tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN July 6, 2016 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
below the president's request, it's no surprise which agencies would be subject to impractical and inadequate funding levels. this bill would slash i.r.s.'s resources by $237 million, allowing more tax cheats to go undetected and preventing law-abiding americans from receiving assistance. . similarly, funding the s.e.c. at $226 million below the request would thwart its ability to protect investors. this is particularly egregious because the s.e.c. is fee-funded , and meeting the commission's needed would not cost taxpayers a dime. i offered an amendment at full committee markup that would have
provided the s.e.c. with the president's funding request. it was rejected. despite the fact that it would cost taxpayers nothing. instead of investing in infrastructure, the bill would gut and cut g.s.a. construction and acquisition projects by $1.3 billion. it only partially funds a new head -- headquarters for the f.b.i. and does not fund the next phase of the department of homeland security's headquarters. further delaying the ability to consolidate our homeland security apparatus into one location. yet inadequate funding is only part of the story. and the long list of riders turns a bad bill into an example of the republican majority's unnecessary culture war. a tax on women's health,
interference in implementation of the affordable care act, and net neutrality, restrictive provisions on cuba, and a demeaning effort to dictate local governments to washington, d.c., are particularly shameful. once again, this misguided provision's unnecessary -- provisions unnecessarily -- this misguided provision unnecessarily does this. despite these numerous shortcomings, the bill adequately supports the small business administration and would help communities come back -- combat the growing heroin epidemic by increasing the drug-free communities program and the high intensity drug trafficking areas program. this bill provided the house with the opportunity to put investments ahead of politics. unfortunately the house republican majority has no interest in these priorities.
i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, but thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. carter: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 5485, the fiscal year 2017 financial services and general government appropriations act. not only does this bill provide necessary funding for many needed programs, it also helps stop the administration from pushing burdensome and harmful regulations on the american people. for example, the cfpb recently announced its intent to severely limit the availability of short term loans, vehicle title loans and similar financial products. h.r. 5485 contains language that would prevent cfpb from
implementing these proposed regulations. while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that cfpb's new proposal is an important step for consumer protection, they are wrong to think the cfpb's actions will have a positive impact for the underserved. the cfpb's proposal would eliminate a vital source of emergency funding for those who are unable to obtain loans from traditional lending institutions. while i will be the first to promote increased access to financial services for the underserved, eliminating short-term lending products is not the answer. i urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i yield five minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. waters, ranking member of the financial services committee. the chair: the gentlewoman from
california is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. speaker, here we go again. it is appropriation season in the house of representatives. so we know what that means. once again, the american public can bear witness to our republican colleagues underfunding our wall street cops on the beat, and attacking wall street reform with endless budget riders. indeed, by my count, there were 34 straight republican amendments filed to the rules committee that would undermine, undercut or underfund our financial regulators. these amendments span the gamut of special interest giveaways from undoing critical consumer protections to exposing investors to financial spreadation to undermining financial stability. first, and perhaps most importantly, both the base bill
and many of the amendments we're considering today stab at the heart of the consumer financial protection bureau, the sole regulator tasked with protecting students, service members, seniors and other borrowers in the consumer lending marketplace. to name just a few of the provisions that would harm the cfpb, this bill would end the bureau's independent funding, bog the cfpb down in gridlock by replacing its efficient, directed structure with a partisan, bureaucratic commission, halt the bureau's efforts to end forced arbitration clauses and credit card contracts, and give consumers their day in court. resinled the cfpb's guidance -- rescind the cfpb's guidance that helps prevent discrimination in automobile lending markets. defund the bureau's efforts to stop predatory lending to borrowers looking to purchase a manufactured home, and make it harder for the cfpb to bring
enforcement actions against bad actors. what's more, the bill would halt the cfpb's efforts to stop the debt trap created by predatory payday lending. as the report released just last month by my office revealed, these lenders are adept at skirting state laws. that's why we need strong federal rules of the road. unfortunately this bill would ensure that payday lenders can continue to rip off our constituents and push them deeper into the cycle of debt. democrats will offer amendments today to remove these harmful provisions in the bill and i urge all of my colleagues to support our efforts. this bill would also cut funding for the scureses and exchange commission -- securities and exchange commission, that is the s.e.c., which oversees our growing complex capital markets and needs sufficient resources to police them effectively. republicans have shown us time
and time again that they don't want the s.e.c. to be able to do its job. that's why we're proposing nearly 15% less, they are proposing nearly 15% less than the s.e.c. has said it needs to properly oversee the 26,000 market participants under its purview. it's also 3% less than the agency received last year, which already has a shoestring budget, a regulatory task of implementing and enforcing significant aspects of dodd-frank, the jobs act, and other important legislation. to make matters worse, the bill along with republican amendments would limit critical information for investors in companies by rescinding current or future disclosure requirements on c.e.o. pay. -- pay, climate change, conflict minerals and political spending by big corporations, as well as
limiting shareholders' ability to elect directors to corporate boards. finally, the bill also undercuts the financial stability oversight council, that is, fsoc, which keeps our financial system safe by looking out for systemic risk throughout the system and closing the gaps in our once fractured regulatory framework. standing with other democrats, i will offer amendments to strike some of the most harmful provisions of this bill. but make no mistake, even if these amendments were adopted, democrats cannot support this legislation, which so gravely underfunds and undermines wall street reform. that, it is fair to say, it would expose us to another financial crisis. i strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this very harmful legislation and with that i will yield back the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to one of the valuesed members of our subcommittee, mr. graves from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of the financial services and general government appropriations bill. as a member of the subcommittee, i am proud of the product that chairman crenshaw and each of the subcommittee members have produced this year. this bill provides critical resources that truly respect taxpayers. in fact, this legislation is $1.5 billion below last year's spending level, and it's $2.7 billion, almost $3 billion, below what the president requested. in this year's bill, we focused on peeling away the excessive government regulations, which have made it harder for all hardworking americans to access the financial markets and the regulations that have depressed economic growth that we've all seen and experienced in our districts. our bill brings the consumer
financial protection bureau under the appropriations process, ensuring that the money it spends has proper oversight and is accountable to all the people's representatives. while we eliminate a slush fund at the securities and exchange commission, at the same time, which was created by dodd-frank. additionally, this bill includes provisions that ensure the failure of any financial institution is dealt with through the time-tested process of bankruptcy and not through a bailout process. we included language that limits the disastrous too big to fail concept from expanding beyond the bank pping sector to nonbank -- banking sector to nonbanking institutions. these changes help curb some of the worst parts of the administration's financial overreach over the past few years. in the bill, we also have focused on improving accountability at the government agencies, in particular, the i.r.s. our commonsense reforms include prohibiting the i.r.s. from rehiring fired employees,
banning all their bonuses, and outlawing their ability to target groups based on political or religious beliefs, and cutting the agency by another $236 million. this in itself should be plenty of reason for all members to support this bill and get excited about it. while we've slashed the i.r.s. by more than $1 billion and cracked down on its leadership over the last five years, we must continue keeping it on a short leash. finally, this bill supports our nation's small businesses by prioritizing funding for the small business administration. with that, mr. chairman, i'd ask all members to support this good bill put together by chairman crenshaw. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. israel: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, one of our great progressive voices, ms. lee, who is a member both of the appropriations and the budget committee.
we sometimes don't get along, that's her issue. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. yes, i want to thank our ranking member for your stellar leadership as our ranking member on this subcommittee and for your kind remarks. also i want to thank our chairman, mr. crenshaw, for working with our side of the aisle, despite our differences. mr. chairman, i rise, though, in strong opposition to the fiscal 2017 financial services and general government appropriations bill. this is yet another spending bill filled with ideologically driven riders from house republicans. sadly, the bad provisions in this bill greatly outweigh the few good provisions, like increased funding for community development financial institutions, and the small business administration's women's business centers, those are good provisions. unfortunately, however, once again my colleagues across the aisle have chosen to score
political points instead of doing the serious work of governing. just to name a few, this bill includes numerous, numerous dangerous and offensive riders. one, to undermine the rule of the law in the district of columbia and deny low-income d.c. women their basic right to a safe and affordable health care -- comprehensive health care choice, including abortion. now, the women of the district of columbia should be allowed to make their own reproductive health choices, whatever health choices they deem they need and want and desire. republican members of congress should not be interfering in the district of columbia's women's health decisions. that is offensive, it's wrong and you need to stop that. another rider prevents the consumer financial bureau from protecting the hard-earned paychecks of american families.
another rider undermines our efforts to normalize relations with cuba, after a 50-year failed policy by the united states of america. his bill also blocks the federal communications commission from ensuring a free and open internet for all. these are a few of the amendments that are unacceptable. when i joined the appropriations committee, i was told the legislating on appropriations bills, that that was not allowed. once again, its majority continues to violate the rules of the house. so i guess you kind of make up these new rules as you write these bills, which is really irresponsible and totally unfair. the majority should consider the disservice they are doing to the american people by continuing to
push through these underfunded appropriations bills, packed with these dangerous and partisan riders, these policy decisions that have been made on an appropriations bill. these bills hurt our economy, they stifle opportunity, they erode women's rights in the district of columbia. year after year, the most vulnerable americans are pushed into poverty because they underfund these vital programs that are in this bill. i hope my colleagues stop the political gamesmanship and start funding our government to meet the vital needs. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i would like to yield three minutes to the hardest working member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from
nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. ranking member. you know, as i sit here and i listen, i hear the words appropriately appropriate, poison pill riders, real losers are the american people. accept reality. and i ask myself, who do i work for. and i don't want to speak to my 434 colleagues, i don't work for the president. i work for the people of my district. so the fact that i may disagree with the administration on something isn't news to anybody in a congressional content. sit here and look at this and think, we are interfering with women's health directives and it's like, i didn't get a great grade in civics. part of this role is oversight.
that's the key of appropriations and we are conducting that because there are differences of opinion. so while one side advocates thinks is the correct policy. when somebody is doing when they think is right, i'm not impugning. but i have to tell you and i think the a.c.a., i'm thinking wow! , i missed something there. d.o.d. frank. it's like -- dodd-frank. we need watchdogs. but kuwait frankly when i hear poison pill riders, how about poison pill riders. how about regulations? we need to say what we think is appropriate for the people who sent us here. no disrespect to this
administration, although i wonder what shoe it would have been eight years ago, but i wasn't here eight years ago to remember that, it's like listen, we are going to disagree on policy, but because the congress thought of something in the majority that it is a poison pill rider and pretend that everything comes out, health care, i.r.s., 501-c's. and by the way, in the c i got in civics, the power of the purse is the biggest oversight and it should be used. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. serrano: i yield to mr. hoyer for the purposes of entering in a colloquy.
mr. hoyer: we have been working on federal bureau of investigation project since 2007. this project remains a top priority for the maryland delegation. the three sites under consideration were due on june 22, two sites are located in maryland. they have been working at the federal, state and working levels to assemble competitive bids. a elieve in a fair and better fit for the f.b.i. as i have discussed with the chairman and ranking member, i remain skend about the general services administration recent reduction in relocating facilities. since the cost of relocation will be factored into the price for the springfield site. we need to ensure that it
produces an accurate number that taxpayers will be asked to cover. my question is, will you agree to work with me to ensure that the g.s.a. accurately reports the cost of any federal facility relocation associated with these sites? and in addition to that, i would ask, does the gentleman agree that the chairman and ranking member that such transparency on the part of g.s.a. is needed to ensure for siting of this facility is fair and provides accurate information to developers competing to construct and house this critically important f.b.i. project? and i yield to the chairman? mr. crenshaw: let me say to you, from maryland, thank you for bringing this to our attention, and you have my assurance as we have previously discussed that i will work with you to make sure
this is an open and fair process all the way down the line. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman and i rely on that and i appreciate it. mr. serrano: i thank my distinguished whip from maryland for his involvement in this effort and his steadfast advocacy in making sure the processes of the new f.b.i. headquarters is located on the best site possible. he has my commitment we will work together to ensure that this is a fair process and g.s.a. provides all relevant information to prospective bidders accurately. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maine for the purpose of a
colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> the amendment that i was planning to offer tonight is related to the securities and exchange commission proposed rule 30-e-3. this rule is finalized in its current form. wall street mutual fund companies could take away the paper statements that are received by main street investors simply by sending them a notice that their paper reports have been canceled. investors could only regain those reports if they return a form going back into paper. this is particularly hurtful to the elderly and the poor and those living in rural areas. mr. poliquin: those who lack internet access. it is so easy to see how problems could occur with this
current rule in its current form. seniors could misunderstand the letter of their loss of paper reports and discard the letter a an investor sending in request to request those paper statements. my own parents, who are 386 and 88, struggled to even use a cell phone. how can we expect millions of our seniors across the country ho live in rural areas with no internet access to log onto the internet to receive critical fund information. if this rule, 30-e-3 is implemented in its current form, i believe and fear that millions of our fellow americans will be left out in an information desert. americans need to know how much
they have saved for a new home, college or retirement. congress should encourage savings and market confidence among our families, but at a time, mr. chairman, where 50% of the mutual fund assets are owned by our seniors, this rule in its current form does just the opposite. over 90% of the comments, 90%, mr. chair, received by the s.e.c. -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized. mr. poliquin: 90% of the comments received on this issue conclude that investors want to retain their paper financial reports. see chairman, crenshaw, i ask you today, please, for your support to ensure that a final rule on this issue from the
s.e.c. is fair to all investors senior y, our small investors living in rural areas. i yield back to chairman crenshaw. mr. crenshaw: let me say thank you to the gentleman and thank you for the hard work you have spent in trying to let everyone know how important this is. the proposed rule before the .e.c. would allow share holder reports on the web sites instead of having to print them and mail them. and i understand your concerns because of this adequate access to the internet, especially as you point out to the elderly or folks living in rural areas and i think the s.e.c. rule should strike the right balance. as you know, this rule is currently under review by the commission and i think the amendment might have been
premature but i know this is important to you and i tharpg you again for bringing it forward and i'm happy to work with you and the s.e.c. to make sure this is a balanced rule. so thank you. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: i would like to recognize myself. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: we heard some comments on the house floor are e about war people offended at that outside speaks about and the word oversight was used. i'm the biggest supporter of oversight. oversight does not mean destroying agencies, oversight doesn't mean cutting agencies down to a bare bones or going after the i.r.s. because it is in some rule book that you go
after the i.r.s. and oversight is not telling the district of columbia that it can't have any kind of self-government, because given the choice, we would not allow the district of columbia to do anything. so i just want to clarify that point. i believe, we believe in oversight, but when you start oversight with the feeling that a zero budget would be the best way to go, when you start feeling disrespect for the leader of our country, our president, we should start feeling with you got leblingted to congress to oppose everything that happens in congress and only you can clean up and fix congress as if it needed fixing. sometimes i may be the only one who says it, but, you know,
there is gridlock and there is democracy. and sometimes people don't agree. and when they don't agree, that is healthy. if they don't agree all the time just for foolish reasons, it is gridlock. if we don't agree because of philosophy, that is democracy at its best. the budget is always on time but only one person making the decision. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin for the purpose of a colloquy. mr. duffy: i thank the chairman for yielding and engaging in the colloquy and his hard work and financial services as you navigate this last final bill to the house floor. we are grateful. the amendment that i was planning on offering tonight is related to my concerns of the
potential market abuses of shorting small pharmaceutical companies. i'm concerned about a new tactic by some market participants. there is a reporting that there is a deceptive by hedge funds to challenge the legitimacy of a dug patent and shorting the stock. they game the system. they short the stock and then they publicize patent challenges and promote fear and drive down prices and make a lot of money. this warrants further examples. for potential violations of law. this is short positions and increase transparency to combat these types of attack.
this is not an issue of the legality of the practice, but also about the impact this practice has on the market, but more importantly on the millions of americans who need these treatments. this affects members of congress, your staff, families, we are talking about life-saving drugs. the pharmaceutical industry and the extraordinary time and upfront investment it takes to bring a drug to market is vulnerable to this kind of attack. biotech companies rely on their patents and to drive down its ock will discourage and slow drug development or worst derail the life saving care for people that you know in your families in your district. and i thank you for engaging in
this colloquy. . mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for his work in other areas of the financial services industry. i know he's one of the hardworking members that cares about what happens and to make sure that we keep our financial system orderly and fair. let me just say, i know, as you, that a critical part of the s.e.c.'s mission is to make sure our markets are fair, orderly and i'm happy to commit to work with you and to work with the s.e.c. on this very important issue. thank you again for bringing it tower attention and i reserve the balance of my time -- to our attention and i reserve the balance of my time. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york has yielded back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: at this point, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. stivingers. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized -- stive -- mr. crenshaw: at this point, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two
minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. stivers. the chair: the gentleman is recognize. mr. stivers: i rise to support the underlying bill which provides $21.7 billion in funding and targets resources across multiple agencies that will boost economic growth and opportunity. it will protect consumers, protect investors, and promote an efficient federal court system and stop financial crime. to my colleagues, i'm pleased to know that the bill includes language that prohibits the i.r.s. from targeting specific individuals who are exercising their first amendment right and, you know, i support that language as well. the legislation also includes provisions that increase oversight of the consumer financial protection bureau or cfpb. it puts the agency in the normal annual appropriations process, like we're doing here today. and it replaces the single director head of an agency with a five-person commission, similar to other agencies that
are charged with regulating financial markets. i also want to take a moment to speak in support of bipartisan language in the bill that would pause the cfpb's proposed lending on short-term -- or proposed rule on short-term lending. the independent community bankers of america and the credit union national association recently wrote the cfpb to voice their strong opposition to this rule. they fear that this rule will force them out of the short-term credit market and stop them from serving millions of consumers across our country. in fact, the cfpb's own analysis says that 84% of current loan volume will disappear as a result of this rule. the cfpb claims that community banks will make up this shortfall, but the community banks themselves refute this. that's why i think we must keep the bipartisan language in the bill that pauses this short-term rule, that could force millions of americans to have nowhere to turn for their financial needs.
mr. chairman, the cfpb's proposed rule would put lenders out of business and leave these constituents with nowhere to turn. millions of hardworking americans would not be able to deal with unexpected emergencies. that's why i urge members to support the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: at this point i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 794, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered read through page 265, line 9. are there any points of order against the bill? for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i raise a point of order against the following provision of h.r. 5485, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21.
beginning with, quote, providing further, end quote, on page 122, ine 19, through 2012 on page 122, line 22. this provision proposes to change existing law by imparting direction to the united states postal service and therefore constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heards on the point of order? -- heard on the point of order? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: mr. chair, i wish to be heard on the point of order. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. kaptur: thank you, mr. chair. let me clarify what insisting on this point of order means. first, it means that the amendment that the appropriationses committee added to the bill, requiring the postal service to maintain highest quality delivery standards is nullified. this amendment was passed for
fiscal year 2017, without objection, in our committee, and it was included in last year's bill and was passed back then as well. so it's not something new. it stands as a strong measure of support for the u.s. postal service in both rural and urban america, and those that neither snow nor rain nor heat nor anything else stays them from the completion of their completed rounds -- the chair: the gentlewoman will confine her remarks to the point of order. ms. kaptur: it is our constitutional responsibility in article 1, we should not retard postal operations. second, the chaffetz point of order will actually cost our citizenry mother money, by in fact $66 million, due to the added transportation costs that result from drastically slowing down the processing and cliffery of the nation's mail -- delivery of the nation's mail. timely processing and delivery of mail is critical -- the chair: the gentlewoman will suspend. the chair will again remind the gentlelady to confine her remarks to the point of order.
ms. kaptur: thank you. third, mr. speaker, it would not have been unusual or extraordinary for the rules committee to have protected from a point of order the mail delivery standards added to this bill, when in fact they actually included 30 other amendments that are in the bill, affecting the s.e.c., the i.r.s. -- the chair: the gentlewoman will suspend. the chair's prepared to rule. the chair finds that this provision includes language imparting direction to the united states postal service, the provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained. the provision is stricken from he bill. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: mr. chair, i'd like to appeal the ruling of the chair. the chair: the question is, shall the decision of the chair stand as a judgment of the committee of the whole.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ruling is sustained. ms. kaptur: mr. chair. the chair: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a record vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded 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.]