is based upon the obama administration proposal and as one component of a broad financial regulatory reform package the financial services committee consider this bill last week in order to to be reported favorably is now our turn to consider the legislation it is clear that our system for protecting consumers in the financial marketplace is broken the structure and division of responsibilities among the banking agencies has led to a regulatory race to the bottom the federal trade commission has taken steps to protect consumers but its jurisdiction is limited and it has been hampered by its slow and burdensome rule making process a new approach is warranted the legislation before us creates a new consumer financial protection agency that will be responsible for consumer protection across the entire financial marketplace it also provides for important new authorities for the federal trade commission that will improve f t c is rule making and in forstmann capabilities i've examined this proposal with two key goals in mind first we must strike ger any new agency so that it meets its mission and serves as a strong authoritative voice for consumers and second we must ensure that the federal trade commission is strengthened not weakened by any changes unlike the banking agent agencies f t c has consumer protection as its core mission i work closely with chairman frank as he conducted his committee's consideration of this legislation and i'm pleased that he made many essential changes to the bill particularly with regard to the impact on the f t c is amendments would preserve f t c full authority under the c act and enable f t c to continue to enforce aggressively against financial fraud chairman frank also improve the c f p a itself is changes would make c f be a fully independent from the rejected branch and would prevent banking regulators from having a direct role in the governance of the agency these and other changes strengthen the legislation i do have some concerns about amendments that were added to  consideration at the financial services committee a primary goal of this legislation is to ensure that consumers are protected from unfair deceptive and abusive practices throughout the financial marketplace i'm concerned that too many exemptions and exclusions were put into the bill the broad exclusions that prevents e f c a from regulating or enforcing against merchants and retailers auto dealers and others could weaken the agency and create confusion in the marketplace i will not seek to amend any of these exclusions today but i will want to examine them closely as we move to consideration on the floor i'd like to thank subcommittee chairman rush for his diligent work on this issue in recent months is subcommittee held an important hearing on this proposal just one week after the legislative language which in turn was introduced the testimony of that hearing is inform the debate about the proposal and has been essential for our preparations at the appropriate time i'll be introducing a manager's amendment jointly with ranking member barton we have worked together in preparation for this markup and i found agreement in important areas i will also be introducing an amendment to further strengthen f litigation authority i urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment my amendment on the f t c authorities and final passage and i want to recognize mr barton for the opening statement thank you mr chairman  i think you and i both share the same go preserving the jurisdiction of the energy and commerce committee and that is the reason of the primary reason that i have agreed to participate and to be supportive of some of the things in this markup so that commission with us in the front row we're welcome to have him today we may give you a vote later on on some of these amendments if it's necessary i'm pleased to see some of the provisions mr  n the original bill that would have stripped jurisdiction from the federal trade commission and given it to the new agency have been dropped or modified this means that the federal trade commission will continue to have significant consumer protection authority as we discuss a july subcommittee hearing on the proposal the federal trade commission has been a leading bright spot in federal consumer protection over the years this reflects the fact that the committee is very active with respect to laws on consumer protection issues ranging from privacy theft to financial fraud perpetrated against consumers i intend to support as you indicated mr chairman the manager's amendment which does contain provisions that both sides of the aisle can support in addition to preserving the c is ability to enforce its current statutory authority it also ensures that the f t c will have shared foresman overthe already over some authorities that are being transferred to the new agency additionally the f t c will be treated the same as the improvement in the manager's amendment will ensure that decades of experience that the f t c has in dealing with consumer protection issues can be brought to bear under the new regulatory regime regime if it in fact turns out to to be given when i cannot ultimately support his final passage of this legislation i do not believe that we need to create a new super financial regulator i think that's the wrong response to the financial crisis and i do not think that it will do anything to correct the fundamental problems that created the crisis in the first place the history of the current financial crisis is still being written involves many problems in the mortgage lending and security markets the collapse of the in my opinion  fannie mae and freddie mac the collapse of many private banks in insurers and lax oversight by both public and private entities that allowed the world's largest ponzi scheme to date perpetrated by bernie madoff solving these problems with one piece of legislation to shuffle the deck chairs into a new agency in my opinion is not going to overcome the perils of just general human greed and lack of morality scam artists will not disappear because a new agency is created they will simply find a new way just last week the inspector general for the treasury department testified the level of fraud associated with the new homebuyers tax credit is pervasive so even when congress and tries to enact a solution we only create in many times additional problems mr chairman we have a number of amendments that we plan to offer during today's markup i think there are about twelve but we do intend to be this congress the bill before us creates the consumer financial protection agency and removes authority from the federal trade commission the sweeping changes given the sweeping changes it's troubling that the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the f the commerce trade and consumer protection subcommittee had only one hearing on this topic in september realizing the importance of this piece of legislation republican members of the subcommittee wrote a letter to the majority asking for an additional hearing on the actual legislation and we never received a response what concerns me even further is that we're not given the opportunity for a subcommittee markup of this bill considering that the entirety of title two would normally be considered by this committee under a  federal trade commission act some provisions such as the a p a rule making authority stretch far beyond the scope of financial protection into the broader economy at the very least a subcommittee markup would have seemed appropriate with respect to the rule making authority specifically a democratic congress imposed the more rigorous magnussen mosse rule making procedures on the f t c for a reason providing a blank check for rules is a change congress should not contemplate lightly particularly when the impact would be sweeping mr chairman i'm beginning to see a pattern in this legislation that is coming out of the energy and commerce committee seems that if the bill that if there is a bill that has any possible way to increase the size scope or structure of the federal government this committee will pass it in fact the two major bills that have passed out of this committee the cap and tax non energy bill and the government takeover of health care have each come with a price tag closing in on one trillion dollars and represent a massive expansion of the government into the private sector in fact the author of those legislation chairman barney frank earlier this week bragged that we are trying on every front to increase the role of government in my opinion that isn't something to be bragging about the current government behemoths before us today the c f b a would have jurisdiction over nearly any financial activity product or service used by a consumer and put chancellery many products or services not traditionally considered financial this bill is riddled with contradictions broadly defined terms and in in an infinite potential for ill advised regulatory authority in a nod to government's own narcissism this definition of any activity is to be determined by the at c f p a which literally gives the it the authority to expand its jurisdiction at will without congressional approval this reminds me of something former president ronald reagan once said regulations are like spores of fungus they settle anywhere and everywhere and create more spores in this case a c f p a isn't just the sports the entire fungus all of this overregulation is in the name of increasing consumer protection with every which everybody agrees is a good thing but must it be done it must be done in a correct way while the current regulators of the financial sector often do a poor job in forcing consumer protection they still have a mandate to ensure a safety and soundness of the banking industry we should be focusing on how to help them better protect consumers and meet these responsibilities not expanding government authority and creating more rules ols the ability to define such terms as unfair or  without the mandate to insure safety and soundness is a cocktail for an unstable financial sector not something that our already unstable economy needs or something that helps protect consumers in another curious move the c f p a absorbs all of the f t c s consumer protection authority one of the agency's primary missions and one that is carried out extremely well the f t c has a robust consumer protection division and did not contribute to the current economic crisis and should be allowed to retain its enforcement authority currently under the bill the f t c has secondary enforcement authority and no authority to issue rules guidance or requires reports for the  transferred mr chairman the consumer financial protection agency is a conglomerate of frightening government gluttony and i thought that i thought could only exist as oppressive agencies in and ran novels and while there are probably many ways to improve the endless shortcomings of this legislation i believe the best fix would be to scrap this entire bill allow the f t c to continue its aggressive consumer protection and focus on meaningful reform within existing agencies german thank you you're to be commended for could visiting today's markup and for the way you handled this difficult matter and it's consideration of h r three one two six the consumer financial protection agency act of two thousand and nine this committee will fulfill its traditional roles as the congress's bastion of consumer protection and in addition to preserve and i dare say augmenting its jurisdiction in that area i have heard complaints today about people who say that this is excessive expenditure government authorities i wonder how that argument would be received by those who were victimized by enron or by the strip meadow who stole hundreds of billions of dollars from unknowing and unsuspecting people or who are now seeing their homes going into foreclosure because of the grotesque and gross misbehavior which we have seen on the part of those good hearted wall streeters who have made billions while sinking the american economy into the worst recession since the great depression of one nine outrageous misbehavior which brought on the one nine hundred twenty nine crash i gave full throated opposition to this outrageous legislation on the floor of the house based in no small part on my belief that it would permit the creation of financial institutions which for lack of better description would be too big to fail and too uncontrolled and unfettered in their misbehavior to be trusted with public monies that statement had the merit of being true ten years ago and it is at least today prophetic indeed graham leech bly they gave rise to the creation of financial juggernauts without limitations on their power or structure whose underhanded actions gone and regulated by design of that act have driven this country over an economic precipice of proportions not seen since the great depression this is my mind makes it incumbent upon the congress to reimpose a regulatory environment upon the financial services industry that will ensure the abuses which gave rise to the present aptly named great recession will never again occur while i posit the legislation pending on our consideration today and the economic crisis from which it draws purpose could have been avoided ten years ago by opposing gramm leach bliley i nevertheless offer my support for h r three one two six as a laudable effort by which the conserver will be protected against further deregulation which is either on the books or which might enter the books and the chaos which flowed from it or which could flow from it all the same i believe h r three one two six is not perfect in keeping with my belief that the creation of colossal financial institutions unregulated free to steal or gauge in any manner of rascality that they might deem appropriate is in large part to blame for this country's current economic malaise i will support the amendments of this bill went when it is considered by the full house or other legislation to compel the restructuring of these financial institutions deemed too large to fail i urge my colleagues to support this costs concept so as to give the federal government a powerful and necessary tool with which to prevent the systematic risks that this kind of situation poses to our economy thank you mr chairman for your back the balance of my time thank you very much mr dingell we're going to recognize members who wish to give an opening statement for one minute but i'd like to ask  consent that all members opening statements will be put into the record and if members don't wish to use that minute they can just put their statements of the record any member seek recognition forward opening statement for one minute chairman i'll be real brief all we want is really transparency the real reform would be to allow the manipulative wall street bear and when they fail to go bankrupt and since we were intent on bailing them out  we are we are now in this process of trying to figure out why we allowed failure to be rewarded by government bailouts and that's why i want to just concur with what my colleague mr donovan said quoting  chairman barney frank said we are trying on every front to increase the role of government if you ever want to see a real separation between the parties in ideology this is another example and this is all we've seen from this congress is more government more regulation more taxation bigger burden which hurts a competitive market in his field and i'm sorry we continue to go down this path of you back my time jimmy us back is time further ensley for one minute thank you well this is a lot of will step forward i'm concerned about the the overall lack of ambition of our efforts and i believe our efforts at the moment because they allow banks to become too big to fail our efforts are too little to succeed and the direction we are now on are to allow a continued concentration of this industry and the continued exposure and i think continued expansion of of moral hazard in an immoral way and i don't know how big the fire has to become until we learn that allowing institutions to become so large that the federal taxpayer is going to have to be on the hook for in one way or another is simply not adequate to the task at hand i join mr dingell in the glass steagall act we ought to revisit that i hope we do i mention one other smaller matter in the bill i hope to change ultimately we treat banks and credit unions differently in this bill as to when the threshold kicks in they ought to be the same the credit unions have been at least probably better i think the record is showing they are less responsible for this clapp we had a tree in the same hope that gets fix thank you so much time has expired mr pitts thing was chairing this bill has important implications for consumers and the f t c we've all learned much from the recent financial meltdown we learned that easy access to liquid standards can bring down global markets we learned that too big to fail poses a real risk to the taxpayer but we also learned that an overly cumbersome and complex regulatory structure creates gaps in oversight regulatory gaps lead irresponsible market behavior which then lead to less marketplace transparency excessive risk taking most importantly less consumer protection and it's for this reason that we're here today to better protect consumers we must do this prudently though avoiding the mistakes of the past there are now eight federal financial regulators now we're talking about adding one more unfortunately creating yet another divided just of regulation only makes more room for further gaps and oversight we saw the effects of divided regulation of fannie mae and freddie mac where to regulators meant less regulation and more instead of adding a nice layer of bureaucracy to financial regulation we should work to streamline our regulatory agencies bring transparency and since super choice to our markets consumer financial protection is a worthy goal unfortunately increasing the layers of bureaucracy in the financial industry has not protected consumers in the past i see no reason why it will this time around we all desire fact in a fish enforcement of consumer protection laws it's my hope that as a committee moves forward in the wise and careful manner with increased transparency and consumer choices are primary goals of this will be accomplished by him as time has expired we have the vote on the house floor i'd like to complete the one minute opening statements and don't feel obligated to give one because your statements can be made part of the record anybody wish to be recognized mr space thank you mr chairman i very much appreciate your efforts in strengthening consumer financial protection and across the country i support the movement toward a more consumer friendly financial system the manager's amendment being offered today i believe makes a great strides toward increasing the f t c has authority to go after bad actors and i support those efforts however i do have some serious concerns about the underlying bill specifically how it affects community banks these are the institutions during the last few years in these worsening financial times that have acted responsibly and have done the right thing and have been a vital source of financial support for small rural communities like that in  southeastern ohio these community oriented financial institutions who acted responsibly should not end up being penalize by increase or really burdensome regulations again mr chairman i thank you for your efforts and increasing consumer protection unanimous consent that the committee will consider as based tax the text of h r thirty one twenty six as order ordered reported by the committee on financial service on october twenty two two thousand and nine and with further without objection the bill will be considered as a read and open to any amendment at any point where that agreement will recess now to respond to the votes on the house floor and when we return after those votes we will go immediately into amendments we stand please come to order the chair recognizes him self for a manager's amendment at the desk and without objection that amendment will be considered as read and i'll recognize myself but to present this amendment this manager's amendment is being offered jointly with the ranking member barton it has several key provisions first we propose that the c f be ab governed by a five member independent commission similar in form to other commissions under the jurisdiction of this committee including the federal trade commission the federal communications commission and the consumer product safety commission this commission would replace the single director proposed by amendment chairman frank strengthen f t c enforcement authorities requiring f t c to provide only thirty days notice before initiating a case although i had strongly supported the language adopted by chairman frank chairman d has convinced me that a different structure is preferred under the manager's amendment f t c would be required to provide notice to c f b a prior to initiating a case or at the time of filing if prior notice is not feasible c f p a would be required to provide this same notice to f the see if it files a case that relies upon the statutes third the manager's amendment clarifies that the authority being provided to f t c to bring actions against those entities that aid and abet unlawful activity is not intended to alter current federal law that addresses the roles and responsibilities of internet companies for content and conduct of third parties most notably the communications decency act provides immunity to certain entities for contact for content prepared by third parties this encourages the development of new law on line services and creates incentives for internet companies to act responsibly and remove unlawful conduct when it is discovered without the fear of liability the manager's amendment has added language to clarify that section two zero one does not supersede the communications decency act this is not a wholesale exemption for internet companies rather it is recognition that the longstanding legal framework set forth in the communications decency act is not changed by this bill for the manager's amendment clarifies electronic data transmitting or routing is not a financial activity and the circumstance in which an entity is merely serving as the conduit for the transmission of information in this situation the entity transmitting the information is not the sender is not the intended recipient did not most modify the data in any way and does not treat financial data any differently from any other data sent over its pipes in this instance these entities are not engaged in financial activity fifth the manager's amendment makes clear that there will be no automatic transfer of staff from f t c to c f p a the original legislation called for a transfer of all consumer protection functions from f t c to see f d a this would have led to an automatic transfer of consumer financial protection staff subject to the requirements of five u s c thirty five zero three the current version of the bill transfers much less authority from the f t c to see f d a there is no reason for the f t c to automatically lose staff to c f p a and finally the amendment makes conforming changes throughout the legislation to reflect the revisions to the transfer functions provisions that were made in the committee on financial services it is sure is that f t c has full authority over the f t c act that c f p a does not take any authority from the f t c beyond which that which is transferred and that f t c could continue enforcement of cases that it brings prior to the creation of c f p a i urge my colleagues to support this manager's  mr barton as chairman limit the minority supports a manager's amendment we support the substitute of the commission on a bipartisan basis for the director we support the  maintaining of the authority of the f t c in some areas primary authority in other areas shared authority with the new agency and we certainly support the maintenance of the jurisdiction in the manager's amendment for the recognized for five minutes first of all mr trevor i support the amendment and i thank you your staff for the fine way in which you have handled this amendment and for your kindness to me and in regard to my suggestions to it was so want to commend my dear friend mr barton for his cooperation in the statesman like way in which he has functioned on this matter the amendment has one very important part that's  federal trade commission's authority to initiated foresman proceedings under x rated in h r three one to six whereas that bill as reported by the committee on financial services would require c to provide consumer protection agency thirty days notice prior to forstmann action this amendment will of the f t c to initiated enforcement action with no waiting period and moreover reciprocal notification requirement on c f e a the savi the federal trade commission i would note that the federal trade commission has had broad authorities in this area which have served the public well over time and certainly given the behavior of wall street of late the number of rat holes up surf which have to be watched can use as many watchers as we could possibly get as has been shown b recent events in which wall street has caused the tremendous economic recession which the nation confronts f t c for years has served as an outstanding federal agency it has been did dedicated to the much to the benefit of american consumers and american industry i urge my colleagues to favor of this yield back the balance of time thank you mr dingell further discussion the manager's amendment are we ready for the vote all before us but if they want to do more they can i don't think that's real federal preemption so this this amendment would simply state that the federal law that would occur if this bill were to become law him self in opposition to the amendment i do so with all due respect because i think it is too far reaching in the area of consumer financial protection it's essential and that the states have the authority to enact and enforce strong consumer protection laws the fact is it's the states and not the federal regulators that have been at the forefront of protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive financial practices we all know for example that the states were light years ahead of the federal regulators in taking action to curb abusive mortgage lending state actions against household international ameriquest and countrywide illustrate the crucial role states of played in protecting consumers currently federal law already preempt states in certain financial areas and that has made it easier for abusive practices to flourish just think of the credit card market which is dominated by institutions supervised by federal regulators abusive credit card practices exploded over the past several years leaving americans drowning in debt in many cases states were not able to intervene on behalf of the residents their hands were tied by preemption this is not the kind of consumer protection system that i think we want going forward allowing states to implement laws that afford consumer greater protection than provided under this bill is not just good policy it's absolutely necessary to ensure that consumers are protected for over the long term if the c f p a fails to act or takes decades to act states should not be handcuffed and helpless to protect their own citizens so with all due respect i would urge a no vote on this amendment for the discussion are we ready for the vote on the bar at the moment all those in favor of the barton amendment say aye i oppose no when it seeks civil penalties against fraudulent actors under current law if f t c wants to seek civil penalties and in forstmann action it must first refer the case to the department of justice d o j has forty five days to difficult choice for the agency it can file a case quickly to stop ongoing harm but give up the possibility of civil penalties or can seek civil penalties but wait weeks before it can file a case to stop conduct that is harming consumers there is no reason to force f t c to choose between securing an injunction and seeking civil penalties and there's no reason to ask f t c lawyers to stop work on a case involving ongoing fraud w g spends weeks reviewing the file comparable agencies including the f c c and the sci fi a c f t c have the authority to pursue these cases on their own authority without any referral to d o j and the legislation before us proposes to give that same authority to the new c f t a f t c should have all the tools it needs to provide protection to consumers and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment mr barton mr chairman i rise in opposition to the amendment gentleman is recognized for five minutes thank you mr chairman i'll try to be brief undercurrent while the f t c goes can go directly to federal court to seek injunctions redress or monetary damages however if the f t c wants to say in a civil penalty they are explicitly permitted to seek them but they must go to the justice department which can choose to file the case on behalf of the united states if the justice department assad's not to file the case then the f t c can file in its own name under your proposed legislative change the f t c would not have to go to the justice department first they could go directly to court on their own that might not be objectionable if we weren't creating this new super consumer protection agency and if we weren't creating a new standard at this new agency this standard in addition to the unfair and deceptive trade practice standard that exist under current law there is a new undefined abusive standard the addition of this term abusive is almost guaranteed to create problems and disparities depending on which regulator s enforce the statute it's my opinion and i think a number of people on the both sides of the aisle of hope share my opinion that keeping the department of justice in the review process as a check is a good thing not a bad thing ok all members should be aware that we are now about to take a vote by show of hands all those are opposed to the amendment will raise your hands first me would you be sure that you got everybody over here because there was one that was up late and they also have to be a member of the comm seventeen against and nineteen in favor seven nineteen in favor seventeen against the emotions agreed to and as well we decide not a roll call vote will be considered as read and the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes thank you mr chairman i thought i would start out just quickly and talk to counsel about this because this basically is an amendment that is trying to put a fixed amount of money on this new seep f p c operation the question for the council is is this legislation budget neutral yes yes or no i don't know the answer to that i don't believe it's been s this would be an authorization for the appropriation you know but in the amendment in the we have such sums as maybe necessary appropriations would have to decide within the context of a budget and the allocation of money to that particular  so this in the event they need more money the way the language is in the bill it allows unlimited amounts of funding through three different revenue streams so here we have a brand new government agency and the language is set up so that this agency can have unlimited expenditure the way i understand the council is the language allows access to almost unlimited amount because the language is specifically said as such man amounts as may be required is that true counsel gentleman yield to me i just want to ask counsel if there they have well i have an answer that i think is more appropriate in terms of the congressional context but the point is this  this is all subject to an appropriation so there is none in the limited temple on money unless the committee on appropriations and the congress united states appropriated now before it was counted could occur in the district iraq's not when you do an appropriations usually have amount of money on it when you do an authorization to use they have amount of money so what you've got in this a brand new government agency is an unlimited actually an unlimited amount of funding and what this would mean mr chairman is with the jurisdiction that this new commission has think about this members they can go after banks thrift credit unions finance companies  mortgage brokers or preserves credit card companies data storage providers even funeral providers attorneys retail stores and other entities because they're involved with the regulation of all these people is that not true counsel that they can actually taxis people as a form of revenue it has broad coverage for yeah i think on well the answer is yes or institution yes they have broad coverage so they have this huge regulatory jurisdiction and so they can go back under this bill and ask an authorized to be appropriated such funds as may be necessary and this is providing unlimited access to the taxpayers dollars now in face of what i think most constituents feel today is that the government should not have a current debt of almost twelve trillion dollars and we should not have a deficit of one point six trillion dollars so in a sense why can't we just agree that this particular agency to start off will set a limit of two hundred million dollars just to get the c f p going and once they go ahead and they say this is what we need i mean we'll spend the two hundred million and then after that if we need more money will come back here and then we'll authorize and then we'll appropriate it but it gives congress at least some minute monochrome of control over this and obviously if we want to start a new government agency we should have fiscal responsibility here and i think th is a good first step just hold this particular new agency to some kind of limit instead of giving them unlimited amount of money and with that becomes a power to tax all those agencies that i mentioned so i just asked members of both sides to consider at the beginning to put a very defined defined limit on this agency to get it started lemonade the language just says such amount of money as they may require realizing they have three streams of different revenues and include everything from banks to funeral appraisers funeral providers down to retail stores with that  a yes vote on my men and gentlemen time has expired chair recognizes them so it's it is not unusual to have an authorization for such sums as may be necessary that doesn't mean such sums as the world may as any one person might imagine it has to go through the scrutiny of an appropriations request by the administration within the within the budget adopted by the congress and voted on by the congress but i am simply i understand what you're saying you feel uncomfortable without a number and often times maybe usually we do have numbers the situation here is we don't really know what number would be a appropriate let me suggest this to the gentleman that we work together and find out as best we can before we get to the floor what number would be appropriate and we put it in there so it's not an unlimited appropriation well it's a gentle yield i think i think it's appropriate that we should have some ceiling in here so that members know what we're talking about because i don't think you want your members  our members to be voting on something that's totally without any limit particularly for new ac i don't look at it is totally without any limit but i see your point of view you want to limit who's yeah i've got the time mr barton if the gentleman who  yield to me i have to i would encourage my friend from florida to take the chairman at his word because on this bill the majority has operated in good faith with us in this market and the fact that they're willing to consider some number that's a mutually agreed upon number before we go to the floor i think is a deal worth taking because maybe two hundred million is too much maybe it's not enough maybe it's three hundred million but if we can agree on what a reasonable number is that is a much better bill to take to the floor then such terms is necessary with the other revenue streams that the c f would have the ability to collect they could they could collect as much as a billion dollars without batting an eyelash under the language that came out of the financial services committee and as i understand your point that if they can get money in other ways we ought to keep that in mind as we set the appropriations amount i don't know what that would be but i'm willing to accept some number and we will work on it and see what makes sense it will gentlemen you yes i'll be glad to take your offer is it possible we could get a c b s score before it gets to the house f chairman many of our largest banks receive assistance through the troubled assets relief program or tarp program and these same banks are some of the largest issuers of credit cards while the executives on wall street sure paid millions of dollars in executive bonuses on the government's credit line they continue to engage in the sept of and misleading practices that take advantage of consumers and force them to accumulate more debt i support the credit cardholders bill of rights h r six twenty seven which congress passed earlier this year unfortunately the reforms put in place by this law are being circumvented by credit card companies credit card issuers are raising their interest rates raising minimum payment amount and charging extra fees now before the bill takes effect this is a clear example of credit card users gouging customers and strong consumer protections are necessary until the credit card holders bill of rights goes into effect in this economic crisis far too many families are forced to rely on short term high interest credit card debt to pay for food housing other basic necessities in my northern michigan district unemployment rates raise from range from six percent to twenty percent families are falling behind on their payments and have fallen victim to the predatory practices of the nation's credit card companies modeled after legislation introduced by senator chris dodd and will immediately freeze interest rates or put a moratorium on credit card balances until the credit card holders bill of rights go in effect for too long the credit card industry has preyed upon consumer procedures for the f t c and has been which has been subject to that since the one nine hundred seventy s those rule making procedures were instituted by congress to ensure the f t c is rulemaking had been thoroughly considered given the vast jurisdiction of the f t c over the broad range of industries subject to the f t c has authority congress passed the magmas procedure because of concern that the f t c was had moved too fast and also to ensure the ramifications of its rule makings would be discovered and considered under the administrative procedures act the f t c will be allowed to forgo the procedures required under magnusson moss i have sympathy sympathy for the argument that the existing procedures are burdensome but given the breadth of the entity subject to the f t c has jurisdiction i can understand why our predecessors want to ensure thoughtful rules were promulgated taking into account the various intricacies of the industry one look at the exemptions provided to different industries under the c f p a and we can understand that this is even more relevant today that with industries spanning the gamut from small independent stores to huge companies that only operate in online space they are different than the one size fits all rules that never work according to rules accordingly rules should be thoughtful and thorough in keeping which is is the existing rule making will ensure that all relevant information is considered before the industry is regulated the f t c may be under the belief that initiating and completing a rule making under magnus a mosque is difficult but it's not clear that they have attempted any new rule makings in more than a decade preserving the existing requirements is a good policy and i urge all of my colleagues to support it gentlemen goes back to which has jurisdiction over all interstate commerce was proposing all kinds of rules that were in the in the consideration of the congress at that time beyond its scope and beyond what they should be doing and interfering with other regulatory agencies so magnusson moss was put in place to to make sure that the f t c more closely it here to its primary  primary authority and there's there's no evidence that there's been a problem so in the other committee when they repealed that it to me appears to be just as my good friend civitas and i would hope that we could agree on a bipartisan basis to support the redondo beach amendment because that maintains the status quo that in my opinion has serve the country well for the last thirty to forty rule making process under magnusson mox mos which is highly burdensome and we've seen this in recent years for example rule making conducted under magnussen moss the credit practices rule took ten years to complete congress granted f t c the authority to issue rules under the administrate a procedure act multiple times and the f t c has demonstrated its ability use its authority appropriately  they need to be able to respond then for example under the current rule making limitations the f t c was prevented from adequately addressing the financial problems of the last three years neither mr or mr moss nor the congress in the seventy's would have imagined the situation that we are now in and they would have wanted the f t c to act quickly and appropriately but also quickly not just take ten years to get around to it because of the burdensome rulemaking requirements in order to address emerging consumer protection agency issues the f t c must be able to act quickly to issue rules there's no reason the f t c ought to be saddled with additional procedural hurdles that others agencies do not have other independent agencies including f c c and f c c rely on the a p a procedures if it's good enough for them and we've seen the problems with the f t c its inability to act appropriately and quickly enough i think that we ought to change it and defeat this amendment any further discussion if not l suggested he would but without objection the members will be considered red in the gentleman from washington state's recognized five thank you mr chair we need to equalize the threshold for coverage by this bill between the banking institutions and the credit union institutions for reasons that at least are not apparent to myself they are vastly distinguish with the credit unions being subject to this bill at the threshold of one point five billion assets and the banks not till ten billion dollar assets clearly the credit unions were not somehow a more culpable party or a or more responsible party in their meltdowns we then the banks and i fail to see a justification for exposing the credit unions to what could be considered a competitive disadvantage in that they would be exposed to this level of regulation sooner  a lower level than the banking institutions so our amendment would seek to equalize the treatment of those two parts of our financial industry and we will be pursuing this at a later date this apparently runs into jurisdictional problems at the moment moment but i wan colleagues we will be pursuing that issue as the as the bill progresses the second amendment we have would essentially reinstitute the glass steagall provisions that were repealed in the gra leahy bliley bill and i have to say and i hope others will be thinking about this about whether or not we have really brought a little bit of weak tea to this party and really solving the problem that resulted in this huge collapse because the fact of the matter is is it is that after the collapse the financial services industry has become more concentrated we have more banks that are too big to fail today than we did a century before this consolidation of the industry has again exposed us to the fact that the community at large will be responsible for the irresponsible risk taking of the larger financial institutions and yet at the moment unless something changes and enough members get interest in this subject we're not going to deal effectively with the issue of the size of the institution and it is my belief that no matter how rigorous our regulatory structure is as long as the institutions are so large that they are able to take risks with our money there will be a moral hazard that cannot be alleviated and we will be on the hook for their failure and that is the situation unless something changes so as a first step in addressing this issue i hope that we are we will be can seriously considering restoring those glass steagall provisions that i voted against repealing several years ago with mr dingell and indeed he was a prophet i don't status to me but i do to mr dingell and we have seen the fire that can happen if we don't deal with size of these institutions so we would withdraw this at this time but i hope other members can become interested in this issue thank you gentlem a without objection the amendment where the clerks about to report it off about the ranking member of congress trying soon protection subcommittee mr reid on a bitch i'm very supportive amendment basically mr chairman we heard what you said in regard to the previous procedure would and i quote eliminate the requirement that unfair are deceptive practices must be prevalent unquote mr chairman this is why i am a co sponsor of this amendment with writing member donna bitch i understand the concerns brought that the f t c needs to have the ability to act more swiftly moving forward as you pointed out however at the same time we need to ensure that there is some empirical need to promulgated rules mr chairman i believe that this amendment addresses these concerns by implementing the a p a structure room making but it also adds a degree of for the scrutiny by requiring the f t c to perform additional analysis on the final rule weighing the economic impact that will have on the industries f t c will be regulating i think adding this scrutiny in my opinion will ensure the integrity in the room making procedures utilized by the f t c i believe this is a commonsense amendment that fans tries to of different business models this amendment simply acknowledges the fact that fact and requires them to show that they have considered all of the benefits and alternatives and that their rule is based on sound facts in statute you invite litigation on every step of the way and so i join us in opposing the amendment further discussion of the amendment all those in favor of the r amendment will say i those opposed will say no no opinion of the chair the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to further amendments for five minutes and the chair will reserve a point of order just of get a chance since a read on of its amendment was not it accepted this is one that tries to still further refine that point and the amount of civil money paid at least shall be increased twenty five percent per violation per day unless the f t c has authority to use administrative procedures act as granted in which case the amount of civil monetary penalties remain at current levels under the civil penalties inflation adjustment act the federal trade commission is required by law to make adjustments to the amount of civil penalty penalties as indexed to inflation no less than once every four years the civil penalty amounts of justed by the f t c are set forth in the commission rules and this process undergoes notice and comment rule making in the federal register this past february under civil law civil penalties were issued but civil penalties issued by the federal trade commission went up to a maximum of sixteen thousand dollars this amendment would grant the federal trade commission a one time increase across the board of twenty five percent of all civil penalties allowable under the federal trade commission however this would be contingent on the federal trade commission continuing the magnuson moss rule making it instead of the easier administrative procedures rule making the more deliberate ten year timeframe for maggots and moss is critical since the federal trade commission has such widespread jurisdiction significantly reducing the time frame from eight years to a few months should not be allowed and if they are allowed to this easily probably get rules then they will not need the stiffer penalties since there will be more types of penalties that they can issue ultimately we need to prevent bad actors from acting bad again this will allow the federal trade commission to punish bad actors at the same time having a deliberative period needed to ensure the rule making is common sense and logical you'll back my time gentleman yield to me i'll be happy to yield to the chairman if i'm a little confused you're saying that it appears that you're saying you want congress to ensure that f t c c is granted rule making authority under the a p a but then on the other hand it seems like you're saying that if they don't get that rule making you'll allow the amount of civil money the money penalties do increase by twenty five percent per day until f t c is granted rule making authority why to do you want twenty five percent and then up as opposed to the administrative procedure allow those penalties to be increased under magnusson mosque only under that eight eight year time interval so you don't want a p a rule making correct  c well i think that's where we have a disagreement i think the f t c ought to have it the same as other agencies and i don't want to reward them for not having it because i want them to have it but with the expansion of the powers under this actually intent is to provide a little yes give them no one wants bad actors to not act badly in the future we want the penalty to be to be certain we want the penalty to be something that everyone wants to avoid but at the same time because we're expanding the jurisdiction so so widely let's put some certainty into how those penalties will be will be assessed and adjudicated both it's not clear when we gauge n c's assessed civil monetary puzzle poli paula penalties would be crees the f t c is or the c f p a's or some other agency would the civil penalties assessed against all defendants be impacted only so and similarly as a civil penalties for violation  rules are also violations of the f t c act you were allowed to be increased will reclaim my time it would be under the federal trade commission so you're playing it only under the f t c it's correct things well i with all due respect we disagree on this amendment and i would have to oppose it in its current form further discussion if if not then we'll proceed to a vote all those in favor of the objection that amendment described by the author will be considered as read and he will be recognized for five minutes thank you mr chairman i want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their well wishes when i was battling the flu i am back i am healthy i follow the today and the others who will now fully appreciate it mr chairman in a serious note the terms this deals with the word abusive the terms unfair and deceptive in the language in the legislation  fairly well understood in the consumer protection context prosecuting acts or trade practices that fall into these categories of course has been part of the f t c as mission for decades and decades the term abusive however is a new one and the question is what does it mean what and forstmann actions or case law have fleshed out this concept and frankly as near as we can tell the answer is none in the bill before us everywhere unfair and deceptive are used abusive also appears but as i read the bill there is no definition in this bill for the term abusive furthermore given that the c f p c could interpret this new term however it likes entities that are regulated would have no idea how this new commission might force this newly added word abusive we must give business certainty about what behavior is unacceptable and that which is allowed additionally and even more confusing lee given that the f t c would share in foresman authority over some of the laws involved here not only would this new term affect the new commission but it could have perhaps far reaching implications for how the f t c enforces its laws in this context entities that know the rules of the road at the f t c and i've always been on the right side of the law would all of a sudden be presented with a real uncertainty about how the f t c might change its in foresman under the interpretation of the new term abusive there's absolutely no problem with the current unfair deceptive framework and my i would argue no reason to confuse  the situation by adding this new undefined term abusive and deferring to the post new commission to define it a term we've never used in this context so mr chairman you made a comment earlier about we don't want to drive unnecessary litigation my concern is that putting this new term that's not defined into the into the law will cause not only confusion but perhaps unnecessary litigation it's unclear subjective and unnecessary and i hope you'll join me in cleaning up this part of the bill and i and the word abusive which says that there be a prohibition of unfair deceptive practices unfair or deceptive acts or practices is necessary to permit c f p a to address harmful conduct that does not need lea fall within the categories of deception or unfairness so that's why we have the word abusive there are cases where a consumer who suffered an economic harm as a result part of a financial transaction may have received some form of disclosures they got a disclosure but it was grossly insufficient to warn them of the potential industry injury this may have been the cause the complexity or the timing or the format of the presentation of the disclosure or other circumstances designed to take advantage of or dupe a consumer consumer seeking credit are particularly vulnerable and often are susceptible to overreaching and underhanded tactics of fast talking self proclaimed experts because some disclosure was provided neither on fairness nor deception may capture this conduct but it's none any less harmful and that's why we have this word abusive other examples of potentially abusive financial practices include retroactive rate increases of multiple overlimit fees for payments cycle hi pressure sales tactics of various types unscrupulous creditor collection practices collecting debt that has been just charged in bankrupt mr chairman if i guess just reclaim yes and i appreciate your your enunciation of what you think abusive might include my point is that nowhere in this manager's amendment or or or in this act is it defined in law so you and i could probably agree what we think are abusive practices but this does not define that term and since it's a new term that the commission would be using i think it's incumbent upon us to do the heavy lift to tell him what we think abuse it means and since it's not done there and since we're then delegating that i think it creates some real uncertainty that could be problematic going forward we know what deceptive and unfair tactics are and i know my time has expired so the germans time is has expired the chair recognizes himself in opposition to the amendment i oppose the amendment because it limits the authority of the c f p a by striking the term abusive act or practice from section one thirty one of the bill if we strike that language i thought it would needlessly limit the authority of a consumer protection agency to act on behalf of american consumers this is not a new term we recognize that this type of authority is needed in other statutes including the telemarketing and consumer fraud abuse prevention act and the truth of lending act both of which address abusive conduct if ever there was an agency that needed this authority it's the c f p a that's designed to protect consumers doing financial transactions when they are at their most vulnerable so i would urge that we oppose this amendment i think it we've already had it in the law i think we see a reason to put it in because the f if not let's proceed to a vote all those in favor the wall the members say i oppose no no the opinion of the chair the nos have it and the amendments not agree to further amendments mr stearns thank you mr chairman i have an amendment at the desk which i think is zero zero one without objection the amendment will be considered as read the gentleman from florida is recognizing five carats i've got a question for counsel this amendment i would hope the chairman would consider like he did with my last amendment perhaps we should reach an agreement here because the power that's given to this new commission is a mess the question i have for the council is as i understand there are exemptions in this bill for merchants retailers and auto dealers is that correct are there any others that have exemption under the bill besides those there are several other accountants in town taxpayers that's correct real estate brokers and a jury could count to get a little closer to her microphone it's i'm sure the mike is turned on and be close enough to it so we can hear yes or now our attorneys exempt from this bill lawyers in some instances some are want all or not some are defined some i said i had the ins impression that all lawyers are exempt from this bill someone said only the good ones is there another counsel that could help us perhaps i believe that it depends on the services are providing i'm pulling up the exact ok line right now so we have accounts tax payers real estate brokers agent lawyers auto dealers and i say also providers of i plans five twenty nine plans and pension plans is that true they're also exempt that's correct ok but in light of that when you read the bill there's language that said that the commission itself can go back and redefine a financial device so that they can say this is a catch all languages i understand it that allow the director of this commission to further extend the definition of a financial activity to include any other activity that the commission would like to decide is a consumer financial product is that correct that language is in there there are several things they need to find in order to determine something to be a financial activity but yes that's correct but it's a catch all language is saying notwithstanding the fact that all these people example if this commission indeed says ok let's look at auto dealers their transactions they could say well we're going to go back and look at them and so you have three to vote and bingo they go back so all these people would not be exempt because you've given the commission this huge amount of power to go in and change definitions you know extend extend the definition of a financial activity shall devise so i think mr chairman we should define what this commission does precisely exact its activities and make it justify its actions and not should have the language that all these people were thinking well i'm not under this bill bingo commission can put them all under the bill including attorneys so i would suggest mr chairman that you consider my amendment as a way we can work together to change the language so that this commission doesn't have this overall authority that extends that they can come up with their new financial activity that they define the bill doesn't define and this commission can go after these people that are now exempt and i would yield to the chairman that would yield to me  this new umbrella financial activity they want to do maybe just change my mema to say that they can only do it after they come back to congress otherwise all these people who are going to think they're exempt they're not going to be exempt well the definition of financial activities is expensive and this provision appears to allow c f p a broad latitude to defining activities as financial but the agency can define a financial activity nearly anything that has a substantial likelihood of having a mature and material adverse impact on the credit worthiness or financial wellbeing of consumers i think that's too broad and so i'm s ympathetic what you're trying to do but i think your memory goes too far because you would permanently freeze the definition of financial activity we live in a world that's changing rapidly new technologies arise every day new ways of conducting financial activity are regularly being developed so i don't want to prevent this new agency from responding to changing times but i understand what you're saying and i'm troubled by it as well i'd be happy to work with you i'm not sure that we could will chairman i think any one of us would like to be in charge of a commission with this power that simply redefine activities financial activities based upon what we think so i suggest well if you gentlemen would permit i mean maybe you would like that kind of power but i wouldn't you would not like that kind of ok i wouldn't either quite frankly i wouldn't but i see it as members of congress and you're the chairman and mr barton is a ranking member and you folks sit down and think we're go bingo the bill passes those people won't be exempt i think you we have a fiduciary responsibility to protect these people if they're exempted there's a reason why they're exempted i mean you know i don't know all the reasons why all these people are but i'm taking on good faith that all these people should be exempt and so i think we have a responsibility to say these people are going to be exempted period and the language should be such that if there isn't a change to it then they have to come back here and explain it and there has to be legislation but you can't let these people run off and legislate and a commission based upon what congress said and they overturn it that makes sense the gentleman without objection mr chairman do you think it's possible that mr stearns and yourself and perhaps other members could work maybe with mr frank and mr baucus between now on the floor and see if you couldn't tighten up so that we have a general meeting of the minds because you seem to be somewhat supportive i'm sympathetic and i'd certainly be willing to do that i can't guarantee that we'll get there but i guarantee an outcome but if you could guarantee a process well i i would be willing to be part of that process mr nds would you i think that's encouraging mr chairman and i appreciate your receptive a d obviously that's better than nothing here and so i'm very willing to support it but i think i think almost everybody on this committee would agree that giving a government agency full power after we've specified who's exam and that they could do away with that exemption is not the intention of this bill and i think that probably put fear in some of these people i said that are now thinking they're exempt so i appreciate it with that mr chairman unless mr barton or yourself i'm just serving as a mediator and facilitator and hope i get ten percent of the money saved an without objection the amendment will be considered as read the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for five minutes thank you this pretty short amendment to simply eliminate steward's monetary or what does that do  in regard to this state's rights through their attorney general to be able to also proceed or perhaps act as the state agent for the federal agencies to do their investigations and do consumer activities that would fall under this act or anti consumer activities that would fall under this act what occurs by removing those two words is removes the penalty monetary penalty ability of state a g s it keeps intact their ability to do injun relief but by removing the a g s ability to levy the monetary civil penalties we keep one federal agency the f t c since we've made sure in this bill that they have the power to level the civil penalties one agency that deals with that instead of having fifty different states dealing with the same bad act in fifty wildly have wild swings penalties for the same act there'd be consistent penalties they would know what the bad actors could know what their penalties would be like i think this is an important part of the overall justice and it also then would remove the chance for there to be fifty one penalties as well but i think it's important that we have just one agency in charge of the penalty phase so that as simple as it gets if there's anyone that i could yield to on this back his time i yield back my time in your chair recognizes himself in opposition to the bill h r thirty one twenty six give state attorneys general the authorities secure monetary or equitable relief for violations of this bill states must have both tools in their forstmann most states must have both tools in their forstmann tool belt to effectively protect consumers in the financial services arena if a bad actor is not hit financially he or she can just set up shop again under a new name is unnecessary and and done was to eliminate state's ability to seek monetary relief federal regulators alone simply do not have the staff or resources to police the entire marketplace and state agencies are critical in forstmann partner the states need the authority to seek the same relief as federal regulators and should not be needlessly ham strung profits at the expense of american consumers states have the authority to seek monetary relief and other consumer protection contexts and have used this is the already responsibly to benefit american consumers in the face since the f t c would still have the power to love me find a civil monetary penalty if there was none levied and there was only the equitable remedy of injunction and that would be the is at the desk c f p a c to ask their six without objection that amendment will be considered as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes this amendment would require that the g a o do a study both three years after and six years after implementation of this bill to to determine and to list out the impacts on small businesses while i oppose this legislation it does give very broad new regulatory powers to this new agency and as we've seen in the past small businesses in many cases take an unfair and crease in the in the impact to them in fact the federal regulations have oh no according to the small business administration firms that federal regulations cost small businesses with less than twenty employees more than seven thousand six hundred forty seven dollars per employee little disbelief are you what you meant when three years and six years after implementation i think your amendment radanovich has to be amendments he'd like to proceed to offer and block with the expectation you're going to withdraw it and so therefore no point of order would be necessary and after that we'll go to final passage gentlemen to recognize thanks mr chairman and i want to begin by thanking you again mister chairman in the majority for working with us to include conduit language in the manager's amendment i look forward to working with you and with you further to strengthen the language the first amendment that i'm going to be offering will be telephone service provider exemption my men or explicitly exempt telephone service providers from any new rules proposed by the agency i think that we can all agree that the telephone service providers like verizon and eighteen t did not cause last year's financial crisis in section one hundred one eight of the bill a covered person is defined as any person who engages directly or indirectly in a financial activity section one of one eighteen of the bill lists a number of activities that are defined as a financial activity including the extension of credit the collecting of debt financial data processing and the catch all any activity that the director defines by regulation as a financial activity telephone service providers definitely do extend credit collect debt and process financial data and i do not think that we should have but i don't think that we should have them included in this bill this is one small example of the many problems with this legislation and the wide net that our colleagues seek to cast out over our entire economy telephone service providers or providers had nothing to do with the financial crisis and we should not and we should all vote to exempt them from this new and onerous regulator regulation mr chairman my second amendment goes to strike title to improvements to the f t c act this committee has historically been strong on regular order there is a reason that we go through an oversight hearing on a particular issue followed by a legislative hearing and then a markup and subcommittee and full committee to ensure that the well reasoned and and considered piece of legislation this regular order is even more import when it comes to something as important as creating a new bureaucracy in an area of such great importance as a subject  as a subset of this legislation we are working to consider what appears to be small but are actually sweeping changes to title two to how the f t c operates and there are available authorities in three specific areas congress obviously had grave concerns about the initial rule making authority of the f t c so much so that they instituted a special magnusson mosse procedure to ensure the commission's rules are thoroughly considered and vetted giving the broad range of the commission's  title to repeal these requirements in favor of a p a rule making additionally this legislation creates a new liability under section five for unlawful assistance that is recklessly provided this is a standard that has no definition finally under title to the legislation authorizes the f t c to bring civil penalties in and forstmann actions for unfair and deceptive acts or practices without the violation of a rule given the new standard of a new undefined concept of abusive under the c f p a this may or may not impact the f t c section five powers in terms of precedent i do not intend to imply that these may not be meritorious changes but they are worthy of in depth discussion in the appropriate conversation and that conversation is in an f t c reauthorization bill that proceeds through this committee in regular order not something added by another committee without jurisdiction and our only resource is to seek to strike the provision i urge all my energy and commerce colleagues to support the prerogative of the committee and consider these changes at the appropriate time mr chairman i want to thank you for offering these and i do withdraw thank you very much mr result of which the gentleman does withdraw his amendments and block we will now proceed mr chairman yes i would like to just say a couple things on that behalf of mr donovan is that possible  over and done away with regulations that the federal trade commission had in place and replace it with this administrative procedure action which totally does away with the federal trade commission's procedures and this all came through without going through your committee and mr donovan just committee and having been a former chairman of that committee when republican majority i think you know we had in place a procedure and this debate in the financial service committee now is just thrown out the window and taken over so you know it's some point mr chairman i think you and the full chairman mr waxman has to realize that we've got to see what they're doing and make sure that the federal trade commission's prior procedures are i think perhaps better than what's being done here and that we're losing some kind of oversight so that's i just bring us attention that we're losing a little oversight that we had through the federal trade commission on these administrative procedures for what is for the general deal i understand your concern and i think by our actions today we're affirming the fact that we're going to be very much involved in this issue we're not ceding our oversight or legislative authority committee and it was voted on the floor was full of unintended consequences which have come back to have to really vex people and it really the question the first question i would have is under the regulatory flexibility act i'm not finding that this bill has to conform to the regulatory flexibility act of i'm just missing that in my read of this bill and i realize we haven't had it very long and so my reading has been pretty perfunctory but looking for the record regulatory flexibility act provisions  do believe this is an agency and it would apply to the actions of this agency well i guess the question for counsel is if it's not specifically included are those regulations specifically excluded the regulations of the regulatory flexibility act that have to look at the act to be certain i don't have that in front of me but i believe as an agency it would be subject to the act and then further if if indeed that is the case is there any way we can make certain that this goes under the regular order of rule knows who proposed rule making rather than by certificate which is what happened with forty forty which is then led to all the difficulties we have with resale shops libraries ribbon manufacturers motorcycles et if counsel has an answer if not we'll get an answer from the gentleman that just mr chairman just as we do that if we do need to be certain about that because we are still living under some of the again some of the unintended consequences that that occurred with passing forty forty the other question i would have counsel is on my read of this bill there is a specific exclusion of financial products it actually specifically excludes companies like g e insurance companies am i reading that correctly it specifically excludes the business of insurance but large companies like a g i believe had a wide range of practices and if they conducted any financial practices as defined in this act it would not exclude them so the language in the bill that excludes insurance companies would not be so broad as to exclude bringing a company like a g e under these under the umbrella of this legend this regulation excludes the business of insurance not insurance companies broadly was chairman i just wonder if there's any way that can be made a little more precise in the language of the bill as we move forward because i worry that people are going to look at this and say well if they're not going to take care of the most egregious practitioner out there of all then how are we going to be how we're going to have confidence that this bill is going to restore the well i still order i think the germans raising some very good points let me suggest that you and i get together make sure that this language is clear that we have to say the right understanding  affirm it in the report language or if necessary seek to offer an amendment to the bill when it goes to the floor i think the chairman frank knowledge of the motion now before us is to order h r thirty one twenty six as amended with the recommendation into the bill purse and this will be a vote by call of the r all members responded to the call of the ro requisite number of days to file dissenting views on the committee report without objection that will be the o