Ed Perlmutter

Mr. PERLMUTTER

Mr. PERLMUTTER. We take responsibility for those things that Americans have to deal with. We don't like dealing with it. You don't like dealing with it. But we have to. So we're prepared. In our court system in America, whether it's in New York or Colorado or Texas or California, we have good judges. We have good people that work in our Bureau of Prisons. We can handle this.

Mr. PERLMUTTER

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1109 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PERLMUTTER

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, and the only word that comes to mind is a Yiddish word called ``chutzpah.'' Here my friends on the Republican side of the aisle are talking about the debt, they're talking about jobs, they're talking about fiscal restraint when, in fact, it was the Republican administration under George Bush and the Republican programs under their Congress that drove us in the ditch and created this mess that we have. President Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit, the biggest debt ever in history. Now the Republicans would like to say, Hey, Democrats, why haven't you gotten rid of that? Hey, country, why don't you take care of this? Well, this was a big mess that was created under their watch. We have tried to create jobs. We're going to deal with this long-term debt, but the Republican prescription for America--you know what it is? Mass amnesia. They want people to forget. Well, we're not going to forget, and we're not going to let the people forget that the programs and the policies of the last administration almost took this country in the tank, and that's got to stop.

Mr. PERLMUTTER

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Catholic schools in my district and across the country for their contributions to their students and communities. January 31 through February 6, 2010, has been designated as Catholic Schools Week by the National Catholic Education Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I have a number of Catholic schools in my district, including St. Therese, Our Lady of Fatima--where a number of our neighborhood kids go--Saint Anne's, Saint Bernadette, Saint Joan of Arc, Saint Pius X, and Saints Peter and Paul. Each of these schools is advancing strong academic goals in the classroom, and each is developing well-rounded young adults in our communities. I congratulate these Catholic schools in the Seventh Congressional District, as well as the students, parents, and teachers for their ongoing dedication to a quality education. Receiving a quality education is key to our children's success, and as a parent of three, I am well aware of this. In closing, I extend my best wishes to the students who attend the Catholic schools in the Seventh Congressional District and wish every student in Colorado the best of luck in this school year.

Mr. PERLMUTTER

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker I rise today to recognize and applaud Dr. Cindy Stevenson, superintendent of Jeffco Public Schools for her selection as finalist in the 2010 Superintendent of the Year. Of the 49 state-level finalists only four nominees are chosen. This program along with ARAMARK Education, ING and the American Association of School Administrators celebrates the contributions and leadership of top public school superintendents like Dr. Stevenson. Dr. Stevenson's service to Jefferson County schools has helped with the development of its teachers and educational leaders. She has always held a strong focus on student achievement, improving teaching and learning, creating community partnerships and focusing on continuous improvement for all Jefferson County schools. The work of a superintendent like Dr. Stevenson has resulted in a number of successful academic communities in Jefferson County. To reach this point in the nomination process Dr. Stevenson was required to fulfill a list of rigorous criteria. Among the qualifying factors Dr. Stevenson had to exemplify creativity in successfully meeting the needs of students in the school system, exemplary strength in both personal and organizational communication, a constant improvement of administrative knowledge and active participation in local community activities. Dr. Stevenson has met and exceeded this criteria and her nomination and successes confirm this. I extend my deepest congratulations to Dr. Stevenson for her selection as finalist for the 2010 Superintendent of the Year. I have no doubt she will exhibit the same dedication in all her future accomplishments.

Mr. PERLMUTTER

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to day to let the Congressional Record reflect a clerical error in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. In July of this year, shortly after the Committee on Appropriations made available the appropriations requests included in its Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, it came to my attention my name was incorrectly placed as a joint sponsor of a project request which provides $10,312 for the Southeast Corridor Light Rail in Denver, Colorado. While I am supportive of this project and the broader FasTracks mass transit plan of Colorado's Regional Transportation District, RTD, I did not request funding for this project. Upon discovery, my staff informed the Committee on Appropriations of this error and asked that it be corrected. On December 10, the House passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2011. In that conference report, my name was again mistakenly attached to this project by committee staff during the filing process. Because both chambers have passed this conference report, there is no method short of a Presidential veto for me to correct this error. Therefore, I would like to let the Congressional Record reflect this mistake and my lack of involvement in this project. To be clear, no official from RTD or any other organization asked me or my staff to request funding for this project. Nor did I submit any material to the Appropriations Committee requesting funding for this project. As such, I did not post information on the process on my official website. However, for the sake of transparency and public accountability, I have certified in writing that I have no financial interest in this project.

Mr. PERLMUTTER

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I take back my time. Madam Speaker, the business types of tax cuts as well as individual tax cuts are part of the package that is helping this country recover, but we aren't there yet. We haven't finished yet. We helped Wall Street with TARP money. That same money should be able to be available to Main Street. That's the purpose of today's bill. That's why this rule is important. I would urge an ``aye'' vote on this rule as well as an ``aye'' vote on the underlying bill.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I appreciate my friend from Maine giving me some time to respond to my friend from California. Madam Speaker, I think we were getting a little lesson in history about Kennedy, about Reagan, and about the Recovery Act that was passed earlier this session. I'm glad my friend is now returning, because what he forgot to mention was that, with John Kennedy, when those tax cuts were made, the highest marginal rates were 70 percent. Today's highest marginal rates are half that. So we need to understand, when those cuts were made, it was a substantial amount higher than what we've experienced today. I would also remind my friend that, in the Recovery Act, which was passed earlier this year, $300 billion--about 40 percent of that bill--was in the form of tax cuts. So those kinds of efforts are being made. I would also remind my friend that, when President Reagan came in in 1981, he did take some tough steps in trying to rebuild the economy, which was suffering from high interest rates and from a number of other things, and it wasn't just nirvana the next day. At least in Colorado, we had years of recession that lasted almost until 1990. So what we see before us, really, I think, as a result of stabilizing the banking system last fall and of rejuvenating the economy in the spring with the Recovery Act, is downward pressure on unemployment. We are not out of the woods, but it is getting better. We can continue to do better than what we saw at the end of the Bush administration.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield 10 seconds to my friend from California.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that, but I would disagree with my friend by saying, first of all, we provided tax credits for first-time home buyers to stimulate home construction and home sales. We provided tax credits, net operating loss, carrybacks, and carryforwards for businesses. We provided tax credits on depreciation. There are many, many business tax credits that have gone to stimulate the economy and to create jobs. So I would disagree.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Just for a second.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I appreciate my friend from Maine yielding. I would just say to my colleague from Maine, as well as to my colleague from California, that I think that Ms. Pingree has a very substantial point. My friend from California complained about the regulatory burden. One of the reasons that this country is facing the recession that we are facing is as a result of the Wild West approach on Wall Street where there was no regulatory burden, or if there was, it was ignored by the regulators under the Bush administration. As a consequence, the private sector was brought to its knees last fall and is just now getting on its feet as a result of the rejuvenation--the Recovery Act-- which was passed by this Congress and by President Obama. It is those kinds of things that have required intervention by the Federal Government to get this country back on its feet. We are not there yet, but we are heading in the right direction.

Mr. PERLMUTTER

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield to my good friend.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, to my good friend from Texas, I think it is easy to know who to blame, and that is the policies of the Republican Congress and the President, George Bush, because things fell apart, jobs were lost, trillions of dollars lost, and companies fleeing as a result of those policies, which we are trying to repair and correct. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Reclaiming my time, I would say that my friend is mistaken because the bill proposed by my friends on the Republican side does nothing but protect Wall Street, not make it transparent and to avoid hidden bombs that might go off from time to time. I would like to yield now 3 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis). (Mr. POLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, first to respond to my good friend from California, he talked about getting the best quality product at the best price. Part of the problem that we had, Madam Speaker, is the fact that you didn't know if you had the best quality product because the way things were done under the Bush administration and the lax regulation that occurred, you didn't know whether there was money in the Bernie Madoff account. The whole approach here is to make sure that these things are scrutinized and that people know what it is that they're getting into when they invest or when they buy a product.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Yes. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I might consume. ``Just say `no.' '' That is the Republican mantra. ``Just say `no'; we like the status quo.'' We are opposed to any movement to get this country back on track. They oppose health care. They oppose the Recovery Act. They oppose everything, because they like the way it is. They like it so that their friends on Wall Street can continue to reap billions of dollars and record profits. This is to look, their opposition is solely to look after their friends so their friends can continue to make money at the expense of average Americans, average Americans who lost jobs last year because of the credit crunch on Wall Street which resulted from the lax regulation and the gambling-type approach taken by the Bush administration and the Republican Congress before that. The recession that we faced, which is as great as anything we have seen since the 1930s, has got to be pinned on my friends in the Republican Party in this Congress and on President Bush. Really, in the last fall, we saw millions of jobs lost. We are not out of the woods, but that trend has reversed so that we are losing fewer and fewer jobs each month. But there is no recognition of that, because my friends don't want to take any credit for ruining the economy last year to the tune of trillions of dollars to this country, to its taxpayers, and millions of jobs to the people who work every day. Now, my friends say that this is a job-killing bill. The only thing killed in this bill are failing financial institutions which would affect the economy, just like that domino effect last fall. We protect consumers. We protect investors. We look at hedge funds. We deal with credit rating agencies. We look at the derivatives and try to rein them in so that they have to post and there aren't dramatic losses as a result of that. We look at insurance, executive pay, but, most importantly, we take a look at institutions that are so big that they, in a prior administration, couldn't fail. Under this bill, we either take them apart or put them out of their misery. There are no bailouts as we had under George Bush. We are trying to end this recession, and you do it by restoring confidence in the financial system. I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I would urge passage of this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. No, I am going to yield 3 minutes to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would like to first say to my friend from California--and this does cut both ways--the House of Representatives in 2005 did pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was bipartisan. I am referring to an article from September 9, 2008, in the FinancialTimes.com, which interviewed Mr. Oxley, who was the chairman of the Financial Services Committee at the time. The bill was never acted on. In that article he fumed about the criticism of his House colleagues. ``All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,'' he says. ``What did we get from the White House?''--remember, George Bush was in the White House--``We got a one-finger salute.'' That was from the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 964 provides for consideration of amendments to H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. The rules provide for consideration of 36 amendments and authorizes the chairman of the Financial Services Committee to move amendments en bloc. In the case of amendments reported from the committee, the question of their adoption in the House shall be put en gros and without division of the question. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions and allows the Chair to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting and also authorizes the Clerk to make technical and conforming changes to amendatory instructions. Mr. Speaker, as we have seen over the past year, our financial system is broken, and we can no longer afford to maintain the status quo. We face a recession. I call it a Republican recession based on the Wild West practices of Wall Street and the Republican Congress and the Bush administration. As a result of this Republican recession, we are talking about people losing their investments and retirement savings last year when the stock market reacted to the heart attack our banking system suffered and the countless jobs that were lost throughout the recession. This bill makes critical reforms to our financial system to address this Wild West era of lax regulation that the Bush administration encouraged. When Wall Street operates like the Wild West, Main Street suffers, and that is precisely what we've seen for the last few years. The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act preserves our economic system, restores confidence and takes reasonable steps to prevent future meltdowns. It establishes a robust regulatory oversight regime creating transparency in areas previously hidden from the public. In this bill, we address consumer protection, investor protection, regulation of hedge funds, credit rating agencies, insurance, derivatives, executive pay, mortgage reform, and we eliminate ``too big to fail.'' Loopholes are closed, consolidated regulation is improved, and transparency is increased so there is no place to hide. But, Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard repeatedly from the other side that this bill puts the taxpayers on the hook in addressing ``too big to fail.'' Well, taxpayers were put on the hook by the lax regulation of the Bush administration which cost this country and each and every citizen trillions and trillions of dollars and millions of jobs, 4 million jobs during the last year of the Bush administration. In this bill, with those institutions that are so big that they would create a domino effect such as we saw last year, we liquidate or close those firms at no expense to the taxpayer. And I put in precisely a provision that any moneys get paid to the taxpayer first. Unlike our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we do not want these firms to reorganize. We want to put them out of their existence, for no one is too big to fail. There is no guarantee for these institutions, and precisely what we do is provide preventive measures before this comes about, divestiture, increasing capital, a whole variety of preventive measures before bringing about a liquidation. But, ultimately, if an institution that affects the financial system grows so large or is so complex, ultimately, it is the liquidation. This bill is about more than just reforming our financial system, though. It is about people's lives and the jobs lost and restoring confidence to a broken system. None of us wants to ever face anything like we did last year, and this bill will help ensure that the Wild West mentality and lax regulation promoted by the Republican Party, which led to huge frauds and robberies, like those committed by Bernard Madoff, Petters, and Stanford and their various Ponzi schemes, doesn't happen again. It is not a coincidence that those kinds of frauds on a scale unlike anything we had ever seen before occurred under the Bush administration. We are reforming our regulatory system so it is able to fix problems before they become a threat to our economic system. The changes this bill makes are essential to rebuilding Main Street and getting credit flowing to small businesses, creating jobs, and rebuilding our economy. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 964.

Mr. PERLMUTTER

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The ranking member of the committee said that the Republican approach was to liquidate failed institutions. It is just the opposite, which is to let them linger and reorganize. That was the proposition made to us in Financial Services. Madam Chair, my point here is to enter into a colloquy with the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I had submitted an amount to exempt certain smaller banks and credit unions, which was not approved in the Rules Committee. It is my understanding that the legislation would give the new CFPA the authority to delegate the authority to conduct examinations and to enforce consumer protection provisions to the functional regulator for financial institutions that fall above the $10 billion asset threshold. Would it be fair to say that the intent here is not to increase burdens on those institutions that have been good actors? For example, if an institution has an onsite examination or audit team from their functional regulator, it would seem that adding a CFPA team to work with those already there would not be as big of a burden. However, if an institution's functional regulator has deemed that its consumer compliance record is strong and that the institution's regulator is doing an effective job, it would seem that subjecting them to CFPA examinations and enforcement would increase the regulatory burden on the institution. Is this a situation where the chairman would envision the CFPA's delegating that authority back to the functional regulator under the authorities given in this legislation?