Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I commend the authors of this resolution, Representatives McGovern, Jones, and Lee, for their leadership on this issue of war and peace. The topic of limiting our future military involvement in Iraq deserves more than 1 hour. It deserves an entire legislative day to discuss this resolution and the larger question: the issue of the war- making powers of Congress. The history of our involvement in Iraq and exactly how we came to this point is of paramount importance in understanding why it is vital that the House pass this resolution. But since time is limited, let me come to the point: no more American soldiers should kill or be killed in Iraq to redeem our past mistakes. The United States has spent years and billions of dollars trying to rebuild Iraq's armed forces, to no end. Sending 300 or 3,000 or 30,000 advisers to Iraq would be a pointless exercise when the Iraqi Army continues to melt away in the face of rebels. Unless the Iraqi Government can inspire confidence in Kurds, Sunni, and Shi'a that it is a fair, legitimate government concerned with the welfare of all Iraqis, no amount of money or American advisers will save it. We have already lost more than 4,000 Americans in one war in Iraq. Let's not invoke the insidious and fallacious argument that our previous heavy investment justifies further heavy investment. Had America not waged an unnecessary war in Iraq starting in 2003, there would be no need for us to debate this resolution now. Like so many misguided military interventions in our history, America's misguided war with Iraq unleashed forces that we cannot now control. We should not compound that error by squandering more lives and money in Iraq. I hope we can have, beyond this moment now, a fuller debate of the war-making powers of Congress. I hope, as Representative Lee said a few moments ago, that we can have a debate on the repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force that was the excuse for much military, paramilitary, and domestic intrusive activities in this country. But for now we should, I think, recognize the good acts of Representatives McGovern, Jones, and Lee in bringing this resolution to the floor. I think it will help further the debate greatly. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career and accomplishments of James C. McCloskey who has served for the past 34 years as the Founder and Executive Director of Centurion Ministries of Princeton, New Jersey, and has been a tireless advocate for people wrongly convicted across our country. A native of Philadelphia, Jim graduated from Bucknell University in 1964. After three years as a naval officer in Japan and Vietnam, Jim spent 13 years in business in Tokyo and Philadelphia. After his stint in the business world, Jim opted for a change and went to pursue a Masters in Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. During that time Jim served as a student chaplain at the Trenton State Prison where he met then inmate Jorge De Los Santos. After listening to the convicted man's claims of innocence Jim took it upon himself to review the case. After reading the entire record of the case, he came to believe that Mr. De Los Santos was innocent. Jim then, using his own money, spent the next three years, including a yearlong sabbatical from seminary, investigating Mr. De Los Santos' case. After bringing forward the only witness against Mr. De Los Santos, Jim hired a young lawyer, Paul Casteleiro, to have the case retried. In July 1983 Mr. De Los Santos was exonerated and freed and Centurion Ministries was launched. Jim knew that this was his calling for the rest of his life. Most of the early cases came from the stories that Mr. De Los Santos had told Jim regarding several other men Mr. De Los Santos believed were innocent. Upon reading their case files Jim came to believe them, too. Jim worked alone until 1987 when he obtained his fifth exoneration and the general public took notice of this remarkable work he was doing. He founded Centurion Ministries in order to bring voice to those who have lost all appeals and thus all hope of having their wrongful convictions brought to light. Beginning with a staff of just himself, Centurion Ministries has grown and now has eight full time staff, five part time staff, and a group of 23 part time volunteers who dedicate their time to the cause of the wrongfully convicted. Centurion Ministries takes on the difficult cases. They do not shun cases that can turn on DNA evidence, but because there are other avenues for inmates whose cases have DNA evidence, Centurion Ministries' focus has been primarily on cases that require a field investigation and a very savvy lawyer. To date Centurion Ministries has overturned the wrongful conviction of 53 individuals who have served a combined 1083 years wrongfully imprisoned, and at any given time is working on 20 or so cases at various stages of investigation. I cannot stress strongly enough the courage and heart Jim exemplifies in this now crowded field of work. He not only chose to work for people he did not know, but he used his own money to do so. Unlike most of the people doing similar work today who have universities to pay their salaries and give them office and staff, Jim had only himself to rely on. He lived modestly and devoted himself to this cause. His commitment to these individuals he works for does not end with their freedom. They are family. Although Jim has announced he will no longer have an active role in the day to day operations of Centurion Ministries in the spring of next year, I know that he will continue to be a force for justice for years to come. He is a very special person. I join many admirers of Jim McCloskey in thanking him for his work and wishing him well in the future.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3393 the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act and H.R. 4935 the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act. These bills that come before the House this week continue the weekly pattern of picking and choosing which tax extenders to make permanent. Instead of looking at all of the tax extenders comprehensively Republicans are again picking the extenders that many Members may find easy to support and making them permanent while failing to pay for them. I find it ironic that Representative Camp has continued to bring permanent extenders to the floor, some of which he chose not to extend at all when he released his plan for comprehensive tax reform earlier this year. H.R. 4935 expands the tax credit for families making as much as $160,000, families for which the tax credit is not essential. This legislation also changes the nature of the tax credit and will result in a family making as little as $14,500 to receive no tax credit, a credit that they desperately need. We should be expanding tax credits for low income families, not eliminating them. H.R. 3393 seeks to lessen the burden on students and families seeking a higher education. While this is a noble goal, it does nothing to fix the underlying issue of paying for higher education, student loan debt. The class of 2012 graduated with an average of $29,400 in student loan debt; this legislation does nothing to address this. Instead of giving a tax break on tuition and other expenses we should reduce the need for student loans. We should double Pell Grant Funding. We should permanently extend and double Perkins funding. We should allow students to refinance student loan debt. Any one of these would do more good for student and families than this tax credit. This Congress cannot continue blindly to pass permanent tax breaks. I have seen firsthand what happens when we take that approach. We did that under President Bush and went from budget surpluses to budget deficits. Deficits that have pushed Congress to reduce investment in our country in recent years. I look forward to Congress addressing the tax extenders that require action by the end of the year in a serious way, not the way in which they have been brought before us thus far.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 2014, I offered an amendment to this legislation to address another facet of a national tragedy: the epidemic of suicide among our soldiers and veterans. In March of this year, zero U.S. troops died in combat. In that same month, almost 700 soldiers and veterans died at their own hand. This bill takes really enormous strides to treat the mental health problems underlying this epidemic. It provides tens of millions of dollars for therapy, outreach, and peer-to-peer support--and for that, the chairman and the ranking member, all the committee members, have my sincere praise and gratitude. Suicide and the decision to take one's own life is complex and often mysterious, but we err if we think suicide is only a mental health problem. In truth, suicide is often the desperate act of a soldier or veteran in a desperate situation--and one important component of that desperation is financial stress. My amendment has been endorsed by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. It would set aside up to $1 million to study these issues: to improve our understanding of the links between financial stress, financial abuse, and military suicide, and generate recommendations to fix these interlinked problems. A few years ago, Army Sergeant Angelo Stevens was living with $100,000 in debt. He had just been told that, because of his deteriorating finances, he was at risk of losing his security clearance. If he lost his clearance, he would lose his job--which would make his debt even more unmanageable. Sergeant Stevens met with a military financial planner. He left feeling hopeless and humiliated. He told a reporter, ``I walked out thinking, `If I'm dead my family can get $500,000 in life insurance, but I have to kill myself.' '' Now, Sergeant Stevens ultimately found help and survived, but he was far from alone in his desperation. According to the Defense Department's Suicide Event Report, in 2011, almost one in three military suicides was linked to workplace or financial problems. About one in 10 was directly associated with excessive debt or bankruptcy. Nearly half were associated with family or legal stress that might also be related to financial stress. These numbers surely underestimate the problem, as financial data wasn't even collected for many suicide deaths. So we know, through personal stories like Sergeant Stevens' and through existing data, that financial stress is a major contributor to military suicide. But here's what we don't know. We don't know, in many cases of military suicide, whether financial stress contributed to the soldier's decision to take his or her own life. We don't know how many soldiers lose their security clearances because of personal financial problems, nor how the loss of a clearance contributes to mental health problems or suicide. We don't know, in any evidence-based way, whether existing military financial planning programs are working to alleviate financial stress, financial abuse, mental health problems, or suicide risk. We need to understand the effects of financial stress and financial abuse on mental health problems, including suicide, among our soldiers. We need to understand how effectively the Defense Department is providing adequate, unbiased, comprehensive financial planning and financial counseling--and we need to understand the obstacles that prevent military personnel from seeking these services. We need to understand how effectively the suicide prevention programs at the Defense Department, the VA, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are working together, and how they could work together better. And we need to build connections between the mental health professionals and the financial planning professionals who serve our soldiers. Mental health problems and financial problems both contribute to suicide, and we should explore ways to treat these problems together rather than separately. Earlier, I told the story of Sergeant Angelo Stevens. He was one of the lucky ones. A financial planner overheard his accounting of his struggles, and on her personal time, she helped him put his financial life back together. With a lot of help, Sergeant Stevens stepped back from the abyss. But he got that help only by coincidence, not by design. We can do better. We can design our military to be more responsive, compassionate, and helpful to soldiers like Sergeant Stevens. We can pull more soldiers back from the abyss. I appreciate my House colleagues' support for this amendment, and I hope that in any House-Senate conference on the final DoD appropriations bill this amendment will be retained. We need this information. It will help us save lives.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the Department of the Interior recently began the process of developing an offshore oil and gas leasing program for 2017 to 2022. However, the development of a 5-year program isn't simply about which areas should be leased and drilled and which should not. It is about whether drilling in new offshore fields is the way of the future. As a member of the Safe Climate Caucus, I am here to ask: How will we address the imminent and multiple threats of climate change resulting from our overdependence on carbon fossil fuels? We could double down or triple or quadruple down on the energy sources of the last two centuries, or we could take steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and have a sustainable energy future. The last few years have seen tremendous progress in harvesting the renewable energy potential of our oceans. We should oppose the unwise expansion of offshore oil and gas leasing and drilling.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas. This bill creates a new Department of Education Web site that includes data allowing prospective students to better understand the cost of specific institutions, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for working with me to improve this bill before it came to the floor. The current Department of Education Web site is incomplete and misleading. The current Web site does not include the net price to a student according to that student's income level, which could cause, and does cause, lower and middle class students to reject schools that they, in fact, could afford. They or their parents would see average net price, calculated for all students, and immediately assume it is unaffordable for them. The changes that I have included in this bill allow a parent or a prospective student to find, upfront, on the home page, the average net price of attending, based on the family's income level. And this information may lead students to consider institutions they would have otherwise excluded. The difference between the average cost, calculated for all students, and the cost to a student, say, from a $40,000 income level, may be many thousands of dollars. Now, I should add, in conclusion, that while this bill that we take up today makes some progress, this and the other bills we will be considering fall short of what is really needed: a comprehensive effort to help more students afford college. We should be considering doubling the Pell Grants, reducing student loan interest rates, and doing all those other things that would be in a comprehensive higher education bill. I am sorry to say we are ignoring those solutions. Nevertheless, I welcome the modest improvements that we will see in the legislation being considered here, and I hope that soon we will get to the comprehensive higher education legislation that the students of America deserve.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT. H.R. 4562 would authorize landowners served by the Northport Irrigation District to prepay the remaining portion of construction costs allocated to them for the North Platte Project. In exchange, the landowners who pay will no longer be subject to Federal acreage limitations and other requirements associated with the Reclamation Reform Act. I believe no one from the minority intends to oppose this legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is ready to close, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4508, introduced by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), would extend the East Bench Irrigation District's water contract, as he has said, for 6 years, pending a judicial ruling. The extension will allow the water to continue to be delivered to nearly 60,000 acres in the Beaverhead Valley of Montana, will protect the right for contract renewal, and will be useful to the residents of the area while the court confirmation process is given time for completion. I support this legislation. I ask my colleagues to support it as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3716 would ratify a water settlement agreement between the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and a subsidiary of the Vidler Water Company. The agreement allows the Vidler Water Company to continue operating a water project that provides water to the northern Reno area and fairly compensates the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe for any actual or potential water losses. As I understand the situation, the legislation is supported by all affected parties, and it will settle potential claims by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe against the United States at no cost to American taxpayers. Consequently, I support this legislation. I am happy to see it come to the floor. I believe my colleagues on the minority of the Committee on Natural Resources concur. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman from Montana is ready to close, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by commending my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for his work--his persistent, diligent work on H.R. 2430 and the preceding legislation that created this important park site. The Hinchliffe Stadium Heritage Act that we are looking at now, of which I am pleased to be a cosponsor, enjoys the support of every Member of the New Jersey congressional delegation--I should say the enthusiastic support of every Member of the New Jersey congressional delegation. It will place within the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, which is one of the newest park service units in the country, this historic Hinchliffe Stadium. I would say by mistake or oversight or because of difficulties in the first drafting of the original legislation, the park boundaries did not include this historic stadium. This will correct that. H.R. 2430 would adjust the boundaries of the current Great Falls national historic site to include the 10,000-seat stadium, which is currently listed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation as one of the most endangered historic places in the country. As we have heard, this is one of the last remaining stadiums in the Nation where Negro League baseball games were played and is home to the New York Black Yankees and the New York Cubans. Even though the names of these teams include New York, this area is very much New Jersey and has tremendous importance to the people of New Jersey and to the history of New Jersey, and it is of interest to the entire country. In preserving this historic stadium, we will be preserving a visual reminder of an unfortunate, but not forgotten, era of racial segregation. Segregation in America extended beyond the buses of Alabama and the Deep South that was engrained throughout American society, even into our national pastime--baseball. The Hinchliffe Stadium will serve as an educational opportunity for future generations to learn about this unfortunate past, so that we can continue to move forward collectively as a Nation. This historic site brings memories and history of the industrial revolution, of the political and patriotic origins of our Nation, of art and culture, and American industry. Now, it will also include this historic sports site. Again, I applaud my colleague, Mr. Pascrell, for his efforts, and I urge support of this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to my colleague from Paterson, New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, again, this has the unanimous support of the New Jersey congressional delegation. This is of national historic importance, and I urge support of this legislation to expand the boundary of this national historic site. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As many of us know, finding a location for a memorial in Washington, D.C., is not always easy. In 2001, Congress authorized the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in Washington, D.C., to honor the public service and legacy of the Adams family. Planning often takes longer sometimes than the initial authorization allows, and in this case, the Foundation was granted an extension, which expired in 2013. H.R. 3802 grants another extension until 2020. I am happy to provide more time to make sure that President John Adams and his wife, Abigail Adams, and President John Quincy Adams all receive the commemoration in our Nation's Capital that their sacrifice and service deserve. I would particularly like to thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for sponsoring this bill and for navigating it through the legislative process. I think without his hard work this memorial may have been mired in the planning process and might never be built. I now believe that, with this extension, we will see a worthy and fitting commemoration of the Adams family. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Montana is ready to close, I strongly recommend we pass the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this short-term highway bill because it fails to provide a funding mechanism that will guarantee the long-term solvency of the highway trust fund which is needed to spur investments in our nation's roadways, bridges, and public transportation infrastructure. This is just another example of our failure to govern, and as a result we are sacrificing the jobs and economic development that are critical to the progress of our nation. This is that same scenario that has occurred under the Republican leadership of the House over and over again: when we passed the last 2- year highway bill, with the farm bill, with the budget and debt ceiling. These short-term extensions and governing by crisis make it nearly impossible to plan for future infrastructure needs. We have a crumbling infrastructure. We can't keep pretending to fund through phony accounting gimmicks. We actually have to put money into it. About 90 percent of the revenue in the Highway Trust Fund is generated by a federal 18.4-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline and a 24.4- cent-per-gallon tax on diesel fuel. Federal fuel taxes have not been increased since 1993, and because of this stagnation the gas taxes' buying power is about 40 percent below that in 1993. If those taxes had been adjusted to keep pace with the consumer price index, for example, the tax on gasoline, which is currently 18.4 cents per gallon, would be about 30 cents per gallon, and the tax on diesel fuel, currently 24.4 cents per gallon, would be about 40 cents per gallon. Other factors, such as increases in fuel efficiency, have reduced demand for fuel, causing the fund's overall revenues to fall. Rather than proposing a bill that guarantees a long-term funding mechanism, such as an increased gas tax, the House brought to the floor legislation to fund highway projects for 8 months with a series of accounting gimmicks and one-time fund transfers. The highway bill passed in the last Congress only authorized funding for two years. For two years we have known that this problem was coming, yet the House Ways & Means Committee has not had a single hearing on transportation finance. We need to act to invest in our nation's transportation system, but under this bill we are simply dodging a problem. A real solution will require the political courage and leadership that we have failed to demonstrate here in the House, today.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 4719, the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2014. The legislation before us today is another in a long line of picking and choosing which tax extenders to make permanent. Instead of looking at all of the tax extenders comprehensively we are again picking the extenders that many Members may find easy to approve, and making them permanent. I find it ironic that Representative Camp has continued to bring permanent extenders to the floor, some of which he chose not to extend at all when he released his plan for comprehensive tax reform earlier this year. But that aside, what is truly at issue here is again the unwillingness to find a way to pay for these tax expenditures. This package of five bills would increase the deficit by $16.2 billion over 10 years. With the passage of this package today the House will have approved $534.4 billion in tax breaks over ten years. This is more than the entire non-defense discretionary budget for all of this year. Republicans say that we do not have enough money to pay for an extension of unemployment insurance or to feed the most vulnerable in our society, yet here we are spending money they have said over and over that we do not have. I support some of the individual extensions in this bill such as the Conservation Easement Incentive Act which allows for family farmers, ranchers and forest land owners to receive a tax break for setting aside areas of their land for conservation purposes, which is a noble and well intentioned goal. However, I cannot support this legislation without considering the cost. We cannot continue to blindly pass permanent tax breaks, even if the outcome of such breaks would benefit charitable organizations. I have seen firsthand what happens when we take that approach. We did that under President Bush and went from budget surpluses to budget deficits. Deficits that have pushed Congress to reduce investment in our country in recent years. I look forward to Congress addressing the tax extenders that require action by the end of the year in a serious way, not the way in which they have been brought before us thus far.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the language in this bill, or rather the lack of language, regarding the elimination of funding for the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). There is nothing more crucial to democracy than guaranteeing the integrity, fairness, and accuracy of elections. Voting should not be an act of blind faith--it should be an act of record, and the EAC helps maintain the integrity of the American electoral process. Too many people across the country lack confidence in the legitimacy of election results, and dismantling the EAC will further erode faith in our democracy. The EAC helps maintain the integrity of the American electoral process. Too many people across the country have lost confidence in the legitimacy of the election results. In fact, a recent poll from Rasmussen Reports found that 68 percent of likely voters believe that elections are rigged (or favor) incumbents. Dismantling the EAC would further erode that necessary faith in the process. How quickly have we forgotten the Florida recount with its hanging chads, pregnant chads, and hand counts of ballots to determine voter intent? The 2000 election exposed critical flaws and inconsistencies in how elections were conducted, and in its wake the Congress under the leadership of Whip Steny Hoyer approved the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to assist state and local jurisdictions. Yet the legislation we are considering today willfully ignores this history. The bill defunds the EAC and assumes that Congress will pass legislation to transfer some of its vital functions of the EAC to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an agency that does not have the capability or the expertise to do the job. The work of the EAC does not fit into the mission of the FEC. Additionally, funding for the EAC has always included a set aside for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to continue its work on testing guidelines for voting system hardware and software. Work that will most likely stop as the House has already appropriated NIST funds for Fiscal Year 2015. I would have liked to offer an amendment to this legislation to reinstate the EAC's Fiscal Year 2014 levels, but unfortunately, the overall budget limitations in this bill make that nearly impossible. The lack of appropriations takes us in exactly the wrong direction. While millions of Americans are casting their ballots on un-auditable voting machines, eliminating the EAC would increase the risk that our electoral process will be compromised by voting system irregularities. Can we afford to take that risk? Certainly not. Do we want problems to go undetected? I would hope not. Less oversight, lesser standards, less transparency in reporting, less testing, fewer audits weakens our democracy. Abolishing the EAC is the wrong way to go.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 40th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of a segment of northern Cyprus. This invasion has since morphed into a prolonged occupation in which an estimated 43,000 Turkish soldiers are deployed in the occupied territory, and tens of thousands of Turkish citizens have migrated to the island since 1974. Turkey's invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus has created yet another long-running international conflict, one that continues to destabilize the eastern Mediterranean region. I agree with those in the international community who assert that a peaceful, long-term resolution of this conflict must include the establishment of a unified Republic of Cyprus, in which the religious, cultural and political beliefs of all Cypriots can be expressed through a truly democratic political process. I am encouraged by the democratic selection of new leadership in the Republic of Cyprus, and reassured by the willingness of Turkish-Cypriot leaders to continue a dialogue about potential reunification. These are signs that a peaceful resolution is possible, but a key component of any long-term settlement must include the withdrawal of Turkish military forces from the island. A long-term, peaceful resolution of the Cyprus standoff is not simply in the interest of the island's Greek and Turkish inhabitants. A successful resolution of this conflict would remove a major obstacle to Turkey's integration with the rest of Europe, a development that would enhance the security and economic wellbeing of millions of people in the region. Our government should be working daily to facilitate that outcome, and I will certainly use every opportunity available to me to make that point to Administration officials.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, this Financial Services Bill seeks to overturn the intent of Dodd-Frank by bringing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the turmoil of the annual appropriations process. Bankers have people to look out for their interests, brokers have people to look out for their interests, investors and hedge fund managers have the same. Until the CFPB was created, the same could not be said for the average consumer. The current funding stream for the CFPB, from the Federal Reserve System, to the annual appropriations process, puts politics, not the consumer first. If we have learned only one lesson from the financial crisis of 2008, it should be this: when we protect consumers, we protect the health of the entire financial system. It is clear that the consumer credit and housing bubbles of the last decade were the result of unfair and deceptive practices and credit card companies and lenders that steered families into mortgages and financial products that they did not understand and that they could not afford. In 2010 after an open process that included a now rare House-Senate conference, the Congress passed historic reforms to the nation's financial system. Among these reforms was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Indeed, a strong argument could be made that the creation of the CFPB is the most important and most beneficial provision of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms. Members of the House and Senate, after much deliberation, concluded that in order for the CFPB to effectively protect American consumers, it must be independent. The Dodd-Frank legislation, which is the law of the land, is clear on this point. This new financial watchdog would be independent, insulated from the partisan fights of Capitol Hill, by deriving its operating budget from non-appropriated funds from the Federal Reserve. House Republicans are once again attempting to politicize the funding process for the CFPB, handcuffing the CFPB in order to preserve the status quo that benefits big banks at the expense of American consumers. This legislation would change the nature of the CFPB and make its funding different from other bank regulators which remain independent of the appropriations process. In an appropriations bill that is already $566 million below last year's funding level, where will Congress find the $500 million, or $400 million, or $300 million in Fiscal year 2016 and beyond? I fear that the answer is that we will not fund it at all. That is not acceptable. That would hurt the American consumer, and would inject more risk into the economy. Instead we should continue to ensure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will have the independence and resources it needs as it continues its critical work of protecting consumers and by extension the entire U.S. financial system.