASK FOR A
RECORDED VOTE.
PURSUANT TOLL CLAUSE
6, RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLELADY FROM TEXAS WILL BE
POSTPONED.
IN ORDER TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT
112-172.
NUMBER 7 PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS SEEK
RECOGNITION?
THE CLERK WILL DESIGNATE THE
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 7
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-172
ILLINOIS.
OFFERED BY MR. QUIGLEY OF
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 358, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM ILLINOIS AND A MEMBER
OPPOSED EACH WILL CONTROL FIVE
MINUTES.
THE UNDERLYING BILL
REQUIRES THAT WHEN A FINANCIAL
STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL
MEETS TO DELIBERATE ON A CFPB
RULING, THOSE MEETINGS WOULD BE
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
MY AMENDMENT TAKES THAT ONE STEP
FURTHER AND WILL REQUIRE THAT
THE MEETING BE LIVE-STREAMED
OVER THE INTERNET.
IF WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
TRANSPARENCY AND OPENNESS, IT
MAKES SENSE THAT THE ENTIRE
AMERICAN PUBLIC HAVE ACCESS TO
THESE MEETINGS, NOT JUST PEOPLE
IN ONE CITY.
THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR BOTH
CFPB.
SUPPORTERS AND CRITICS OF THE
IF A CFPB RULING IS CHALLENGED,
AMERICANS SHOULD BE ABLE TO
OBSERVE THE PROCEEDINGS.
MY AMENDMENT WOULD DO JUST THAT.
IT MAKES THE PROCEEDINGS MORE
ACCESSIBLE.
OPEN, MORE TRANSPARENT AND
TRANSPARENCY WOULD HELP ENSURE
ALL PARTIES, BANKS AND CONSUMERS
GET A FAIR HEARING.
IT'S IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF
REGAINING THE PUBLIC TRUST,
ESPECIALLY IN THESE TIMES.
AACCORDING TO A PEW POLL, 22% OF
AMERICANS TRUCE TRUST THE
AMERICAN TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
THE REAL COST OF CORRUPTION IS
THE DEFICIT OF TRUST.
IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO LEAD
WITHOUT THE PUBLIC'S TRUST.
WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON IS
REGAINING THAT TRUST PRINCIPALLY
THROUGH TRANSPARENCY.
THEREFORE, I ASK THAT THIS
AMENDMENT BE SUPPORTED BY BOTH
I RESERVE.
SIDES.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLELADY FROM WEST
VIRGINIA.
I CLAIM TIME IN
OPPOSITION BUT I'M NOT OPPOSED.
IT PROVIDES FOR SUNSHINE AND
TRANSPARENCY.
WHEN WE DID THE MARKUP, WE HAD
ANOTHER AMENDMENT ALONG THE SAME
LINES AND I WOULD SUPPORT THE
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT.
AND I YIELD BACK.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE AMENDMENT ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ILLINOIS.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
AYES HAVE IT AND THE AMENDMENT
.
IS AGREED TO.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 8.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM CALIFORNIA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
I RISE TODAY TO PRESENT MY
AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1315.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 8
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-172
OFFERED BY MRS. CHU OF
CALIFORNIA.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA, MRS. CHU, AND A
FIVE MINUTES.
MEMBER OPPOSED WILL EACH CONTROL
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
MY AMENDMENT WOULD GIVE
ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO THE
COMMISSIONER THAT IS ALREADY IN
CHARGE OF OVERSIGHT OF THE
BUREAU'S ACTIVITIES PERTAINING
TO THE PROTECTION OF OLDER
CONSUMERS, MINORITIES, YOUTH AND
VETERANS.
IT WOULD REQUIRE RESEARCH ON HOW
LANGUAGE BARRIERS CAN LEAD TO
UNFAIR AND ABUSIVE LENDING
PRACTICES AND TO REPORT TO THE
FULL COMMISSION ON WAYS TO
PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM
POTENTIALLY UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE
PRACTICES.
TAKE THE CASE OF MS. WONG WHO
WENT TO A CAR DEALERSHIP AND
NEGOTIATED IN CHINESE.
WHEN SHE WENT TO SIGN THE
CONTRACT IT WAS TOTALLY IN
DEMRISH AND SHE DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND IT.
WHEN SHE GOT IT TRANSLATED
LATER, SHE DISCOVERED THAT SHE
BOUGHT A DIFFERENT CARAT AN
EXTREMELY HIGH INTEREST RATE.
SHE WENT BACK TO THE CAR
DEALERSHIP FOR REDRESS BUT THEY
REFUSED.
SHE WAS SO UPSET THAT ALL SHE
COULD THINK OF TO DO WAS TO GO
BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP AND WRAP
HERSELF IN A WHITE SHEET AND
HOLD A SIGN THAT SAID, CHEATERS,
AND WALKED UP AND DOWN IN FRONT
OF THE DEALERSHIP IN PROTEST.
WELL, THAT GAINED ATTENTION.
IT TURNED OUT THAT MANY OTHER
IMMIGRANTS HAD BEEN CHEATED IN
THIS MANNER AS WELL.
SO I SPONSORED A BILL IN THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY TO
ADDRESS THESE DECEPTIVE
PRACTICES.
BUT THAT'S JUST ONE STATE AND
JUST ONE SMALL FIX.
NOW, I KNOW THAT THE CONSUMER
FINANCIAL PROTECTION SAFETY AND
SOUNDNESS ACT DOES NOT INCLUDE
OVERSIGHT OF AUTO LOANS BUT MS.
WONG'S STORY HIGHLIGHTS HOW
PERSONS WITH LANGUAGE BARRIERS
CAN BE VICTIMS OF DECEPTIVE
PRACTICES.
WE NEED SOMEONE ON A NATIONAL
LEVEL LOOKING OUT FOR PEOPLE
LIKE MS. WONG AND STAYING ON TOP
OF WAYS PEOPLE ARE BEING DUPED
BECAUSE OF LANGUAGE BARRIERS.
AND THAT'S JUST WHAT MY
AMENDMENT WILL DO.
I URGE SUPPORT OF MY AMENDMENT
AND I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLELADY
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HER
TIME.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM WEST
VIRGINIA.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I CLAIM TIME IN OPPOSITION BUT
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE
GENTLELADY'S AMENDMENT.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THE GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
GENTLEWOMAN FOR HER AMENDMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO HIGHLIGHT
IN THE DODD-FRANK BILL AND I'M
SURE SHE'S WELL AWARE OF SOME OF
THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE ALREADY
BEING MADE FOR -- THROUGH THE
CFPB FOR MULTILINGUAL OUTREACH
AND UNDERSTANDING.
DURING A CONFERENCE CALL WITH A
LARGE BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL
STAFF, THE SENIOR OFFICIALS AT
THE CFPB INDICATED THAT THE
BUREAU WOULD HAVE THE CAPACITY
TO TRANSLATE INTO 180 LANGUAGES,
THAT IS A VERY BROAD REACH, I
THINK, AND THERE ARE OTHER
DISCLOSURES, OUTREACH BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO
HELP PEOPLE, PERSONS FACING
LANGUAGE BARRIERS.
AND OTHER ASPECTS OF THE SAME --
AROUND THE SAME ISSUE THAT THE
GENTLELADY IS SPEAKING ABOUT.
I AM DELIGHTED THAT SHE WANTS TO
AMEND THE COMMISSION AND --
BECAUSE AS WE KNOW, AND I'VE
SPOKEN MORE THAN A FEW TIMES ON
JUST IN THE LAST SEVERAL HOURS
ABOUT MY ARDENT SUPPORT FOR THE
COMMISSION, THERE'S ONE
COMMISSIONER THAT'S CHARGED WITH
OVERSEEING SOME SPECIAL SEGMENTS
OF OUR POPULATION AND CERTAINLY
ONES WHO HAD LANGUAGE BARRIERS
WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS AND
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLELADY YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HER TIME.
THE GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA.
I'D LIKE TO YIELD TO
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR 3 1/2 MINUTES.
I APPRECIATE THE
GENTLEWOMAN MAKING A VERY
IMPORTANT POINT, SERIOUSLY,
TALKING ABOUT THE MULTILINGUAL
ASPECT.
AN IMPORTANT BIPARTISAN PART OF
OUR COMMITTEE'S WORK OVER THE
YEARS AND WE'VE HAD SOME
DIFFERENCES, THE GENTLEWOMAN
FROM ILLINOIS, MRS. BIGGERT, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, MR.
HINOJOSA, AND A NUMBER OF OTHERS
HAVE STRESSED AN IMPORTANT THING
OF THIS AGENCY'S MISSION IS
LITERACY.
WE ALL AGREE THAT IF PEOPLE WERE
BETTER EDUCATED THEY COULD
DEFEND THEY WASSELVES BETTER.
THIS IS AN ONGOING JOINT EFFORT
IF YOU TRY TO DO FINANCIAL
ON OUR COMMITTEE AND OBVIOUSLY
LITERACY, IT'S GOT TO BE IN A
LANGUAGE THAT PEOPLE CAN
UNDERSTAND.
SO I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN
HIGHLIGHTING THAT AND IT DOES
HELP US DO THAT.
I WOULD NOT THAT -- 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.
WE COULD DO IT WITH VARIOUS
AGENCY HEADS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S BEEN SOME
CONCERN ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT
VETERANS ARE TAKEN CARE OF.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT -- AND
PEOPLE IN THE MILITARY, ONE OF
DID, SHE DID A NUMBER OF
THE THINGS THAT ELIZABETH WARREN
EXTRAORDINARY THINGS, WAS, I
DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE WERE AWARE
OF THE HEAD OF THE MILITARY
BUREAU THAT PROTECTS MEMBERS OF
THE SERVICES, A VERY EXPERIENCED
WOMAN FROM THE MILITARY NAMED
POLLY PETRAEUS, THE WIFE OF
GENERAL PETRAEUS.
AND 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 WILL FIND A WAY TO
ACCOMMODATE IT AND I THANK HER
AND I YIELD BACK TO THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA.
YES.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS
DOES NOT CREATE ANY OVERLY
BURDENSOME RESPONSIBILITY.
INSTEAD IT SUPPORTS THE GOAL OF
A LEGISLATION, PROTECTS THOSE --
PROTECT THOSE PERSONS WHO MIGHT
BE THE VICTIMS OF SUCH UNFAIR
AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.
WHAT THIS DOES IS CLARIFY THAT
THIS ESPECIALLY DESIGNATED
COMMISSIONER WOULD TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT HOW LANGUAGE BARRIERS
MIGHT BE IMPACTED BY SUCH
ABUSIVE PRACTICES AND IT MAKES
SURE THAT THAT IS DONE.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLELADY YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HER TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
CALIFORNIA.
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
AYES HAVE IT.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 9 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-172.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM NEW YORK SEEK
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
IT'S MADE IN
ORDER.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 9
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-172
OFFERED BY MRS. MALONEY OF NEW
YORK.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 358, THE GENTLEWOMAN
FROM NEW YORK, MR. MALONEY, AND
A MEMBER OPPOSED SHALL EACH
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM NEW YORK.
THANK YOU.
I RISE IN SUPPORT OF MY
AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1315 WHICH
WILL TRANSFER ALL AUTHORITY THAT
THE CFPB WOULD RECEIVE TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IF NO
COMMISSION CHAIR IS IN PLACE BY
JULY 21.
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE
CONFIRMATION BY THE OTHER BODY.
THERE IS NO MORE PLAINT EFFORT
TO DERAIL -- BLATANT EFFORT TO
DERAIL THE CONSUMER PROTECTIONS
THAN THE SECTION OF THIS BILL
THAT DELAYS THE FULL TRANSFER OF
AUTHORITY THAT THE CFPB WOULD
HAVE TO PROTECT CONSUMERS UNTIL
A DIRECTOR IS IN PLACE.
UNDER THE REPUBLICAN BILL, THE
BUREAU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO
ANYTHING, STARTING TODAY, EVEN
WRITE RULES UNDER THE EXISTING
CONSUMER LAW AS DODD-FRANK
ENVISIONED.
AND AS WE KNOW THERE ARE 44
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE OTHER
BODY THAT HAVE INDICATED IN
WRITING TO -- WITH A LETTER TO
THE PRESIDENT THAT THEY WILL NOT
VOTE TO CONFIRM ANYONE UNLESS
PRESIDENT OBAMA BENDS TO THEIR
DEMANDS THAT WOULD WEAKEN THE
CFPB.
THE REPUBLICAN BILL IS NOT ABOUT
IMPROVEMENTS, IT'S ABOUT
PREVENTING THE CFPB FROM
EFFECTIVELY OPERATING.
THIS WEEK THE PRESIDENT
NOMINATED FORMER OHIO ATTORNEY
GENERAL RICHARD CORDRAY TO BE
THE CFPB'S FIRST DIRECTOR.
AND IS HE NOW THE DIRECTOR OF
ENFORCEMENT THERE AND WILL BRING
A VOICE FOR STATE A.G.'S TO
ENFORCE CONSUMER LAWS.
I HOPE THAT THE OTHER BODY WILL
ACT ON HIS NOMINATION AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE.
BUT WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE 44
WHO SAY THEY WILL NOT CONFIRM
ANYONE.
AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
CONSUMERS SHOULD HAVE TO WAIT
FOR THIS PROCESS TO GO FORWARD,
THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED TODAY.
MY AMENDMENT SAYS THAT IF THEY
ARE GOING TO DELAY THE ABILITY
OF THE AGENCY TO PROTECT
CONSUMERS, AT LEAST GIVE THAT
AUTHORITY TO THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY UNTIL A DIRECTOR IS
CONFIRMED TO HEAD THE BUREAU.
NOW, MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE
INDICATED THEIR CONCERN THAT
THERE'S NO ONE OFFICIALLY AT THE
HELM.
THEN LET TREASURY HAVE THAT
AUTHORITY UNTIL A DIRECTOR HAS
BEEN CONFIRMED SO THAT IT CAN
BEGIN TO GO FORWARD WITH THE
PROTECTIONS THAT DODD-FRANK
ENVISIONED.
THIS INCLUDES THE AUTHORITY THE
BUREAU IS SET TO RECEIVE TODAY
AS WELL AS THE NEW SUPERVISORY
AUTHORITY FOR NONBANK FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS AND NEW RULE MAKING
UNDER UNFAIR DECEPTIVE AND
ABUSIVE PRACTICES.
CONSUMERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO
WAIT ANY LONGER.
MY AMENDMENT WILL ENSURE THAT
WORK CAN BEGIN TO ADVANCE THE
IMPORTANT MISSION OF THE CFPB
AND I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND I
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLELADY
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HER
TIME.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM WEST
VIRGINIA.
I CLAIM TIME IN
OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLELADY IS
RECOGNIZED FOREVER FIVE MINUTES.
AND I AM OPPOSE TO
THE GENTLELADY, MY RANKING
MEMBER, WE WORK REALLY WELL
TOGETHER ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND
OBVIOUSLY HAVE DIFFERENCES AND
THIS IS ONE.
THE PORTION OF THE BILL THAT
SHE'S TALKING ABOUT IS ACTUALLY
THE PORTION THAT I CREATED AND
IT WAS REALLY A CREATION OF A
COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, PROBABLY
IN APRIL I BEGAN TO THINK TO
MYSELF, THE PRESIDENT HASN'T
MADE AN APPOINTMENT TO THE
MARQUIS BUREAU TO PROTECT
CONSUMERS AND HE'S HAD ALMOST AN
ENTIRE YEAR TO DO THIS.
THE HAND WRITING IS GOING TO BE
ON THE WALL IN TERMS OF TRYING
TO GET A SENATE CONFIRMATION,
CERTAINLY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO
GET ONE IN FOUR DAYS, WHICH IS
WHAT HE TRIED, YOU KNOW, WHEN HE
NOMINATED SOMEBODY ON MONDAY
FINALLY.
AND SO THE THOUGHT FOR ME IS
THAT WE HAVE ENORMOUS POWERS
VESTED IN ONE INDIVIDUAL.
THE BILL WAS WRITTEN TO HAVE
THEM -- AND THE MINORITY LEADER
WAS DOWN HERE SAYING THAT THE
OVERSIGHT THAT IS PROVIDED BY
SENATE CONFIRMATION IS CONGRESS'
STAMP OF APPROVAL OF THE
DIRECTION THIS INDIVIDUAL WANTS
TO TAKE THIS AGENCY.
AND -- OR BUREAU.
AND YET WE HAVE A SITUATION
WHERE WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO
HAS WAITED AN ENTIRE, LET'S SEE,
361 DAYS BEFORE MAKING AN
APPOINTMENT AND WE'RE IN A
POSITION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE AN ACTING OR A RECESSED
APPOINTMENT, A VERY POWERFUL
POSITION, WITHOUT ANY INPUT OR
OVERSIGHT IN THE NOMINATING
PROCESS THAT MOVES FORWARD AND
IS VESTED IN THE UNITED STATES
SENATE.
AND I JUST THINK THAT'S A
PROBLEM.
I THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD
DUE TIME TO ACCOMPLISH THIS AND
WE'RE GOING TO SAY TO THE
TREASURY SECRETARY, WE'RE GOING
TO GIVE IT TO YOU, QUITE FRANKLY
I THINK THE TREASURY SECRETARY
IS PRETTY BUSY RIGHT NOW DEALING
WITH DEBT LIMIT ISSUES AND
SOLVING -- AND, YOU KNOW, TRYING
TO SOLVE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT WE
HAVE IN FRONT OF US, YOU KNOW,
FINANCIALLY AND OUR ECONOMY, WE
HAVE 9.2% UNEMPLOYMENT, WE'VE
WWW.TO GET THE WHEELS TURNING
HERE AND I'M SURE THAT'S WHERE
THE SECRETARY'S PUTTING HIS
ENERGY AND APPROPRIATELY SO.
SO I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS AN
AGENCY THAT'S STARTING ON A --
WITH ONE HAND TIED BEHIND THEIR
BACK BECAUSE OF THE FAULT OF THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE WHO IS NOT
APPOINTED -- WHO HAS NOT
APPOINTED A PERSON WHO CAN SEEK
AND GET SENATE CONFIRMATION AND
I THINK THAT WITHOUT THAT PERSON
, WITH THE OVERSIGHT OF A SENATE
CONFIRMATION, TAKING THE REINS
OF THIS VERY POWERFUL AGENCY --
BUREAU THAT'S JUST BEEN CREATED,
I THINK WE'D BE GETTING IT OFF
ON THE WRONG FOOT AND SO I WOULD
OPPOSE THE GENTLELADY'S
AMENDMENT.
DOES THE GENTLELADY
YIELD BACK OR RESERVE?
I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLELADY YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HER TIME.
THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK.
MAY I INQUIRE HOW
MUCH TIME REMAINS?
THE GENTLELADY HAS
TWO MINUTES REMAINING.
FRAU, -- FIRST OF
ALL, THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE AN
APPOINTMENT ANSWERED CONFIRMS A
THREAT BY 44 MEMBERS OF THE
OTHER BODY WHO SAYS THEY WON'T
CONFIRM ANYONE UNLESS THE POWERS
OF THE CFPB ARE DIMINISHED AND
IT'S DEFANGED AND WEAKENED.
AND CONSUMERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO
WAIT FOR A POLITICAL
CONFIRMATION PROCESS THAT THE
REPUBLICANS IN THE OTHER BODY
HAVE VOWED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
HOLD UP.
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THESE CRITICAL
PROTECTIONS AND GO FORWARD.
I MUST TELL YOU THAT THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC IS FED UP WITH
THE DELAYS AND THE EFFORTS BY
THE OTHER BODY TO PREVENT
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS.
IF WE'D HAD A CFPB IN PLACE WE
COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE
FINANCIAL DOWNTURN IN 2008 WHICH
CAUSED THE HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT
THAT THE GENTLELADY IS CONCERNED
ABOUT.
SO THE CFPB IS CAREFULLY
CONSTRUCTED, YOU ARE GENERAL --
URGENTLY PLEADED AND SHOULD BE
ALLOWED TO GO FORTH TO PROTECT
CONSUMERS.
HAPPEN.
MY AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW THAT TO
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
IT AND I YIELD TO THE RANKING
MEMBER.
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.
44 REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAVE OUT
RAGEOUSLY ANNOUNCED THAT THEY
WILL NOT DO THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
DUTY AND THEY WILL CONFIRM
NOBODY, NOBODY FOR NO MATTER HOW
GOOD, UNTIL WE AGREE TO WEAKEN
THE AGENCY.
SO WHAT WE HAVE IS A PERFECT
AND SENATE REPUBLICANS.
DOUBLE PLAY HERE BETWEEN HOUSE
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 APPOINTED
SOMEONE EARLIER, I'M CRITICAL OF
HIM FOR DOING THAT, BUT I DON'T
WANT TO PUNISH THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, THE BENEFICIARIES OF
THIS BY THAT FAILURE TO APPOINT
EARLIER AND BY THE WAY, WITH THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY HAVING
THE AUTHORITY UP UNTIL NOW, A
LOT'S BEEN DONE, A LOT OF PEOPLE
WERE THERE.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS
EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS
.
EXPIRED.
IN THE OPINION OF THE
CHAIR, THE AYES HAVE IT.
I ASK FOR A
RECORDED VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6,
RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK.
I ASK THAT
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 BE WITHDRAWN.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3,
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-172.
WITHOUT OBJECTION,
REQUEST FOR VOTE IS WITHDRAWN.
THE VOICE VOTE.
NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 10 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-172.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA SEEK
.
RECOGNITION?
AMENDMENT NUMBER 10
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-172
OFFERED BY MR. LANKFORD OF
OKLAHOMA.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
OKLAHOMA, MR. LANKFORD AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED WILL EACH CONTROL
FIVE MINUTES.
THIS AMENDMENT IS
TO PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY -- HIS
AMENDMENT WAS TO PROVIDE
TRANSPARENCY AT CFPB MEETINGS.
AGENCY.
THIS BRINGS IS -- IT TO THE
CONGRESS HAS THE
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OVERSIGHT
AND THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT
POSSIBLE WITHOUT GOOD OPERATION.
THIS NEW FEDERAL BUREAU IS IN
THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND WE MUST
PROVIDE WATCHDOG GROUPS WITH THE
TOOLS.
THE AMENDMENT WILL PUT IN PLACE
A MECHANISM FOR BUREAU
TRANSPARENCY.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE
THAT THE INSPECTORS GENERAL OF
THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
FEDERAL PROTECTION BUREAU TO
POST ONLINE AND SUBMIT A REPORT
I WILL LUM NAMING A LIST OF
RULES, GUIDELINES REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBED BY THE BUYER OOVER
WITH CORRESPONDING DESCRIPTIONS
OF EACH.
A DETAILED LIST OF ALL AUTHORITY
THAT IT DEEMS IN CONFLICT WITH
OTHER FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND
AGENCIES.
AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF
THE BUREAU INCLUDING SALARIES,
OFFICE SUPPLIES AND OFFICE SPACE
AND THE CURRENT BALANCE OF THE
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
FUND ITSELF.
WE HAVE TO HAVE QUALITY
INFORMATION AT OUR DISPOSAL TO
CONDUCT OUR DUTY OF OVERSIGHT.
THIS REPORT REQUIRED BY THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD PROVIDE CONGRESS
AND THE PUBLIC A BROAD LOOK INTO
THE OPERATIONS OF THE BUREAU.
WITH THAT, I RESERVE.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
MASSACHUSETTS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MR. CHAIRMAN, I RISE
IN OPPOSITION.
I COULD BE PERSUADED, BUT I'M
THE ONLY SPEAKER AND SINCE I'M
DEFENDING THE COMMITTEE'S
POSITION, I WILL RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA.
I YIELD TO THE
GENTLELADY FROM WEST VIRGINIA.
I WOULD LIKE TO
TELL THE GENTLEMAN I SUPPORT HIS
AMENDMENT AND I THINK IT LENDS
ITSELF TO THE TRANSPARENCY AND
FULL ACCOUNTABILITY AND I THANK
HIM FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD.
GOOD WORK TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
OKLAHOMA.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
HAS THE OTHER SIDE
YIELDED?
I WON'T SPEAK, I'M THE ONLY
SPEAKER AND I HAVE THE RIGHT TO
CLOSE.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENT AND I
HAD A CHANCE TO THINK ABOUT IT
AND I AM PERSUADED BY ITS
MERITS.
THIS IS A GENUINELY HELPFUL
AMENDMENT.
BUT I DO WANT TO TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT
BROADER ISSUES AND I DO SO, I
WILL SAY, I WOULD NOT ORDINARILY
HAVE DONE THIS TO TAKE THE FIVE
MINUTES IN THIS WAY BUT THE RULE
WAS SO OUTRAGEOUSLY STINGY IN
ALLOWING DEBATE TIME ON CENTRAL
ISSUES BUT WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT
TO USE THIS PERFECTLY REASONABLE
AMENDMENT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
SAY BY WHAT WE WERE PREVENTED BY
THE RULES COMMITTEE.
THERE IS ONE PART OF THE RULE,
THE REGULAR ORDER THAT MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES PROMISED
HAS BEEN BEAT UP PRETTY GOOD
RECENTLY, 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
FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.
THAT VIOLATES THEIR CUT-GO RULE.
BUT THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT
VIOLATING THE RULE.
THEY FOUND AN OFFSET?
WHAT'S AN OFFSET?
IT'S A BILL THAT THE HOUSE
ALREADY PASSED TO SAVE MONEY
FROM THE F.H.A.
HERE'S WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
THEY ARE REACHING BACK, AND THE
RULE RETROACTIVELY MERGES THE
TWO BILLS.
HOW'S THAT FOR THE REGULAR
ORDER?
IT TAKES A BILL THAT SAVES MONEY
AND INSTEAD OF USING THAT FOR
ITER FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION OR
FOR EASING ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO
GET HOUSING THEY USE IT FOR
BUREAUCRACY HERE IN THIS BILL.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES.
SOME ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE HAVE
APPARENTLY UNDERGONE A
CONVERSION.
I DON'T WANT TO TAKE YES FOR
ANANCE.
APPARENTLY THEY ARE NOW IN FAVOR
OF AN AGENCY THAT THEY
VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED LAST YEAR AND
THE YEAR BEFORE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA SAID
INCORRECTLY HE VOTED AGAINST
THIS.
SOMEONE CLAIMING TO BE THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA ATTENDED
A MARKUP AND VOTED AGAINST THE
MARKUP AND THE GENTLELADY FROM
WEST VIRGINIA.
INSTEAD THEY SUPPORTED A
SUBSTITUTE FROM THE GENTLEWOMAN
FROM FROM ILLINOIS WHICH DID
NOTHING -- WELL, I TAKE IT BACK.
IT SAID ALL THE REGULATORS,
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY AND 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
REGULATORS.
WOULD GO BACK TO THOSE SAME
THEY HAVE CONSISTENTLY OPPOSED
IT AND THAT'S WHY THEY ARE SO
WOUNDED.
THEY TRIED TO KILL IT.
WE WERE THERE WHEN THEY VOTED
AGAINST IT AND WE UNDERSTAND
FORWARD.
THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE IT GO
THEY ARE PRUDENT, HOWEVER AND
THEY UNDERSTAND IT WOULD NOT BE
A GOOD IDEA TO ATTACK IT HEAD
ON.
SO THEY ARE TRYING A SIDEWAYS
ATTACK, MOST IMPORTANTLY BY
SAYING THAT THE BANK REGULATORS,
THEY WANTED TO LEAVE CONSUMER
PROTECTION WITH THE BANK
REGULATORS.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE MORE THAN
ANYBODY ELSE BECAUSE THEY ARE
THE KEY BANK REGULATOR ON
CONSUMER FAIRS -- I DON'T KNOW
WHO CAME UP WITH THAT -- THEY
WOULD PUT THE BANK REGULATORS BY
LETTING THEM OVERTURN BY
MAJORITY VOTE ANYTHING THAT THE
AGENCY DOES AND THEY SAY WE ARE
GOING BACK TO WHERE YOU WERE.
WE WERE TOTALLY REVERSING AND
NOW WE HAVE THE AMENDMENT BY THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM NEW YORK.
YOU KNOW THERE IS A CHILDREN'S
BOOK WHERE SOMEBODY SAYS I CAN
BELIEVE 10 IMPOSSIBLE THINGS
BEFORE BREAKFAST.
I'LL GIVE THE GENTLEWOMAN
CREDIT.
SHE SAID ONLY ONE IMPOSSIBLE
THING BEFORE DINNER.
CONFIRMATION.
SHE SAID WE MUST HAVE A
CONFIRMATION IS IMPORTANT.
SHE SHOULD TELL THAT TO HER
SENATE COLLEAGUES.
44 REPUBLICAN SENATORS, NOT THE
SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS, MR.
BROWN, THE SENATORS FROM MAINE,
44 HAVE SAID WE WON'T CONFIRM
ANYBODY.
HOW CAN THE MANAGER OF THE BILL
GET UP AND SAY, CONFIRMATION IS
IMPORTANT.
WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS TO GO
FORWARD UNLESS THERE IS
CONFIRMATION AND WON'T ALLOW THE
POWERS TO GO FORWARD, KNOWING
THERE CAN'T BE CONFIRMATION NOT
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS LATE
AND HE WAS AND I WAS CRITICAL OF
HIM FOR DOING THAT BUT THE
REPUBLICAN MAJORITY SAID THEY
WON'T CONFIRM AND THEY COMPLAIN.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
OKLAHOMA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
AYES HAVE IT AND THE AMENDMENT
IS AGREED TO.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 11 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-172.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE
AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 11
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-172
OFFERED BY MR. RIGELL OF
VIRGINIA.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA, MR. RIGELL AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL CONTROL
FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
AMERICANS ARE
HURTING.
FAMILIES ARE BEING HURT BY
EXCESSIVELY HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT.
IT'S RIGHT NOW AT 9.2%.
IN THE SECOND DISTRICT, IT'S
HIGH AND MY WIFE AND I HAVE DEAR
FRIENDS WHO HAVE LOST THEIR
FAMILY BUSINESSES BECAUSE OF I
THINK POLICIES THAT HAVE COME
OUT OF THIS VERY INSTITUTION,
HYPER ACTIVE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
SO I RISE TODAY TO OFFER AN
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD DIRECTLY
ADDRESS ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL
REASONS THAT I BELIEVE OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES ARE HAVING SUCH A
DIFFICULT TIME.
AND I KNOW THIS FIRSTHAND
BECAUSE I AM A SMALL BUSINESS
OWNER AND THAT'S THE LACK OF
CREDIT.
MY AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
BUREAU TO SUBMIT A FINANCIAL
IMPACT ANALYSIS ON EACH PROPOSED
RULE OR REGULATION THAT IT
INTENDS TO LAYER UPON OUR
NATION'S LENDERS.
IT WOULD EXPAND THE COST
ANALYSIS TO INCLUDE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS OF ALL SIZES, NOT
JUST THE SMALLER ONES THAT ARE
CURRENTLY BEING UNDER THE COST
ANALYSIS PORTION OF THE BILL.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THOUGH,
THE AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE
BUREAU TO SUBMIT AN ANALYSIS ON
HOW THE PROPOSED REGULATION
WOULD IMPAIR THE ABILITY OF
INDIVIDUALS AND OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES TO ACCESS CREDIT.
I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME, MR.
CHAIRMAN, LISTENING TO SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS AND OUR LOCAL
COMMUNITY BANKERS, NOT THE BIG
BANKS UP IN NEW YORK, BUT THE
LOCAL BANKS, AND THEY HAVE GIVEN
ME A CLEAR INDICATION OF THE
STRUGGLE THAT OUR SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS ARE HAVING WHEN IT COMES
TO ACQUIRING CREDIT.
THEY ARE SAYING, WE ARE NOT
HIRING ACCOUNT EXECUTIVES TO GO
OUT AND MEET OUR SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS BUT REGULATORY ANALYSTS
TO SORT THROUGH DODD-FRANK.
THEY ARE REALLY STRUGGLING.
MR. CHAIRMAN WHAT I HAVE DONE IN
THIS AMENDMENT IS TO OFFER A
REASONABLE SOLUTION THAT WOULD
REQUIRE THAT BUREAU TO PAUSE AND
TO CALCULATE AND TO DISTRIBUTE
TO THE PUBLIC A CLEAR INDICATION
OF THE IMPACT THE REGULATION
WOULD HAVE BOTH ON THE LENDING
INSTITUTION AND ON CREDIT FOR
OUR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND
INDIVIDUALS.
I BELIEVE THIS IS A VERY PRUDENT
BILL, GIVEN THE HYPERACTIVE
NATURE OF OUR FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
IT CONTINUES TO GROW, IT
CONTINUES TO REACH OUT AND CHOKE
OUT THE LIFE OF THE SMALL
BUSINESS ENTREPRENEUR.
I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
IT REALLY IS ABOUT CONFIDENCE.
I THINK THAT THE HARD-WORKING
FOLKS THAT I KNOW IN THE
DISTRICT, THEY WANT TO KNOW THAT
WE REALLY ARE GOING TO START IN
A REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE WAY
AND CONTAIN THIS EVER EXPANDING
GOVERNMENT.
I WILL CLOSE WITH THIS.
I'M NOT AN ADVOCATE FOR NO
REGULATION BUT SMARTER AND
LIGHTER REGULATION AND I THINK
THIS AMENDMENT MEETS THAT TEST.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE IN
FAVOR OF IT.
AND I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM RISE?
TO CLAIM TIME IN OPPOSITION.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CONNECTICUT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
I COME TO THE FLOOR TO ARGUE
IN OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT
AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION.
I WAS MOVED BECAUSE THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA AND THE
EAFMENT OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN
FROM VIRGINIA ARE BOTH ABOUT
REPORTS AND ANALYSIS THAT THIS
NEW AGENCY WILL BE REQUIRED TO
PRODUCE.
AND IT'S ODD TO GIVE MY FRIENDS
CREDIT, THEY USUALLY STAND FOR
MORE STREAMLINED GOVERNMENT.
THEY ARE ABOUT EFFICIENCY AND
STREAMLINING AND WE ARE HEARING
ABOUT MORE REPORTS AND MORE
ANALYSIS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON
THAT THIS IS PART OF A LARGER
STRATEGY TO WEIGH DOWN AND
UNDERFUND AN AGENCY THEY HAVE NO
INTEREST IN SEEING SURVIVE, AN
AGENCY THAT WOULD PROTECT
CONSUMERS AND PROTECT THAT GROUP
THAT WAS BADLY AND MOST SEVERELY
HARMED IN THE DISASTER THAT WE
JUST WENT THROUGH.
WHY?
ONE CAN SPECULATE.
PERHAPS IT'S TO STAND FOR THE
INDUSTRY, FOR THE FINANCIAL
CONCERNS.
BUT WHY, WHY DO THAT?
WHY DO THAT WHEN IT HAS BEEN
PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN NOT
IN THE LAST THREE YEARS BUT OVER
100 YEARS THAT FINANCIAL
SERVICES IS A VERY VOLATILE AND
RISKY PURSUIT THAT IF NOT
ADEQUATELY REGULATED WILL DO
WHAT IT HAS DONE IN THE LAST
THREE YEARS, THE LATE 1920'S AND
WHAT IT HAS DONE HUNDREDS OF
ITSELF.
YEARS PRIOR COLLAPSING UPON
THIS IS REGULATION THAT IS
SMART, COMMON SENSE AND WILL
PROTECT THE AMERICAN FAMILY FROM
PRODUCTS THAT COULD DESTROY THAT
FAMILY.
LET'S NOT WEIGH DOWN THIS
INDUSTRY OR DECAP TATE IT OR
UNDERFUND IT BUT LET IT SURVIVE
TO PROTECT AMERICAN FAMILIES AND
.
WITH THAT, I RESERVE.
SOMETIMES IT IS HELPFUL TO
READ THE LAW.
THIS AMENDMENT IS ALMOST
COMPLETELY REDUNDANT IN WHERE IT
IT IS NOT REDUNDANT IT IS
ANNOYINGLY POINTLESS.
THIS IS WHAT THE LAW ALREADY
REQUIRES, BEFORE THE CFPB CAN
ADOPT A RULE.
IT HAS TO CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL
BENEFITS AND CALLS TO CONSUME --
COST TO CONSUMERS AND TO THE
FINANCIAL INDUSTRY.
IT HAS TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF
THE RULES, IT HAS TO CONSIDER
WHETHER IT CONSTRICTS CREDIT,
WHETHER IT MAKES IT HARDER FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES OR INDIVIDUALS,
HOUSEHOLDS TO GET CREDIT, ALL OF
WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
REQUIRE IS ALREADY IN THE BILL.
AND THE CFPB, THEIR
RULE MAKING REQUIRES THAT THEY
GIVE NOTICE THAT THEY'RE GOING
TO CONSIDER A RULE AND THEN
THEY'VE GOT TO TAKE COMMENT AND
THEN THEY'VE GOT TO PROPOSE A
RULE, THEN THEY'VE GOT TO TAKE
COMMENT AGAIN AND THEY KNOW THAT
IF ANYBODY'S AGAINST IT THEY'VE
GOT TO BE PREPARED TO DEFEND IT
IN COURT.
AND THEY'VE GOT TO SHOW THAT
THEY DEVELOPED THE EVIDENCE THAT
SUPPORTS THE RULE AND SUPPORTS
ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT IT
ACTUALLY -- WHAT BENEFITS ARE,
WHAT THE COSTS ARE AND WHETHER
IT KEEPS PEOPLE FROM GETTING
CREDIT.
WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO
DO, THOUGH, IS TO MAKE THE CFPB
PREPARE A REPORT WHEN NOBODY'S
AGAINST IT.
WHEN EVERYBODY'S PERFECTLY FINE
WITH IT.
WHEN IT DOESN'T HURT ANYBODY.
IT DOESN'T BOTHER ANYBODY.
IT'S PROCEDURAL.
IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE THIS
SILLY, POINTLESS REPORT FOR A
RULE THAT NOBODY IS AGAINST.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THE
MEMBERS, MOST MEMBERS, DO NOT
WANT TO MAKE GOVERNMENT UNWIELDY
AND FILLED WITH RED TAPE.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD JUST MAKE
GOVERNMENT MORE UNWIELDY AND
MORE FILLED WITH RED TAPE.
I OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
AYES HAVE IT.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
ON THAT I ASK FOR A
RECORDED VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA WILL BE
POSTPONED.
-- VIRGINIA WILL BE POSTPONED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE 18,
PROCEEDINGS WILL NOW RESUME ON
THOSE AMENDMENTS PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-172 ON WHICH
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE
POSTPONED IN THE FOLLOWING
ORDER.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 BY MS.
JACKSON LEE OF TEXAS.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 5 BY MR. MILLER
FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 6 BY MS.
JACKSON LEE OF TEXAS.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 9 BY MRS.
MALONEY OF NEW YORK.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 11 BY MR.
RIGELL FROM VIRGINIA.
THE CHAIR WILL REDUCE TO TWO
MINUTES THE MINIMUM TIME FOR
ELECTRONIC VOTES AFTER THE FIRST
SERIES OF VOTES.
THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS IS THE
REQUEST FOR A RECORDED VOTE ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-172 BY THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM TEXAS, MS.
JACKSON LEE, ON WHICH FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS WERE POSTPONED AND
ON WHICH THE NOES PREVAILED BY
VOICE VOTE.
THE CLERK WILL REDESIGNATE THE
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-172
OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON LEE OF
TEXAS.
A RECORDED VOTE HAS
BEEN REQUESTED.
THOSE IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST
AND BE COUNTED.
FOR A RECORDED VOTE WILL RISE
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ARISEN, A RECORD VOTE IS
ORDERED.
MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES
BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
THIS IS A 15-MINUTE VOTE.
[CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY THE
NATIONAL CAPTIONING INSTITUTE,
INC., IN COOPERATION WITH THE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
ANY USE OF THE CLOSED-CAPTIONED
COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS FOR POLITICAL OR
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS EXPRESSLY
PROHIBITED BY THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.]
E
ON THIS VOTE, THE
YEAS ARE 170, THE NAYS ARE 239,
THE MOTION IS NOT ADOPTED.
THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS IS THE