[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4075-H4110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONSUMERS FIRST ACT
General Leave
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
H.R. 1500 and to insert extraneous material thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 389 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1500.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1217
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1500) to require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to meet
its statutory purpose, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bera in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial
Services.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1500, the Consumers First
Act, which restores the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, so it can
carry out its mission of protecting consumers from unfair, deceptive,
or abusive acts or practices by financial institutions.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created by Congress
following the financial crisis in order to ensure that there is an
agency in place with the sole, dedicated purpose of protecting every
consumer of financial products and services and holding bad actors
fully accountable when consumers are harmed.
Under the leadership of its first Director, Richard Cordray, the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a resounding success. During
that time, the agency put nearly $12 billion back in the pockets of
over 30 million consumers who were harmed by financial institutions.
The agency put in place important new protections so that consumers no
longer had to worry about exploding mortgages, hidden prepaid card
fees, or unnecessary foreclosures due to weak servicing standards.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also helped to take the
confusing jargon out of various financial
[[Page H4076]]
products, such as student loans, by creating tools students can use to
compare financial aid and costs when deciding where to go to college.
But Donald Trump and his appointees have made it their mission to
destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from within. Mick
Mulvaney, who was Trump's Director of the Office of Management and
Budget before Trump inappropriately installed him as Acting Director of
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, made it his mission to
dismantle the agency from the inside. In fact, enforcement actions have
fallen by 75 percent under Trump's appointees, there have been zero
public fair lending enforcement actions, Mulvaney originally requested
zero dollars from the Fed to fund the CFPB, and the number of employees
at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has declined by 10 percent.
I introduced the Consumers First Act to fix the damage that Mulvaney
caused at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. For example,
Mulvaney stripped the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity of
its supervisory enforcement powers. The Consumers First Act restores
those powers.
Mulvaney fired the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's consumer
advisory board. The Consumers First Act restores and strengthens the
advisory panel to ensure consumers are heard by the agency's
leadership.
Mulvaney stacked the senior leadership of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau with ideological political appointees. The Consumers
First Act limits the number of political appointees at the agency.
Mulvaney stopped the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from
supervising its regulated entities for compliance with the Military
Lending Act, which is in place to prevent servicemembers from being
ripped off. The Consumers First Act directs the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau to promptly resume Military Lending Act exams.
Mulvaney worked to hide the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's
consumer complaint database from the public. The Consumers First Act
requires that the consumer complaint database remain publicly
accessible so that there is transparency about the complaints consumers
are making about financial institutions.
H.R. 1500 puts consumers first by reversing the harmful actions
Mulvaney took that we are aware of one by one. Over 50 consumer, civil
rights, and labor organizations support the Consumers First Act.
The harm at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is continuing
under Director Kathy Kraninger, who appears to be following Mulvaney's
lead by rolling back payday lending protections and reducing the
collection of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, or HMDA data, which is
used to identify discrimination in lending. And she is just getting
started. Following general debate on the bill, the House will debate
several amendments to undo the harmful actions taken by Director
Kraninger.
Congress will not tolerate the Trump administration's anticonsumer
actions, and H.R. 1500 will ensure that the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau is able to fulfill its statutory mission to put
consumers first.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Committee on Education and Labor, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 17, 2019.
Hon. Maxine Waters,
Chairwoman, House Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Waters: I write concerning H.R. 1500, the
``Consumers First Act.'' This bill was primarily referred to
the Committee on Financial Services, and secondarily to the
Committee on Education and Labor. As a result of your having
consulted with me concerning this bill generally, I agree to
forgo consideration of the bill, so the bill may proceed
expeditiously to the House floor.
The Committee takes this action with our mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1500,
we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter
contained in this or similar legislation, and we will be
appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar
legislation moves forward so we may address any remaining
issue within our Rule X jurisdiction.
In agreeing to forgo consideration, I respectfully request
your support for the appointment of outside conferees from
the Committee on Education and Labor should this bill or
similar language be considered in a conference with the
Senate.
Finally, I would appreciate a response confirming this
understanding and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters
on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during
floor consideration thereof.
Very truly yours,
Rep. Bobby Scott,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC, May 21, 2019.
Hon. Bobby Scott,
Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I writing to acknowledge your letter
dated May 17, 2019, responding to our request to your
Committee that it waive any jurisdictional claims over the
matters contained in H.R. 1500, ``the Consumer First Act,''
that fall within your Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. The
Committee on Financial Services confirms our mutual
understanding that your Committee does not waive any
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or
similar legislation, and your Committee will be appropriately
consulted and involved as this bill or similar legislation
moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues
within your jurisdiction.
The Committee on Financial Services further recognizes your
interest in appointment of outside conferees from the
Committee on Education and Labor should this bill or similar
language be considered in a conference with the Senate.
Pursuant to your request, I will ensure that this exchange
of letters is included in the Congressional Record during
Floor consideration of the bill. I appreciate your
cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward to
continuing to work with you as this measure moves through the
legislative process.
Sincerely,
Maxine Waters,
Chairwomen.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Since its inception, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has
disregarded congressional intent in a number of alarming ways. Under
the previous Director, Richard Cordray, the agency took it upon itself
to essentially write law through guidance and regulate through
enforcement. Bureaucrats at the CFPB worked diligently to eliminate
options for Americans, arrogantly believing they were better equipped
to make financial decisions than consumers themselves.
Thankfully, under Acting Director Mulvaney and Director Kraninger,
the CFPB is striving to foster an environment that promotes
transparency, legitimacy, and great consumer choice. The American
people deserve a Bureau that enforces law rather than creates it, while
placing power and choice back in the hands of consumers themselves.
Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today accomplishes
the exact opposite.
I appreciate the chairwoman's attempt to reform the Bureau and share
the belief that it needs significant reform. However, instead of
solving underlying issues that make the CFPB an unaccountable
bureaucracy with little oversight, this legislation cherry-picks
specific actions of former Acting Director Mulvaney and attempts to
reverse his decisions.
Ignoring the underlying structural issues of the Bureau, Democrats
are attempting to codify their CFPB agenda with respect to staffing by
limiting political appointees, directing political initiatives through
the creation of the Office of Students and Young Consumers, and
emphasizing the powers and duties of the Office of Fair Lending and
Equal Opportunity.
Yet again, my friends across the aisle are more focused on who is
leading the agency than on real reforms that would increase oversight
and accountability at the CFPB and could shed light on some of the
issues this legislation seeks to address. For example, if the CFPB were
subject to an Office of Inspector General, we would have reports on
whether or not staffing levels are sufficient to fulfill the Bureau's
statutory goals. If the Bureau was subject to the appropriations
process, Congress would have a voice in choosing the number of
political appointees at the Bureau. Some of these issues, Mr. Chairman,
are not even partisan, they're near bipartisan, and yet we can't get
these things done.
Instead of working with Republicans to reform the Bureau, create
transparency, and avoid partisan policy shifts from Director to
Director, the
[[Page H4077]]
majority is choosing to advance legislation that mandates the
advancement of political priorities.
The bottom line here is the legislation before us is wholly partisan
and does nothing to ensure the CFPB can carry out its mission to
protect consumers. I oppose this legislation and I urge my colleagues
to do so, as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) the chair of the Subcommittee on
Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets.
(Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission
to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I thank the chair for
her strong support and leadership on the Consumers First Act, H.R.
1500. I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this if they care about
protecting consumers from abuse.
Putting Mick Mulvaney in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau was the epitome of a fox guarding the henhouse. We have to undo
all of the damage he did while he was Acting Director of the CFPB.
The CFPB was supposed to, and did, protect consumers and returned a
great deal of money to consumers. All of these protections, or many of
them, he deleted. What this bill does is restore these protections to
consumers.
Let me remind my colleagues of why the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau was created. It was after the worst financial crisis in our
history, where our people lost over $15 trillion in household wealth.
They lost their homes, or they lost their jobs. It was completely
preventable because those were abuses to the financial system.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a Bureau that was
directed to protect consumers. Consumers were an afterthought, a
secondary thought, a third thought, or not thought about at all in
financial regulation. The whole system exists for consumers, and they
certainly are entitled to be protected from unfair, abusive practices.
To give an example, I was particularly concerned about his hostility
to data. Decisions should be based on data. Under Director Cordray, the
Bureau published a report on the effects of the Credit CARD Act, which
I authored. They would publish it every 2 years.
Mr. Chairman, this is an incredibly important bill, and I urge a
``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record an article I wrote for The Hill
about the CARD Act.
[From The Hill, May 22, 2019]
CARD Act Turns 10: Changes Have Kept Money in Consumers' Pockets
(By Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.))
Ten years ago, on May 22, 2009, credit card customers got
some needed relief when the Credit Card Accountability
Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act became law. Since
then, the law has saved consumers an estimated $12 billion a
year, which translates into well over $100 billion in total
savings over the past decade. As The New York Times reported,
the CARD Act proved so effective that it led economists
studying the law to a single conclusion: ``The regulation
worked.''
Before the CARD Act, some credit card companies took
advantage of their customers by raising interest rates or
changing the terms of their contracts without notice. Hidden
terms and fees were lucrative for credit card companies but
they were extremely costly to consumers. However, the new law
was revolutionary, establishing strict rules for how credit
card companies must treat their customers, barring many
unfair practices. On the 10th anniversary of the CARD Act, it
is important to remember how far we have come and also to
look ahead to changes we still need to make.
So what did the CARD Act do? For starters, it protected
consumers from arbitrary interest-rate increases by
prohibiting retroactive rate hikes. Companies now are
required to provide 45 days' notice of a rate increase and
cannot raise rates on existing balances. In the past,
companies regularly increased your interest rate if your risk
profile worsened--now they are required to decrease rates if
your credit picture brightens. That is only fair.
But consumers were also getting socked by a host of fees,
so the CARD Act introduced some commonsense changes that made
it much less likely that consumers would be hit by these
fees. The law requires companies to mail credit card bills at
least 21 days before the due date; it prohibits companies
from charging extra fees for paying online or by phone; and
it requires companies to apply payments to balances with the
highest interest rate first. All of these changes save
consumers money.
The law protects young people from aggressive marketing
tactics. Companies no longer can sell cards to individuals
under the age of 21 without an adult co-signer.
The law also protects consumers when they cancel their
credit card. In the past, a company could demand immediate
payment of your balance. Now, a customer has five years to
pay off the balance.
These important changes have kept money in consumers'
pockets. The next battle is to institute fair, common-sense
regulation of the overdraft fees on bank accounts. Some
financial institutions use ``overdraft protection'' to slap
their customers with exorbitant fees. With the growing use of
debit cards, it's easier than ever to overdraw a checking
account, with fees that can run as high as a 17,000 percent
annual percentage rate, according to the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau. That's not a financial service--it's a
robbery.
That is why, since 2005, I have been introducing
legislation that would ban abusive overdraft practices like
reordering transactions in order to maximize the number of
fees banks can charge, and to require overdraft fees to be
proportional to the size of the overdraft--no more $35
overdraft fees for a $2 cup of coffee. My bill would also
require banks to notify consumers that a purchase or an ATM
withdrawal is about to trigger an overdraft, and provide
consumers with a choice of whether to accept the overdraft
service and fee. That, like the CARD Act, would prevent
millions of Americans from unwittingly losing money to their
banks.
Opponents of the CARD Act said that trying to limit the
fees credit card companies charged would prove unsuccessful
and that companies would just create new fees, But that has
not happened.
So when people tell me that regulation does not work and is
costly, I remind them that well-crafted consumer protections
will not only work, but can save Americans tens of billions
of dollars. The CARD Act is proof.
{time} 1230
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), ranking member of the full
committee.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), ranking member of the Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member McHenry for yielding.
Mr. Chair, this legislation, H.R. 1500, the so-called Consumers First
Act, neither puts consumers first nor puts in place the reforms that
are needed to make the CFPB a stronger and more accountable regulatory
agency. In reality, this bill is an attempt to politicize consumer
protection.
It represents my Democratic colleagues' genuine expression of
frustration with the current CFPB leadership, but that frustration is
misdirected, Mr. Chair. That frustration really is more about their
inability to provide meaningful oversight over this Bureau, a Bureau
that they themselves created in the Dodd-Frank law.
I would submit that my Democratic friends' frustration should not be
directed at former Acting Director Mick Mulvaney or current Director
Kathy Kraninger. Their frustration is, in fact, a product of the very
structure, the very flawed structure, that they themselves created and
now stubbornly defend.
Today's legislation does absolutely nothing to address the
fundamental structural flaws of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, which could be remedied on a bipartisan basis with simple
reforms that my Republican colleagues and I have supported since the
Bureau's creation.
I think, now that the leadership has shifted and there is a new
administration with new appointees in the leadership, many of my
Democratic friends are having regrets about the structure that they
originally created.
What would be the reforms that we should together as a body on a
bipartisan basis support? A bipartisan commission; subjecting the
Bureau to congressional appropriations with my legislation, the Taking
Account of Bureaucrats' Spending Act, which would restore the power of
the purse over this agency; an independent inspector general, which
would hold leadership of either party accountable.
Mr. Chair, this is just a messaging bill. It is not a true attempt to
legislate. This bill does nothing to get at the lack of accountability
of this Bureau.
To further make this point, my friend, the chairwoman, talks about
the need to add supervisory authority to the Bureau over enforcement
and
[[Page H4078]]
compliance with the Military Lending Act, but the bill doesn't do that.
I have a bill that does that. In fact, I offered the bill as an
amendment, but Monday night, in the Rules Committee, they made this
amendment out of order.
This is not about actually giving the Bureau supervision over the
Military Lending Act. If they really wanted that, they would have
approved my amendment. We would be voting on my amendment to give the
Bureau supervisory authority over enforcement of the Military Lending
Act.
But, no. This is just about making a political point. Sure, they have
findings that there should be supervisory authority over Military
Lending Act compliance. Well, then why not make this Republican
amendment in order to make it a bipartisan bill?
They don't want a bipartisan bill. They want a political message.
This reaffirms our point that this legislation is not about consumer
protection. It is not about putting consumers first. It is about
politics. It is about giving lip service to protecting our
servicemembers while excluding the necessary action to actually do it.
Mr. Chair, I encourage a ``no'' vote on this bill. Let's roll up our
sleeves. Let's defend this institution. Let's work together in a
bipartisan way to truly enact the reforms, the structural reforms that
will strengthen consumer protection that will make this Bureau
accountable to the American people through their elected
representatives.
Let's make this a bipartisan commission. Let's give this institution,
both Republicans and Democrats, the power of the purse over this agency
so that when a Director from the Trump administration is in place, this
body will have the ability to provide meaningful oversight, and when
there is a Democratic appointee heading this agency, this body will
also be able to exercise meaningful oversight.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote. Let's do real reforms. Let's not
just make political points.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, we have no regrets about how we organized the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the supervisory authority is
already in law. All they have to do is implement it.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Clay), the chair of the Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development
and Insurance on the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for yielding, and I rise
today to enthusiastically support the Consumers First Act, a bill that
returns the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to its intended role
as a nonpartisan consumer watchdog that elevates the interests of
American taxpayers above those of special interests.
The Bureau was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act following the financial crisis to ensure that
Americans have a regulator working solely on their behalf in order to
protect them from predatory and abusive actors. Under Director Richard
Cordray's leadership, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau helped
over 30 million consumers who were harmed and addressed over 1.2
million complaints about financial institutions.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development
and Insurance, I am pleased to see that this critical legislation
restores the supervisory and enforcement powers of the Bureau's office
tasked wit combating discriminatory lending practices, which have been
responsible for causing the racial wealth gap to continue to grow,
especially after the financial crisis of 2008.
This is a commonsense bill that, again, puts the American consumer
first and ensures that, in the regular course of business and commerce,
people are not forgotten.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the
great State of North Carolina (Mr. Budd).
Mr. BUDD. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
McHenry), the ranking member, for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1500. It is
deceptively, and yet cleverly, named the Consumer First Act.
Let's talk some facts.
House Financial Services Committee Republicans have been trying for
years to increase transparency and accountability at the CFPB. We have
tried to create an Office of the Inspector General for that purpose. We
have also tried to bring accountability by subjecting the CFPB to the
appropriations process. Yet, despite our attempts, we have been met
with opposition every single time to what used to be a bipartisan goal.
Now, today, we see a bill that my friends on the other side of the
aisle are pushing that would undermine our previous efforts to shine
some daylight on this agency. Rather than working with us to reform the
agency and its authorities, and rather than working with us to avoid
constant partisan policy shifts from Director to Director, rather than
working with us in a bipartisan manner, the majority is choosing to
move legislation today that simply advances their own political agenda.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this bill.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, it is absolutely unbelievable that the
Republicans on the opposite side of the aisle now talk about wanting to
work with us after they have done everything possible to undermine the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
We move ahead with restoring it from all the harm that has been done
to it.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
David Scott), a leading senior member of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for
yielding.
Mr. Chair, this is singularly the most significant part of the Dodd-
Frank legislation. It is the heart and the soul of it because it goes
to protecting the American people against the abuses that have been
predicated upon it.
This bill is singularly important. Let me tell Members some of the
things it does.
Mr. Chair, right now, we have 44 million students, 44 million student
loan borrowers, who are suffering, trying to figure out how to pay back
these loans. There are predatory lenders that are out to abuse these
students.
What does Ms. Waters' bill do? It establishes a dedicated student
loan office within the CFPB to protect the Nation's 44 million student
loan borrowers. That is what this bill does.
Also, it emphasizes the need for a transparent and accessible
consumer complaint database. We get it all the time. Consumers
presently make complaints at the way they are handling the CFPB now
under the Trump administration. No attention is paid to that. No
transparency is there. Ms. Waters' effort here will correct that.
Mr. Chair, this financial dynamic that we have suffered still looms
large, and we need to restore the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
to its rightful stature as the one premier agency that does the
singular, most important thing today: protect the financial
transactions of our American people.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. John W. Rose), a new member of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. JOHN W. ROSE of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to
H.R. 1500.
Mr. Chair, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have
Members believe that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's
structure is settled law. In fact, I am certain they will continue
repeating that view. However, no matter how many times they repeat the
sentiment, repeating it will never make it true.
This is not settled law. The American people deserve to be
represented in government entities on every level, especially those as
integral to their lives as the CFPB.
I can assure you, the people of the Sixth District of Tennessee are
unhappy with the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
and its utter lack of accountability. My constituents have expressed
the same frustration time and again. The level of independence given to
the CFPB is counter to the very freedoms we expect in this country.
It is our job to ensure that the American people have a voice in the
business of their government. Right now, the structure of the CFPB does
not provide a voice to the people of Tennessee or to the people of this
country.
[[Page H4079]]
This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to me, and it should be
unacceptable to each of us in this Chamber.
Over 240 years ago, our forbearers fought a Revolutionary War, a War
of Independence with a battle cry of, ``No taxation without
representation.'' Perhaps that battle cry today should be, ``No
regulation without representation.''
Do we trust a fully independent bureaucrat with unlimited government
funding to act in the best interests of honest, hardworking Americans,
or do we trust their elected representatives?
Overwhelmingly, I trust those of us in this body to oversee the CFPB
far more than we can ever rely on an independent bureaucrat to do so.
We are held accountable every 2 years in this Chamber. If voters do not
like the way we are doing our job, they can send us home. This matters
to the American people, and it should matter to us.
H.R. 1500 does not address the real issues here: a lack of
accountability, an abuse of power, and an ever-expanding footprint of
the Federal Government.
Instead, H.R. 1500 attempts to micromanage the Bureau now that my
friends on the other side of the aisle see what it is like when the
shoe is on the other foot.
The esteemed ranking member from North Carolina and I urge our fellow
Members to join us in voting against this legislation, the latest
rendition of irresponsible Big Government.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, this is a consumer bill. My friends on the
opposite side of the aisle who would try to kill this bill evidently do
not understand that the day is over when predatory lending will go
forth in this body.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs.
Beatty), the chair of the Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion on
the Financial Services Committee.
{time} 1245
Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairwoman Waters for her
leadership and commitment to putting the consumer back in the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau without regrets.
Mr. Chair, I am proud to be an original sponsor of this bill because
it does exactly what the title of this bill says it does. It puts
consumers first. One, by restoring supervisory and enforcement
authority to the Office of Fair Lending. It also establishes the
student loan office--continuing--and resumes military lending
examinations, all without regret.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know what my colleagues are talking about.
Those are things that we need, and maybe that is why some of the people
did send them back home. I do agree with my colleague on that.
This bill ensures that no matter who is running the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, there are protections that guard against a
rogue Director from dismantling it and halting its important work, as
this administration has attempted to do time and time again.
Mr. Chairman, I support this because I support the workers. I support
what they do for consumers. I support this legislation, and I will
proudly debate anyone who thinks this chairwoman has not established
legislation and policies that put consumers first.
I urge all of my colleagues, even those on the other side: Let's talk
about bipartisanship. Let's get on board and vote ``yes'' for this.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Garcia), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of the Consumers First Act and thank Chairwoman Waters and Speaker
Pelosi for their leadership.
I remember the housing market collapse in 2009 very clearly. I
remember the foreclosure signs going up all over Chicago and in my own
neighborhood of Little Village, a working-class community. Families
lost homes. They skipped meals. They took second and third jobs just to
scrape by. Too many families never recovered.
President Obama and the Democratic majority swore to never allow a
Great Recession to happen again. Never again would we allow Wall Street
to go unchecked and allow consumers to be ripped off wholesale by the
big banks.
We passed sweeping legislation, Dodd-Frank, and we created the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB. In short, CFPB was
going to be the consumer watchdog for everyday hardworking Americans.
Since Trump's election, every day has been an assault against these
protections: payday lending protections, reversed; student loan
protections, reversed; predatory auto and home loan protections,
reversed. Instead of protecting consumers, Trump and Mick Mulvaney have
made their priorities clear: banks over people, business over the
consumer.
Systematically, Mulvaney and Trump have been busy dismantling the
CFPB, the same agency that recently helped a man in New York who had
lost $1,200 wrongly taken from his account. He was able to recover it
thanks to the CFPB. That man is one of thousands that have been helped
by the agency. That is the power of government when it is empowered to
fight for every American.
Meanwhile, Mulvaney has called the CFPB's public complaint database
nothing but a ``yelp for financial services.''
At a time when this administration is working at the behest of Wall
Street, the 1 percent, and the big banks, this Democratic majority is
moving forward to protect consumers.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would commend to the House that, when someone gets
into fundamental issues of a 5-year term that the only way the Director
can be fired is for cause. The Democrats have created an unaccountable
bureau of government.
Now, I think what we have today is a bit of buyer's remorse by my
Democratic colleagues who created the CFPB in order to be this
unaccountable bureau, but headed by a Democrat or a Democratic
Presidential appointee. Now that we have a Republican appointee in the
CFPB, they want to reorder how the Director has her staff report to
her.
That is what a big chunk of this bill does. They want to micromanage
the Bureau because they don't like what the current Director is doing.
If we seek to actually have long-term consumer protection within our
financial regulators, I think we need a bipartisan board to oversee an
agency like this. I think it is a fundamentally different agency when
you have a bipartisan board and it looks and acts more like the
Securities and Exchange Commission that has long-term, lasting buy-in
by both parties and by the American public for the enforcement actions
that they take and gives investors confidence in that area.
On this side of the ledger, what we said on the Republican side
during the Dodd-Frank debate and we have said consistently since then
is, if you want a lasting Bureau, you need to have a bipartisan board.
And funny enough, I think that was originally a bipartisan idea, and it
has now become mostly a Republican idea.
What I would commend is, if we want to get into issues of reforming
the Bureau, we need to get into the structural reforms about
appropriations and a bipartisan board and inspector general to oversee
an agency such as this rather than tinkering around the edges about
reporting structures within the Bureau or the naming of the Bureau.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a member of the Ways and Means Committee and
always a strong leader on consumer protection issues.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairwoman Waters so much for
yielding to me, and I want to than Chairwoman Waters and my former
colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee for getting this
important legislation, the Consumers First Act, to the floor.
The CFPB, as Members have heard, has been a great equalizer in our
financial markets for regular Americans. It makes sure that financial
institutions follow the law and that regular people are treated fairly.
Every business claims that they put their customers first, but what
happens when they don't? For far too long, the answer was nothing.
[[Page H4080]]
We have seen the car loans at higher interest rates for people of
color and mortgage products that almost brought our economy down and
created and pushed us into the Great Recession.
Then along came Dodd-Frank and the CFPB, which set the table for the
economic expansion that we have seen since 2010. The dedicated men and
women of the CFPB have literally put $12 billion back into the pockets
of victims of fraud, harmful financial schemes, and other abuses.
Let me say to my colleagues on the other side: Speaker after speaker
has gotten up and talked about subjecting the CFPB to the
appropriations process. They have claimed that they are against the
independence of the agencies, calling them independent bureaucrats.
That is exactly what their comments lean toward is taking away the
independence of this agency to determine fraud and abuse and subjecting
it to the whims of whoever is the President or whoever is the
administration.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation
because it is good for consumers, good for businesses, good for our
financial markets, and good for the American people.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Takano), a strong defender of consumers.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1500, a
bill that will ensure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has the
necessary tools to defend American consumers.
The CFPB was created in the wake of the financial crisis as consumers
fell victim to unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices.
My Republican colleagues have tried to undermine it for nearly a
decade since its arrival. The Trump administration has worked to
kneecap the CFPB, using a strategy that prioritizes big businesses over
individual consumers. As can be seen, enforcement has decreased by 75
percent at the CFPB.
H.R. 1500 will fortify the CFPB's core mission to protect consumers
and remedy the Trump administration's harmful anticonsumer tactics.
My home district lies in California's Inland Empire, and the
constituents I serve understand the importance of CFPB's mission all
too well. At the height of the housing crisis, one in five local
households were behind on their mortgages. In 2008 alone, over 30,000
families from Riverside County lost their homes to foreclosure.
This was, however, by Wall Street's design. In no other area of the
country did subprime loans aggressively pushed by lenders claim a
bigger proportion of the overall mortgage market. This bill ensures the
CFPB is equipped and empowered to fight this type of predatory lending
and much more.
Simply put, the Consumers First Act ensures that CFPB maintains the
authority and resources to do its job and proactively protect consumers
from unfair, misleading, and abusive practices.
Let's pass this bill to make crystal clear that the CFPB truly does
have the back of every single American consumer. I strongly urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1500.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for her leadership
because today's bill is about restoring effective law enforcement for
consumers and protecting them from predatory Wall Street practices.
Republicans want to shield Wall Street, granting it free rein to
plunder. Instead of draining the swamp, this lawless President has
drained the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of its strength.
Public enforcement actions are down 75 percent. That is how they feel
about law enforcement.
The President is refusing to protect our active-duty military from
predatory lending; halting payments to consumers who have been wronged;
eliminating the office that is designed to prevent discrimination in
credit against Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans; and
eliminating the office dedicated to addressing student loan abuses.
Enough is enough. Instead of handcuffing those who do wrong, this
administration is handcuffing the agency designed to ensure law
enforcement.
And while this President profited himself from scams like Trump
University, it is time to restore important consumer protections: law
enforcement to protect students, active military, and the retirement
savings of our seniors.
In just five years, $12 billion was returned to over 30 million
American citizens. Wells Fargo would never have been penalized a penny
for its multimillion-dollar fraud without a cop on the beat.
Mr. Trump and Mr. Mulvaney have been about pulling that cop back so
that there is no protection for those this agency was designed to
serve. Let's approve this bill to protect Americans from financial
piranhas who would strip their savings to the bone.
Mr. Chair, I salute the leadership of the chairwoman of the Financial
Services Committee, for standing up for Americans who have been
abandoned by this administration. It is essential we do our work in
Congress to say it is consumers who come first, not those who would
prefer to take advantage of them.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Norton). Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I would like to inquire as to how much time
is remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 9 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from North Carolina has 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, so I reserve the
balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I am so proud of this legislation, I am so proud of the
members of the Financial Services Committee, and I am so proud of our
Democratic Caucus. We have strong support for this legislation. I am so
proud of the over 50 consumer, labor, and civil rights organizations
who strongly support H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act.
It has been said more than once today that we went through a
recession here in this country--almost a depression--in 2008 when
predatory lending from the major financial institutions in America
caused this recession and caused us to have communities that were
devastated--boarded up homes--we had communities, not only where the
homes were boarded up, but the weeds were growing up, in many instances
animals had taken over the property, and many consumers and homeowners
who lost these homes really did not know what had happened to them.
It was predatory lending. It was the tricks that were fostered on
innocent people who simply wanted to live the American Dream and own a
home. They signed on the dotted line for products and mortgages they
didn't understand and could not afford. And they were led into signing
on the bottom line because we had predatory lenders who wanted to get
them into a situation where they could get some money, perhaps up
front, and sell off the products that they were getting signed on up to
Wall Street, et cetera, et cetera.
Of course, we worked for 2 years, and it was in 2010 that we were
able to put the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau together, which is
indeed the centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank reforms. So we had Mr. Cordray
who was our first Director who did a magnificent job, and it has been
cited here time and time again.
My friends on the opposite side of the aisle have done everything
that they could do to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, and, Madam Chair, none of them are going to vote for this bill
today. None of them will criticize the big banks on Wall Street and
others who took advantage of our consumers.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I inquire from Chairwoman Waters if she is
prepared to close.
[[Page H4081]]
Ms. WATERS. No, I am not prepared to close.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations on the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the chair of the full
committee. I am honored to have this opportunity to speak in support of
this bill.
This bill addresses a concern that many of us on the Financial
Services Committee have had to deal with for some time now, and it is
the question of whether the committee is going to allow the CFPB to
protect consumers from unscrupulous behavior or to protect Big
Business. I am a person who believes that we should protect the
consumer.
This legislation will allow the persons who receive student loans to
avoid being placed into costly repayment plans that will cause them to
pay more money and possibly default. It will cause consumers looking to
open a new checking account to have the opportunity to do so with a
bank that has the least amount of overdraft fees. It will allow persons
who are seeking credit cards to have the right to seek relief through
the courts, not through some boilerplate language that they might find
in a contract that will not benefit them.
This is the opportunity that we must take advantage of to protect
consumers. It is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not the
financial institutions protection bureau.
So with this said, I wholeheartedly endorse what the chairperson has
brought to the attention of this Congress. These are remedies that are
absolutely necessary, and I plan to vote and encourage my colleagues to
vote in support of this legislation.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to just say that we send a message from this House today, and
our message that we are sending out across this Nation is that we are
now in a position to undo what has been done and the wreckage that has
been caused with our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
We send a message that the day for predatory lending is over.
We send the message despite the fact that we have Members of this
House who would dare not stand up for students and servicemembers and
not criticize what has happened to consumers in the way that it has
happened in this country. And so I want that message to be loud and
clear.
I want those on Wall Street and the major banks who had the predatory
products and who had the exotic loans, I want all those who mismanaged
the way that they deal with our students when our students had
complaints and they looked for someone to help them, I want all of them
to know, well, I suppose, there is a new sheriff in town.
We are going to make sure that the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau is strong, that it is not simply made up of political
appointees, and that they do not have to worry in the way that they are
worrying now. We have personnel who have quit the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau because it was not carrying out the mission that was
intended.
Again, I have said earlier how proud I am to have this bill on the
floor and to have the support of the Democratic Caucus.
I would just ask my friends on the opposite side of the aisle to
think about what is going on and to think about ways that they can
begin to take into consideration their constituents who need
protection, and prior to our legislation there was no protection for
consumers.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What I would say, Madam Chair, is that this bill does nothing to
protect consumers. This is all about the reporting structure, the
organization chart within the CFPB. In fact, in 21 pages of findings in
this bill, the next 21 pages of legislative text does nothing to answer
the fundamental questions raised in the first 21 pages.
Moreover, the reforms that are necessary weren't even considered by
the Democrat majority. So we want to protect consumers. I think we all
want to protect consumers. Where there is malfeasance and where there
is wrongdoing, we will seek it out and we will have bipartisan
cooperation for that proper oversight by this branch of government.
One area where we can have bipartisan work is the Military Lending
Act. We want to make sure that those who are serving in the Armed
Forces are protected by those who seek to do financial wrongdoing and
perpetrate financial wrongdoing. This is an area where Congressman Andy
Barr of Kentucky has authored a bill. He offered it as an amendment--
and it was rejected by the Rules Committee--that would have made this
otherwise subpar bill much better in effect, and it would have actually
had a positive impact on the people whom we all seek to protect.
I think it is important that our colleagues understand part of the
reason why we should oppose this bill. I am prepared to close, but I
will wait for the majority to finish with their speakers before I will
do so, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Waters for her
great work on this bill. She has been a true champion on behalf of
consumers during her time in Congress.
This chart shows the decrease in enforcement actions which have
plummeted by 75 percent under the Office of Management and Budget
Director Mulvaney. Bear in mind that corruption and abuse of consumers
has not gone away. This is a time period when Wells Fargo--a perfect
example--robbed their customers, opened up fake accounts to basically
take the proceeds, used their--this is when customers went to Wells
Fargo, gave them all their information, Wells Fargo used their Social
Security numbers and data to open up fake accounts, so they could
charge their own customers--flat-out theft--and they had to fire 5,300
employees. That doesn't happen by accident. That is a business model
that is built on abusing the consumer.
That is why the CFPB is necessary, and that is why we need to pass
this bill today. I support the chairwoman's efforts in this regard.
A dramatic decline is evident, from 54 cases in the Obama
administration to 11 this year. The sheriff has basically left the
street. There is no more cop on the beat now with respect to protecting
the consumer.
Madam Chair, I thank the chairwoman for giving me this time to point
out the need for the Consumers First Act, a great bill.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 30 seconds
remaining. The gentleman from North Carolina has 15\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, let me close by saying what I said briefly in debate.
This bill is about buyer's remorse.
I would say to my colleague from Massachusetts who raised the issue
about Wells Fargo, there was a bipartisan hearing. Chairwoman Waters
called the hearing. We had bipartisan questioning of the Wells Fargo
CEO. We have taken bipartisan work on the oversight of regulators and
the regulated when it came to malfeasance by Wells Fargo and some of
the employees who were within that firm. There was a bipartisan level
of cooperation there.
I would also highlight, to my colleague from Massachusetts, that it
was not the regulators who found the malfeasance of Wells Fargo, it was
the good and wise reporting of the Los Angeles Times. Through
investigative journalism, they found the malfeasance, the bad actors,
and the bad policies within Wells Fargo--not the regulators. That is a
failure of the regulators. It is a failure of the CFPB. We have yet to
have a hearing about those failures.
Let me say from the outset about this bill; it proves what
Republicans have said since the passage of Dodd-Frank: the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau is unaccountable.
[[Page H4082]]
We hear my Democrat colleagues complain about the actions of a legal
overseer of the Bureau, Mick Mulvaney, and now the complaints about the
Republican-appointed Director, Kathy Kraninger. We are here today
because Democrats regret that during Dodd-Frank they didn't go far
enough by mandating outcomes by this Bureau, because they didn't
consider that a Republican could actually be a leader of that Bureau
and they may not like the action of that unaccountable Director.
They have buyer's remorse, and, unfortunately, they have decided to
advance legislation that does nothing to create a more responsible CFPB
over the long term. Instead of taking this opportunity to work
together, to bring transparency and accountability to the CFPB, the
majority is moving a bill that does little more than advance their
political agenda and micromanage the Bureau.
H.R. 1500 codifies and recreates offices inside the CFPB, some of
which are given more authority and some of which, like the Office of
Cost Benefit Analysis, are given less.
H.R. 1500 actually directs what Bureau staff can refer to the Bureau
as in public. Now, let me explain: if it is called the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau under this bill, it is okay. If it is
called the CFPB, that is okay. If it is referred to as the Bureau, a
law has actually been broken under this bill.
{time} 1315
That is one of the more substantive changes in the bill, actually. I
don't think it is wise legislating by Congress.
That represents the policy side of the legislation. One look at this
bill's findings is enough to tell Members what H.R. 1500 is really
about.
There are more pages of findings than there are of actual legislative
text. The issues they raise in the findings sections, however, are not
remedied in the legislative text part of the bill.
In a series of disparaging statements, former Acting Director Mick
Mulvaney, a former colleague of ours here in the House and member of
the Financial Services Committee, and Director Kathy Kraninger are
vilified as irresponsible zealots.
Specifically, the text describes former Acting Director Mulvaney as
``anticonsumer,'' ``destructive,'' and ``inane,'' only working ``to
hamstring the good work, passion, and the capacity of dedicated
staff.''
The findings also opine that ``the appointment of Mr. Mulvaney aimed
to diminish and undermine the mission of the Consumer Bureau.''
This is a highly suspect section of legislation before this House. I
don't think it is becoming of this House to opine in this way.
While Mick Mulvaney may be many things, he is not inane nor is he
anticonsumer. Now, I may say, jokingly, that I find him destructive,
probably destructive with his humor, but not destructive in the work
that he achieves in public policy. I think he is a good public servant,
serving our country admirably; and, with the work that he did at the
Bureau, he was trying to achieve the best results possible for
consumers, for institutions, for financial safety and soundness, and
for the economy at large. He did good work.
With that context in mind, we know that this bill is not about
helping consumers. This bill is about constraining Republican Directors
from making decisions they believe are in the best interest of the
agency.
In the Financial Services Committee markup, Republicans offered
amendments that would have made responsible changes to the Bureau. Had
those amendments been adopted, the majority would have a much better
bill.
An inspector general would have provided oversight of the Director,
ensuring the mission of the agency is not undermined. That is important
for all branches of government.
Subjecting the Bureau to annual appropriations would have also
ensured congressional oversight of the CFPB, or the Bureau, and a voice
in the prioritization of Bureau functions.
A GAO study examining the efficacy in which the Bureau meets its
statutory obligations would have actually yielded insight into the
workings of the otherwise opaque Bureau.
But those amendments were not adopted. The choice was made to move
forward with a partisan declaration instead of meaningful bipartisan
legislation. That is unfortunate.
Thankfully, there will be a Senate, and the Senate has a different
view on this. It is my hope that this bill does not become law.
Unfortunately, we can't improve this legislation through a meaningful
amendment process because of the nature of the rule passed by the Rules
Committee.
We are merely adding more political fodder for press releases as a
result of this bill. H.R. 1500 will pass the House and will go nowhere
in the Senate.
The Financial Services Committee will then turn to the next issue.
Hopefully, it is bipartisan legislating, where Chairwoman Waters and I
have had success in the past, and I hope we have success in the future.
But, to the American people, I say that the Financial Services
Committee Republicans remain committed to bettering this organization
of the CFPB. We will protect consumers, while maximizing financial
choice. We will work to advance solutions, not sound bites. It is my
sincere hope that we can do that with cooperation from the majority.
I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1500, legislation
that puts politics first, not consumers.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I am so proud that, today, we are going to
stand up for consumers on this side of the aisle. It is unfortunate
that our friends on the opposite side of the aisle have not seen fit to
support consumers. They will all vote against this bill. We will vote
for this bill on this side of the aisle.
Madam Chair, again, I urge my colleagues to come to the floor quickly
and vote for consumer financial protection, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Financial Services, printed in the bill, an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 116-15, shall be considered as adopted and shall be considered as
an original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 5-
minute rule. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1500
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Consumers
First Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings; sense of Congress.
Sec. 3. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Sec. 4. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 5. Executive and administration powers.
Sec. 6. Offices of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Sec. 7. Consumer Advisory Board reforms.
Sec. 8. Discretionary surplus funds.
Sec. 9. Effective date.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Public Law 111-203) (``Dodd-Frank''), was
signed into law on July 21, 2010, in order to, among other
things, advance the goals of protecting consumers from
predatory financial services practices and products that led
to the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
(2) Title X of Dodd-Frank established a new Federal
independent watchdog, known as the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (``Consumer Bureau''), with broad authority
to ensure that all hardworking consumers are given clear,
accurate information that they need to shop for mortgages,
credit cards, and other consumer financial products or
services and to protect consumers from hidden fees, abusive
terms, and other unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or
practices through strong implementation and enforcement of
Federal consumer financial laws.
(3) Before the Consumer Bureau was established, Federal
financial regulators were tasked with the dual
responsibilities of supervising institutions for safety and
soundness and compliance with consumer protections under
Federal consumer financial laws. These agencies often
prioritized the profitability of their regulated entities
over the protection of consumers, even when institutions were
found to have engaged in practices detrimental to their own
customers' financial well-being.
(4) Congress purposefully created the independent Consumer
Bureau within the Federal
[[Page H4083]]
Reserve System to address past regulatory gaps in our
country's financial regulatory regime--gaps that resulted in
the most severe global financial crisis since the Great
Depression. Among other things, Federal financial regulators
were too reluctant to exercise their rulemaking, supervisory,
and enforcement authorities to protect consumers from the
misdeeds of the Consumer Bureau's regulated entities. In
creating the Consumer Bureau, Congress explicitly laid out in
statute the Consumer Bureau's purpose, five objectives, and
six primary functions. Specifically:
(A) Section 1021(a) of Dodd-Frank states that the Consumer
Bureau, ``shall seek to implement and, where applicable,
enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the
purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets
for consumer financial products and services and that markets
for consumer financial products and services are fair,
transparent, and competitive''.
(B) Section 1021(b) of Dodd-Frank authorizes the Consumer
Bureau, ``to exercise its authorities under Federal consumer
financial law for the purposes of ensuring that, with respect
to consumer financial products and services--(1) consumers
are provided with timely and understandable information to
make responsible decisions about financial transactions; (2)
consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive
acts and practices and from discrimination; (3) outdated,
unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly
identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted
regulatory burdens; (4) Federal consumer financial law is
enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a
person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair
competition; and (5) markets for consumer financial products
and services operate transparently and efficiently to
facilitate access and innovation.''.
(C) Section 1021(c) of Dodd-Frank establishes the primary
functions of the Consumer Bureau to be, ``(1) conducting
financial education programs; (2) collecting, investigating,
and responding to consumer complaints; (3) collecting,
researching, monitoring, and publishing information relevant
to the functioning of markets for consumer financial products
and services to identify risks to consumers and the proper
functioning of such markets; (4) subject to sections 1024
through 1026, supervising covered persons for compliance with
Federal consumer financial law, and taking appropriate
enforcement action to address violations of Federal consumer
financial law; (5) issuing rules, orders, and guidance
implementing Federal consumer financial law; and (6)
performing such support activities as may be necessary or
useful to facilitate the other functions of the Bureau.''.
(5) In doing so, Congress explicitly laid out these
consumer-focused purpose, objectives, and primary functions
for the Consumer Bureau to ensure that all consumers and all
communities are protected. This is of extreme importance to
communities of color who have been disproportionately
impacted by the inequities of the financial system, resulting
in an extreme racial wealth divide. Decades of segregation
and discrimination have prevented consumers of colors from
amassing wealth equal to their white counterparts, while
predatory financial practices of have stripped consumers of
color of their nominal existing wealth. For example, over the
past 30 years, the average wealth of White families has grown
by 84 percent--1.2 times the rate of growth for the Latino
population and three times the rate of growth for the Black
population. In light of historical practices and current-day
disparities in banking and lending practices, the Consumer
Bureau plays a key role in protecting communities of color
from wealth-stripping financial products and ensuring their
right to wealth building opportunities. The agency's
enforcement actions in auto lending, mortgages, and credit
cards, and its rulemaking efforts have sought to address the
predatory financial products such as payday loans and prepaid
cards that are prolific in communities of color. The Consumer
Bureau is essential in protecting vulnerable communities from
discriminatory financial practices that has both perpetuated
and exacerbated the racial wealth gap.
(6) Under Dodd-Frank, the Deputy Director of the Consumer
Bureau shall serve as the Acting Director in the absence or
unavailability of the Director, until the President appoints
and the Senate confirms a new Director. Despite the plain
letter of the law establishing a succession order to fill a
vacancy in the Director's position and the clear legislative
history underscoring the importance of having an independent
Federal consumer-focused agency, when the Consumer Bureau
Director Richard Cordray resigned in November 2017, President
Trump refused to recognize the Deputy Director as the
rightful head of the agency and instead installed Mr. Mick
Mulvaney, the Director of the White House Office of
Management and Budget, to serve as the Consumer Bureau's
Acting Director. This appointment of a White House cabinet
official to run the Consumer Bureau raises profound conflict
of interest questions and undermines the vital independent
nature of the agency.
(7) Additionally, the position of Acting Director is, by
its nature, intended to be a temporary assignment to maintain
the status quo at an agency and to ensure the agency is
fulfilling its statutory purpose and mandates, until the
President appoints, and the Senate confirms a permanent
Director. Nevertheless, during his tenure, Mr. Mulvaney
instituted drastic and severe changes to the Consumer
Bureau's daily operations and priorities contrary to the
agency's statutory purpose and mandates.
(8) The daily operations of a Federal agency are guided by
its official mission contained in its long-term strategic
plan. The Consumer Bureau's mission should embrace both the
spirit and plain letter of the law by fully recognizing the
agency's statutory purpose, objectives, and functions. It is
troubling that the Consumer Bureau, under Mr. Mulvaney,
issued a Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year (``FY'') 2018-FY 2022
that appears to deemphasize the Consumer Bureau's core
mandate under section 1021(a) of Dodd-Frank to, ``enforce
Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose
of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for
consumer financial products and services'', by not
referencing the importance of enforcement in its mission.
Instead, it emphasizes financial education by stating that
the agency's new mission is, ``[t]o regulate the offering and
provision of consumer financial products or services under
the Federal consumer financial laws and to educate and
empower consumers to make better informed financial
decisions''. This is in stark contrast from the Consumer
Bureau's Strategic Plan for FY 2013-FY 2017, which stated
that the agency's mission is helping, ``consumer finance
markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently
and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers
to take more control over their economic lives'' (emphasis
added).
(9) Mr. Mulvaney has been praised by the White House for
his efforts to undermine the Consumer Bureau, with one
anonymous advisor acknowledging in a July 24, 2018, Politico
article that, ``His mission was to blow that up, which he
has. He is very well-suited to the chaos.''. Mr. Mulvaney's
misguided actions have included, among other things--
(A) stopping payments from the Civil Penalty Fund to harmed
consumers;
(B) trying to reduce the Consumer Bureau's funding and
staffing by initially requesting $0 be transferred from the
Federal Reserve Board of Governors to carry out the agency's
work, imposing a freeze on hiring professional career staff,
and by arbitrarily directing staff to cut the agency's budget
by \1/5\;
(C) politicizing the work of the Consumer Bureau by making
unusual efforts to fill the independent agency with political
appointees;
(D) reducing the Consumer Bureau's enforcement work,
including taking only six enforcement actions in the first
three quarters of 2018 (compared with 54 enforcement actions
taken by the agency in 2015, 42 enforcement actions in 2016
and 36 enforcement actions in 2017), and dropping existing
lawsuits and investigations into predatory payday lenders;
(E) taking steps that would undermine efforts to promote
fair lending and combat discriminatory practices, including
by hiring, and later refusing to remove, a political
appointee with a history of racist written commentary to
oversee the Office of Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair
Lending, stripping away the enforcement powers of the Office
of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity, seeking to curb the
Consumer Bureau's data collection under the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act, and indicating the Consumer Bureau would
reconsider its approach toward enforcing the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act;
(F) changing the role of the Office of Students and Young
Consumers and, according to an August 27, 2018, resignation
letter from Seth Frotman, the Consumer Bureau's former
Assistant Director and Student Loan Ombudsman, ``when new
evidence came to light showing that the nation's largest
banks were ripping off students on campuses across the
country by saddling them with legally dubious account fees,
Bureau leadership suppressed the publication of a report
prepared by Bureau staff'';
(G) abandoning the accepted and efficient practice of
having its examiners review, as part of their routine
examinations, creditors' compliance with the Military Lending
Act in order to ensure the detection and assessment of risky
activities that could jeopardize vital protections provided
to active-duty servicemembers and their families;
(H) creating an Office of Cost Benefit Analysis that
prioritizes businesses' expenses over harm caused to
consumers, and unduly constrains oversight of the Consumer
Bureau's regulated entities;
(I) freezing data collection to the detriment of
supervision and enforcement;
(J) seeking to block the publication of the nature of
consumers' complaints and how entities resolved them in the
publicly available and transparent Consumer Complaint
Database;
(K) restricting key input and feedback from a wide range of
external stakeholders by effectively terminating members'
positions on three advisory boards, including the statutorily
mandated Consumer Advisory Board;
(L) proposing policies, including those regarding no-action
letters, model disclosure pilot projects, and product
sandboxes, that could put many kinds of financial
institutions in an enforcement-free zone, letting bad actors
that harm consumers off the hook entirely from enforcement,
and allowing them to ignore the law; and
(M) neglecting to impose promptly any civil money penalty
on a bank when it was found to be, among other things,
improperly obtaining consumer reports and furnishing to
consumer reporting agencies inaccurate information about
consumers' credit.
(10) The repeated efforts under Mr. Mulvaney's leadership
to hamstring the good work, passion, commitment, and the
capacity of dedicated professional, career Consumer Bureau
staff to fulfill the agency's statutory mission has likely
contributed to low employee morale. According to a
government-wide annual survey published in December 2018 that
was conducted by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Partnership for
Public Service, the Consumer Bureau experienced the largest
decline in employee morale for a government agency of its
size. A workplace with low morale undermines, among other
things, the agency's ability to hold bad actors accountable
when they harm consumers, and if
[[Page H4084]]
unaddressed, will distort the functioning of fair and
competitive consumer marketplaces.
(11) Despite the fact that the agency has been referred to
as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since it was
created in 2010, Mr. Mulvaney opted to change the agency's
well-known name. Although this decision is supposedly
intended to ensure that the agency is in compliance with
Dodd-Frank, when this change is viewed in conjunction with
the other detrimental actions to undermine the effectiveness
of the agency, it can only be interpreted as an attempt to
reduce the public's awareness of, and significant support
for, the agency's role as the top Federal consumer cop as
well as to obscure the public's ability to easily identify
the appropriate Federal agency to contact when faced with
predatory behavior by financial actors. As such, while some
may view this particular decision as minor, the action served
as an important symbolic and literal maneuver by the Trump
Administration, through its appointment of Mr. Mulvaney, to
diminish and undermine the consumer-focused mission of the
Consumer Bureau. Director Kathy Kraninger, who was duly
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate,
announced plans in an email to staff on December 19, 2018, to
reverse course and return to utilizing the agency's well-
known name. However, questions remain regarding how this
change will be implemented and to what extent the agency may
continue to utilize Mr. Mulvaney's preferred name in certain
circumstances.
(12) During Mr. Mulvaney's more than 12-month tenure
running the agency, he only appeared once before the House
Financial Services Committee to discuss his activities at the
Consumer Bureau. This is despite the fact that the law
requires, at a minimum, the Director's testimony before the
Committee semi-annually. This weak congressional oversight
under the direction of the previous Republican Majority pales
in comparison to their oversight of the Consumer Bureau
during former Director Richard Cordray's tenure. During
Director Cordray's tenure, he and other senior Consumer
Bureau officials testified before Congress more than 60
times; the agency was compelled to produce more than 200,000
pages of documents in response to over 90 letters of inquiry;
more than 20 subpoenas were sent to the Consumer Bureau; and
several of the Consumer Bureau's former and current employees
were compelled to sit for depositions over 21 days, that
lasted 136 hours, and produced 3,194 pages of transcripts.
(13) Dodd-Frank gives the Director of the Consumer Bureau
broad administrative and executive powers to, among other
things: fix the number of, and appoint and direct, all
employees of the agency; direct the establishment and
maintenance of divisions or other offices within the agency;
determine the character of, and the necessity for, the
obligations and expenditure of funds; and the use and
expenditure of funds. These powers, however, are required to
be exercised in a manner consistent with carrying out the
responsibilities under Title X of Dodd-Frank, which includes
complying with the enumerated Federal consumer financial laws
under the Title, and satisfying the obligations in other
applicable laws. Mr. Mulvaney's destructive actions have
demonstrated the need for legislation to reorient the
Director's discretionary authority to ensure the maintenance
of all statutorily mandated policies, functions, and offices
of the Consumer Bureau regardless of who is leading the
agency.
(b) Sense of Congress.--The following is the sense of
Congress:
(1) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should meet
its statutory purpose in a transparent and accountable manner
by operating in a way that is consistent with both the spirit
and plain letter of the law. This includes the agency fully
carrying out the agency's statutory purpose, objectives, and
functions, and the agency being transparent, timely, and
responsive to all requests from Congress.
(2) Dodd-Frank underscores that the agency is designed to
serve as an independent Federal agency that is primarily
focused on the protection of all consumers, without any undue
influence of partisan whims and special industry interests,
in carrying out its responsibilities and duties.
(3) The official name of the agency should be consistent
with this mandate, and the agency should, figuratively and
literally, put ``Consumers'' first by using its better-known
name as the ``Consumer Financial Protection Bureau''. Thus,
any remaining utilization by the agency of the name, ``Bureau
of Consumer Financial Protection'', or the acronym ``BCFP'',
should cease in all forms.
(4) The statute establishing the Consumer Bureau has been
grossly misinterpreted under Mr. Mulvaney's leadership, in a
manner that is inconsistent with the agency's statutory
purpose, objectives, and functions. One example of this was
Mr. Mulvaney's inane suggestion that the statutory
requirement for the Director to appear before relevant
Congressional Committees to discuss its semi-annual reports
could be interpreted as requiring the Director merely to
attend a hearing and not answer questions, despite the well-
established interpretation of a similar statutory requirement
for the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to
appear before the House Financial Services Committee and the
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee on a
semi-annual basis about the monetary policy report, as
required by the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act. In the
face of such blatant and disrespectful attempts to warp the
authorizing and oversight role of the first branch of the
Federal Government--the United States Congress--by the Trump
Administration, Congress must, in this instance, now refine
the Consumer Bureau's authority to ensure that the vital role
that the Consumer Bureau should be playing within the
country's financial regulatory regime is not effectively
destroyed by the agency's current leadership.
(5) The Consumer Bureau, now under a new Director, should
promptly reverse all anti-consumer actions taken during Mr.
Mulvaney's tenure, including the actions identified by this
legislation, to ensure that the agency is fully complying
with its statutory purpose, objectives, and functions to
protect all consumers, including communities of color and
vulnerable populations. One important action is for the
Consumer Bureau to resume robust fair lending enforcement to
ensure that every consumer has fair and equal access to
affordable financial products and services. Another
demonstration of this would be for the Consumer Bureau to
immediately resume supervision of its regulated entities for
compliance with the Military Lending Act to ensure for the
most robust and efficient protection of active-duty
servicemembers and their families. Other examples include the
Consumer Bureau significantly revising its strategic plan to
align it with its statutory purpose, objectives and
functions, and for the agency to immediately resume
coordinating closely with other Federal agencies, such as the
Department of Education and the Department of Defense, and
State regulators, as is required by section 1015 of Dodd-
Frank to, ``promote consistent regulatory treatment of
consumer financial and investment products and services.''
(6) While the legislation is a direct response to address
many of the misguided decisions that have been orchestrated
under Mr. Mulvaney's leadership at the Consumer Bureau that
have been exposed to the public, as of the date of the bill's
introduction, and sharply criticized by numerous Federal and
State officials, including law enforcement, as well as
organizations representing servicemembers, senior citizens,
and other vulnerable consumer populations, this legislation
should not be viewed as an exhaustive list to fix all the
damaging actions that may have occurred at this agency since
the departure of former Director Cordray in November 2017,
particularly since detailed information revealing the full
scope, nature, and extent of the current flawed operation of
the agency, and the adverse impact resulting from these
actions, may not yet be publicly available. Rather, this
legislation should be interpreted as an attempt to highlight
and resolve a small sample of the publicly known egregious
statements, decisions, and actions that have occurred since
November 2017.
SEC. 3. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU.
(a) In General.--Section 1011(a) of the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5491(a)) is amended by
striking ``Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection'' and
inserting ``Consumer Financial Protection Bureau''.
(b) Deeming of Name.--Any reference in any law, regulation,
document, record, or other paper of the United States to the
``Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection'' shall be deemed a
reference to the ``Consumer Financial Protection Bureau''.
(c) Name Use Requirement.--Section 1011 of the Consumer
Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5491) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Name Use Requirement.--The Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau shall refer to itself in any public
communication, including on any website, as the `Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau' or the `CFPB'.''.
SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Acts and provisions described under
subsection (b) are amended by striking ``Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection'' each place such term appears
(including in headings and items in table of contents) and
inserting ``Consumer Financial Protection Bureau''.
(b) Acts To Conform.--The Acts and provisions described in
this subsection are as follows:
(1) The Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982
(12 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.).
(2) The Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.).
(3) The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
(4) The Expedited Funds Availability Act (12 U.S.C. 4001 et
seq.).
(5) The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 et
seq.).
(6) The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.).
(7) The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1811 note et seq.).
(8) The Financial Literacy and Education Improvement Act
(20 U.S.C. 9701 et seq.).
(9) Section 626 of the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2009 (Division D of Public Law
111-8; 12 U.S.C. 5538).
(10) The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 note et
seq.).
(11) The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C.
2801 et seq.).
(12) Section 10(a)(4) of the Homeowners Protection Act of
1998 (12 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.).
(13) The Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App 2).
(14) The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (15
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
(15) The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12
U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).
(16) Title LXII of the Revised Statutes of the United
States (12 U.S.C. 21 et seq.).
(17) The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C.
3401 et seq.).
(18) The S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C.
5101 et seq.).
(19) The Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse
Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.).
(20) Sections 552a(w) and 3132(a)(1)(D) of title 5, United
States Code.
[[Page H4085]]
(21) Section 987(g)(3)(E) of title 10, United States Code.
(22) Sections 3502(5) and 3513(c) of title 44, United
States Code.
SEC. 5. EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATION POWERS.
(a) Office Responsibilities.--Section 1012 of the Consumer
Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5492) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Office Responsibilities.--Notwithstanding subsections
(a) and (b), section 1013(a), and any other provision of law,
with respect to the specific functional units and offices
described under subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (h)
of section 1013 and the advisory boards described under
section 1014, the Director--
``(1) shall ensure that such functional units, offices, and
boards perform the functions, duties, and coordination
assigned to them under the applicable provision of section
1013 or 1014; and
``(2) may not reorganize or rename such units, offices, and
boards in a manner not provided for under the applicable
provision of section 1013 or 1014.''.
(b) Duty To Provide Adequate Staffing.--Section 1013(a)(1)
of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C.
5493(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Duty to provide adequate staffing.--The Director
shall ensure that the specific functional units and offices
described under subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (h)
of section 1013, as well as other units and offices with
supervisory and enforcement duties, are provided with
sufficient staff to carry out the functions, duties, and
coordination of those units and offices.''.
(c) Limitation on Political Appointees.--Section 1013(a)(1)
of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C.
5493(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Limitation on political appointees.--
``(i) In general.--In appointing employees of the Bureau
who are political appointees, the Director shall ensure that
the number and duties of such political appointees are as
similar as possible to those of the other Federal primary
financial regulatory agencies.
``(ii) Political appointees defined.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `political appointee' means an
employee who holds--
``(I) a position which has been excepted from the
competitive service by reason of its confidential, policy-
determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character;
``(II) a position in the Senior Executive Service as a
noncareer appointee (as such term is defined in section
3132(a) of title 5, United States Code); or
``(III) a position under the Executive Schedule (subchapter
II of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code).''.
(d) Public Availability of Complaint Information.--
(1) In general.--Section 1013(b)(3) of the Consumer
Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5493(b)(3)) is
amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by inserting ``publicly available'' before ``website'';
(ii) by inserting ``publicly available'' before
``database'', each place such term appears; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following: ``The Director
shall ensure that the landing page of the main website of the
Bureau contains a clear and conspicuous hyperlink to the
consumer complaint database described in this subparagraph
and shall ensure that such database is user-friendly and in
plain writing (as such term is defined in the Plain Writing
Act of 2010). The Director shall ensure that all information
on the website or the database that explains how to file a
complaint with the Bureau, as well as all reports of the
Bureau with respect to information contained in the database,
shall be provided in each of the 5 most commonly spoken
languages, other than English, in the United States, as
determined by the Bureau of the Census on an ongoing basis,
and in formats accessible to individuals with hearing or
vision impairments.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Public availability of information.--
``(i) In general.--The Director shall--
``(I) make all consumer complaints available to the public
on a website of the Bureau;
``(II) place a clear and conspicuous hyperlink on the
landing page of the main website of the Bureau to the website
described under subclause (I); and
``(III) ensure that such website--
``(aa) is searchable and sortable by both consumer
financial product or service and by covered person; and
``(bb) is user-friendly and written in plain language.
``(ii) Inclusion of complaints submitted with inquiries.--
For purposes of clause (i), in addition to all complaints
described under subparagraph (A), consumer complaints shall
include any complaints submitted with, or as part of, an
inquiry described under section 1034.
``(iii) Removal of personally identifiable information.--In
making the information described under clause (i) available
to the public, the Director shall remove all personally
identifiable information.''.
(2) Rule of construction.--
(A) In general.--The Director of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau shall ensure--
(i) that the database and website described under section
1013(b)(3) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010
have, at a minimum, the same availability, transparency, and
functionality that such database and website had prior to
November 24, 2017; and
(ii) that consumers are able, at a minimum, to submit
complaints to the Bureau with respect to--
(I) any covered person or service provider; and
(II) any financial product or service.
(B) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the terms
``covered person'', ``financial product or service'', and
``service provider'' have the meaning given those terms,
respectively, under section 1002 of the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010.
(e) Memoranda of Understanding.--
(1) Report on current mous.--Not later than the end of the
30-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act,
the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
shall issue a report to the Committee on Financial Services
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate listing--
(A) each memorandum of understanding in effect with the
Bureau on November 24, 2017;
(B) any changes made to such a memorandum of understanding
since such date, including any memorandum of understanding
rescinded since such date; and
(C) a justification for each such change or rescission.
(2) Semi-annual report on mous.--Section 1016(c) of the
Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5496(c))
is amended--
(A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) a list of each memorandum of understanding in effect
with the Bureau, any changes made to a memorandum of
understanding since the last report was made under subsection
(b), and a justification for each such change;''.
(f) Additional Report Information on Consumer Savings.--
Section 1013 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010
(12 U.S.C. 5493) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(i) Additional Report Information on Consumer Savings.--
In issuing each report required under section 502(d) of the
Credit CARD Act of 2009, the Bureau shall include a numerical
estimate of the amount that such Act has saved consumers in
fees impacted by such Act, relative to the level of such fees
prior to the enactment of such Act.''.
SEC. 6. OFFICES OF THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU.
(a) Clarification of the Duties of the Office of Fair
Lending and Equal Opportunity.--Section 1013(c)(2) of the
Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C.
5493(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Office of Fair Lending and Equal
Opportunity shall have such powers and duties as the Director
may delegate to the Office, including'' and inserting
``powers and duties of the Office of Fair Lending and Equal
Opportunity shall include'';
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) implementing the Bureau's enforcement and supervisory
authority with respect to fair lending laws; and
``(F) such additional powers and duties as the Director may
determine appropriate.''.
(b) Office of Students and Young Consumers.--
(1) In general.--Section 1013 of the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5493), as amended by
section 5(f), is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(j) Office of Students and Young Consumers.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall, not later than the
end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment
of this section, establish an Office of Students and Young
Consumers, which shall work to empower students, young
people, and their families to make more informed financial
decisions about saving and paying for college, accessing
safer and more affordable financial products and services,
all matters related to private education loans (as defined
under section 1035(e)), and repaying student loan debt,
including private education loans.
``(2) Head of the office.--The head of the Office of
Students and Young Consumers shall be the Assistant Director
and Student Loan Ombudsman, and the Assistant Director and
Student Loan Ombudsman shall carry out all functions
established under section 1035 through the Office of Students
and Young Consumers.
``(3) Supervisory, enforcement, and regulatory matters.--
The Office of Students and Young Consumers shall assist in
all supervisory, enforcement, and regulatory matters of the
Bureau related to the functions of the Office.
``(4) Coordination.--The Director shall enter into
memoranda of understanding and similar agreements with the
Department of Education and other Federal and State agencies,
as appropriate, in order to carry out the business of the
Office of Students and Young Consumers.''.
(2) Renaming and appointment clarification of the private
education loan ombudsman.--
(A) In general.--Section 1035 of the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5535) is amended--
(i) in the heading of the section by striking ``private
education'' and inserting ``assistant director and student'';
(ii) in subsection (a), by striking ``The Secretary, in
consultation with the Director, shall designate a Private
Education Loan Ombudsman'' and inserting ``The Director shall
designate an individual as the Assistant Director and Student
Loan Ombudsman'';
(iii) in subsection (b), by striking ``The Secretary and
the Director'' and inserting ``The Director''; and
[[Page H4086]]
(iv) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``the Director,''
before ``the Secretary,''.
(B) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents under
section 1(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act is amended, in the item relating to
section 1035, by striking ``Private education'' and inserting
``Assistant director and student''.
(C) Deeming of name.--Any reference in any law, regulation,
document, record, or other paper of the United States to the
``Private Education Loan Ombudsman'' shall be deemed a
reference to the ``Assistant Director and Student Loan
Ombudsman''.
(c) Semi-Annual Report to Congress on Certain Offices of
the Bureau.--Section 1016(c) of the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5496(c)), as amended by
section 5(e)(2), is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(11) with respect to each of the specific functional
units and offices established under section 1013--
``(A) a detailed description of the activities of the unit
or office since the last report was made under subsection
(b); and
``(B) an analysis of the efforts of the Bureau to achieve
the duties of the unit or office; and
``(12) with respect to each specific functional units and
offices established under section 1013, as well as each other
unit and office with supervisory and enforcement duties, a
break down of the number of political and professional career
staff assigned to and employed by each unit or office at the
end of the reporting period.''.
(d) Function of Any Unit or Office Established To Conduct
Cost Benefit Analysis.--Any unit or office established to
conduct cost benefit analysis within the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau shall, as its sole function, carry out the
considerations required by section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the
Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C.
5512(b)(2)(A)).
SEC. 7. CONSUMER ADVISORY BOARD REFORMS.
(a) In General.--Section 1014 of the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5494) is amended--
(1) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
``(b) Membership.--
``(1) Qualifications.--In appointing the members of the
Consumer Advisory Board, the Director shall--
``(A) seek to assemble a diverse and inclusive group of
experts in consumer protection, financial services, community
development, fair lending and civil rights, and consumer
financial products or services and representatives of
depository institutions that primarily serve underserved
communities, and representatives of communities that have
been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgage loans,
and seek representation of the interests of covered persons
and consumers, without regard to party affiliation; and
``(B) ensure that at least \2/3\ of the members represent
the interests of consumers, including experts in consumer
protection, fair lending, civil rights, and representatives
of communities that have been significantly impacted by
higher-priced mortgage loans and other products that resulted
in consumer harm.
``(2) Number of members.--The Director shall appoint not
fewer than 25 members to the Consumer Advisory Board, and not
fewer than 6 members shall be appointed upon the
recommendation of the regional Federal Reserve Bank
Presidents, on a rotating basis.
``(3) Membership rights after charter change.--Any change
to the charter for the Consumer Advisory Board affecting the
membership shall not preclude prior or current members from
applying for consideration to serve on a reconstituted
Consumer Advisory Board.''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``meet from'' and inserting ``meet in
person from''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The Bureau shall
provide adequate notice to the members of the Consumer
Advisory Board of the time and date of each meeting, and of
any meeting cancellations.''
(b) Inclusion of the Director in Meetings and Access to
Bureau Staff.--Section 1014 of the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5494) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(e) Inclusion of the Director in Meetings and Access to
Bureau Staff.--With respect to each in person meeting of the
Consumer Advisory Board--
``(1) the Director shall attend such meeting in person; and
``(2) the Director shall ensure that the members of the
Consumer Advisory Board have an opportunity to meet and
engage in person with all appropriate staff and office of the
Bureau.''.
(c) Treatment of Members of the Consumer Advisory Board.--
Notwithstanding any other law--
(1) any member of the Consumer Advisory Board of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on November 1, 2017, may
continue to serve as a member of such advisory board until
March 27, 2020, and may not be removed from such position
without cause by the Director of the Bureau until such date;
and
(2) any member of the Consumer Advisory Board of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on the date of enactment
of this Act, may continue to serve as a member of such
advisory board until March 27, 2020, and may not be removed
from such position without cause by the Director of the
Bureau until such date.
(d) Additional Requirements for Advisory Committees.--
Section 1013 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010
(12 U.S.C. 5493), as amended by section 6(b)(1), is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Advisory Committee Requirements.--
``(1) Qualifications.--In appointing members of any
advisory committee, other than the Consumer Advisory Board,
the Director shall ensure that at least \1/3\ of the members
represent the interests of consumers, including experts in
consumer protection, fair lending, civil rights, and
representatives of communities that have been significantly
impacted by higher-priced mortgage loans and other products
that resulted in consumer harm.
``(2) Selection of members representing minority-owned and
women-owned businesses.--In appointing members of any
advisory committee, the Director shall seek to promote
diversity and inclusion in making appointments, including by
appointing individuals who represent minority-owned and
women-owned businesses.''.
SEC. 8. DISCRETIONARY SURPLUS FUNDS.
Section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C.
289(a)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``$6,825,000,000'' and
inserting ``$6,797,000,000''.
SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, except that
the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
shall have 30 days to complete any operational changes to the
Bureau required by this Act or an amendment made by this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in part A of House Report 116-79. Each
such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Velazquez
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 40, after line 8, insert the following:
SEC. 9. MODIFICATION OF THE EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 304 of the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2803) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) Exemption From Certain Disclosure Requirements.--The
requirements of paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subsection
(b) shall not apply with respect to any depository
institution described in section 303(3)(A) that has total
assets, as of the most recent full fiscal year of the
institution, of $30,000,000 or less.''; and
(2) by striking subsection (o).
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 104 of the
Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection
Act (Public Law 115-174; 132 Stat. 1301) is amended by
striking subsection (b).
SEC. 10. LIMITATION ON PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS FROM HMDA
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 1027 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (12
U.S.C. 5517) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(t) Limitation on Providing Exemptions From HMDA
Reporting Requirements.--Notwithstanding any provision of
this title or the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, the
Bureau may not provide any person with an exemption from
complying with any reporting requirements under the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 if such exemption did not
exist on the date of enactment of this subsection.''.
SEC. 11. LIMITATION ON MODIFYING HMDA DATA FIELDS.
Section 1027 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (12
U.S.C. 5517) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(t) Limitation on Modifying HMDA Data Fields.--
Notwithstanding any provision of this title or the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, the Bureau may not
eliminate, with respect to the reporting requirements under
the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, any data fields
that were required to be reported on the date of enactment of
this subsection.''.
SEC. 12. MAINTAINING THE HMDA EXPLORER TOOL AND THE PUBLIC
DATA PLATFORM API.
The Consumer Financial protection Bureau may not retire the
HMDA Explorer tool or the Public Data Platform API.
Page 40, line 9, strike ``sec. 9'' and insert ``sec. 13''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to restore
and protect important provisions of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.
[[Page H4087]]
More than four decades after Congress passed HMDA, the evidence
continues to suggest that racial minorities, women, and some rural
residents still face loan discrimination by mortgage lenders.
In fact, a recent report from the Center for Investigative Reporting
found that modern-day redlining has occurred in 61 metropolitan areas
around the country.
Unfortunately, however, last year Congress voted to roll back
enhanced HMDA protections passed under the Dodd-Frank Act, exempting 85
percent of all banks and credit unions from reporting loan
characteristics vital to ensuring lending fairness.
My amendment will reverse this shortsighted decision. It reinstates
the requirement put in place by Dodd-Frank that any bank or credit
union that makes more than 25 mortgage loans per year or 100 home
equity lines of credit report detailed loan characteristics.
My amendment will establish additional safeguards to defend HMDA from
further assault by the Trump administration and those who seek to
destroy it by:
Prohibiting the CFPB from making further HMDA modifications to exempt
additional institutions from complying with its reporting requirements;
Barring the CFPB from making further modifications to eliminate HMDA
data fields that are otherwise required to be collected and reported;
and
Preventing the CFPB from retiring its HMDA Explorer and the public
data platform, both of which are critical to the public's ability to
access loan level data and root out discrimination in their
communities.
These protections are not just preventive measures but needed
reforms. Just this month, the CFPB released proposals to further erode
HMDA requirements.
The public's access to mortgage data is essential to promoting fair
lending, homeownership, and stronger communities.
As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. My amendment
brings badly needed transparency to the home mortgage process, shining
a light and helping us root out discrimination.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Fletcher). The gentleman from North Carolina
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, this bill, this amendment, reinstates an
older form of regulation of HMDA data. This is the data that is
collected when you have a home mortgage. It is required data.
Under the old regulation, there were 48 pieces of data that had to be
collected. Under the new regulation, it is 23. That is a modest change
that was agreed upon by a bipartisan vote of this House and the Senate
and signed into law last Congress under S. 2155. A changed regulatory
structure, still collecting the data.
The most important thing this bill does, however, is it subjects
small credit unions and small banks to a higher level of regulation
than contemplated under the new regulations and the new law.
We are rolling back to an older form, whereby community institutions,
small banks, and small credit unions have been disproportionately
disadvantaged in the mortgage marketplace. They have been given a
higher regulatory burden, a higher cost structure, which means that
they are out of the home mortgage game.
The net effect of this amendment is that you will have small credit
unions and small banks not being able to participate as fully as under
existing regulations in home mortgage making, and I think that is one
of the deep flaws of this amendment.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 2 minutes
remaining.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Chair, I am ready to close.
Madam Chair, more than 40 years after Congress first passed HMDA, the
evidence continues to demonstrate that countless Americans still face
loan discrimination by mortgage lenders.
Data is the tool that makes it possible to fight discrimination. My
amendment puts us back on the right track by ensuring this information
remains available.
Madam Chair, I urge Members to support this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. This rolls
back to an older form of regulation, not a new, modern form of
regulation.
We still collect very important data from mortgage makers, those that
are actually in the mortgage marketplace. What we did was right-size
our regulation so that small financial institutions like community
banks and credit unions could be in the mortgage marketplace once
again.
This amendment rolls back those reforms and hurts small community
banks and hurts small credit unions in a way that this body, I don't
think, wants to support.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Steil
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Mr. STEIL. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 2 and insert the following:
SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT ON THE OPERATIONS OF THE CONSUMER
FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU AND ITS
EFFECTIVENESS AT MEETING ITS STATUTORILY
MANDATED OBLIGATIONS.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall carry out a study of--
(1) the effectiveness and efficiency of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau in meeting the Bureau's
statutorily mandated obligations;
(2) the prevalence of discriminatory practices in lending;
and
(3) the workplace rights of Bureau staff since
establishment of the Bureau.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall issue a
report to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the
Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate containing all findings and
determinations made in carrying out the study required under
subsection (a).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
{time} 1330
Mr. STEIL. Madam Chair, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has
a duty to the American people.
Congress established the Bureau almost a decade ago to protect
consumers from abuse and empower people to make good financial choices,
regardless of who the President is. That is a very important
responsibility. With that in mind, Chairwoman Waters is right to call
attention to the governance of the CFPB.
CFPB actions and interpretations can vary significantly from one
administration to another, and because the CFPB is unaccountable, there
isn't much Congress can do about it. In fact, the Bureau was built to
be unaccountable and unresponsive, and this has given its Directors
free rein to take actions that many of us do not support.
There are many ideas on both sides of the aisle on how best to reform
the CFPB, and this is something Congress should consider soon.
Today, I have an amendment. My amendment sets aside the politically
charged findings in the bill and takes us one step closer to
transparency and accountability.
Some of these findings target former Acting Director Mick Mulvaney by
name. One disparages Mulvaney by referencing a political article that
includes a critical quote from an anonymous source. Another criticizes
him for
[[Page H4088]]
rearranging the initials of the CFPB. Let me repeat that: Another
criticizes him for rearranging the initials of the CFPB. Only in
Washington.
My amendment strikes all of this unhelpful rhetoric and replaces it
with a requirement that the Comptroller General conduct an independent
study focused on three key questions: One, is the CFPB meeting its
obligations efficiently and effectively? Two, how prevalent are
discriminatory lending practices? Three, are the workplace rights of
CFPB staff respected?
The Comptroller General's findings can then help to inform our
continued efforts to oversee and reform the Bureau to make it work
better for all Americans.
Protecting consumers, examining the prevalence of discrimination, and
protecting workplace rights should not be controversial. Ensuring
effectiveness and transparent governance should not be a source of
partisan disagreement.
I understand that the chairwoman is unhappy with the way the CFPB is
governed. So am I. Anyone who has read about the past abuses at this
unaccountable agency should have concerns about the structure that
enables this bad behavior to exist in the first place.
Today's amendment recognizes that Congress has a responsibility to
ensure that the Bureau is fulfilling its mission, and that independent
audit, not political rhetoric, is the best way to move toward this
goal.
The American people deserve an unbiased look at what the Bureau does
right and what it does wrong so we can find common ground on the best
way to protect consumers.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Chair, this is a terrible
amendment, and I want to take my time to go through it so the American
people can see how terrible this amendment is.
The gentleman is a fine gentleman and a good friend, and we work
together. The amendment is what is terrible, not the gentleman. Let me
tell you why.
This amendment would, number one, do away with the important findings
on the failures of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Mick
Mulvaney that every American should know about. I am going to take a
few minutes so the American people will know about them.
The amendment, which also removes the direction from Congress to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to reverse its recent anticonsumer
activities, was rejected by all Democrats in our committee markup.
This amendment is trying to hide from public view how Acting Director
Mulvaney stopped payments from the Civil Penalty Fund to consumers who
were harmed, tried to reduce the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's
funding and staffing, politicized the work of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau by making unusual efforts to fill the independent
agency with political appointees, and reduced the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau's enforcement actions by 75 percent compared to the
average annual number of enforcement actions from the previous 3 years.
I mean, that is why it is terrible. That is why it is dangerous. Of
particular concern, this amendment strikes a direction to the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau to resume exams for compliance with the
Military Lending Act, for our veterans, to ensure that they are not
ripped off by unscrupulous lenders. That practice is heavy.
We just passed a bill in committee to deal with mortgages that were
churning, where predatory lenders were going in and churning, churning
over and over again, making our veterans pay the same bill over and
over again. That is what your amendment would take protections from.
In January of this year, the Consumer Office of Servicemember
Affairs, our veterans, reported that servicemember complaints and
requests for assistance have continued to increase over time. In fact,
from 2016 to 2017, there was a 47 percent increase in complaints
received from servicemembers.
Nevertheless, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under its
current director, Ms. Kathy Kraninger, is ignoring its own legal
counsel and refuses to supervise banks for MLA compliance.
During our March 7 hearing on the Bureau, veteran Jennifer Davis from
the National Military Family Association stated: ``We have become
alarmed by the CFPB's decision to no longer supervise lenders for
compliance with the MLA. Current leadership has expressed the opinion
that the agency does not explicitly have the authority to do
supervisory examinations to ensure MLA compliance. We disagree.'
As Ms. Davis noted, Dodd-Frank grants the Bureau executive and
administrative authority in implementation of consumer financial laws
through rules, orders, guidance, interpretations, statements of policy,
examinations, and enforcement actions. She has been joined by 38
military and veteran service organizations, a bipartisan coalition of
33 State attorneys general, as well as retired Army Colonel Paul
Cantwell and the former head of the Office of Servicemember Affairs, in
disagreeing with the Bureau's decision.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STEIL. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining on
my side.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. STEIL. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I think the gentleman from Wisconsin has
authored a very good amendment. It is a constructive amendment in this
legislative process to make a bad bill less bad.
It strikes the findings sections, not the legislation contained
therein. It is the egregious findings and the personalities in the
first 21 pages that the gentleman removes and says we should use the
arm of Congress to look at those findings of fact and to get a report
from the General Accountability Office on those matters raised in the
findings section.
I urge my colleagues to support this very good amendment.
Mr. STEIL. Madam Chair, I think the most important part here is that
the findings are the political rhetoric that we are looking to remove.
This town has far too much political rhetoric.
I am willing to work with my colleague to make this unaccountable
entity accountable to Congress in the first place. I urge my colleagues
to vote in favor of this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEIL. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Adams
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment made in order by the
rule, and I ask for its consideration.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 24, beginning on line 9, strike ``described under
subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (h) of section
1013'' and insert ``established under section 1013''.
Page 30, after line 19, insert the following:
(3) Reestablishment of memoranda of understanding.--The
memoranda of understanding between the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau and the Department of Education titled
``Memorandum of Understanding Between the Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection and the U.S. Department of Education
Concerning the Sharing of Information'' (October 19, 2011)
and ``Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Supervisory and
Oversight Cooperation and Related Information Sharing Between
the U.S. Department of Education and the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau'' (January 9, 2014)--
[[Page H4089]]
(A) shall remain in effect and may not be terminated by any
party to such memoranda; and
(B) may only be amended or revised if the parties to the
memoranda determine that such amendment or revision would
promote better interagency coordination to the benefit of
consumers.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Ms. Adams) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, before the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, there was no Federal agency dedicated to protecting consumers
from predatory and abusive practices, so I am grateful to my chair for
bringing this issue before us.
I am not exactly sure why my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have been so resistant to protecting consumers and to restoring
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to its original intent.
My amendment would restore the relationship between the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of Education.
Specifically, it would reestablish an interagency agreement concerning
the sharing of student borrower complaints and allow for cooperation in
the supervision and oversight of student loan servicers.
It is critical that the Department of Education work with the CFPB on
student loan oversight. Currently, the Department of Education is
refusing to share information about loan servicers and student borrower
complaints, which is making it more difficult for the CFPB to conduct
its investigations into the lenders' bad behavior and deceptive
practices.
In fact, last Thursday, it was reported that the Director of the
CFPB, in response to Senator Warren's inquiry, stated that Secretary
DeVos and the Department of Education were blocking efforts to conduct
proper oversight on the student loan industry.
Because of the stance the Department of Education has taken, many
student loan servicers and lenders are not complying with CFPB's
request for information as well. These companies that manage student
loans are refusing to share information that the CFPB needs to perform
proper oversight. This is unacceptable.
The national student loan debt has reached crisis levels. The
American people are getting crushed by more than $1.5 trillion in
student debt. Moreover, we have seen countless lawsuits allege that
widespread wrongdoing by student loan companies is costing some
borrowers thousands of dollars.
This critical amendment would put borrowers back at the center of the
Bureau's consumer protection work.
Our constituents have elected us to look out for their best
interests, to protect them from harmful policies, and to provide them
recourse when they get into difficult situations. Dismantling,
undermining, and weakening the CFPB is not in our constituents' best
interests.
I thank Chairwoman Waters for her leadership in restoring the CFPB to
its original intent.
Let's do the right thing for the American people. I urge my
colleagues to support my amendment to help student borrowers and to
support H.R. 1500.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from North Carolina
for raising this issue of student loans. It is a very important issue
for a whole generation of Americans.
But let's rewind and understand why we are in the position we are in
with student loans. In 2009 and 2010, there was a Democratic majority
in the House and the Senate that, in order to pass ObamaCare, they
needed pay-fors to pass the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act,
the formal name of what we commonly call ObamaCare.
{time} 1345
One of the major pay-fors was the nationalization of student lending.
So now we have a generation of American students that have a crushing
debt burden because of a government program. Ninety percent of student
loans are done through the Federal Government.
So let's get to the fundamentals of this reform, so that consumers
can have choice, students can have choice.
This amendment doesn't do that.
The memorandum of understanding between the CFPB and the U.S.
Department of Education outlines the parameters to share student loan
information. The Department of Education was clear in its letter
terminating the memorandum of understanding, stating:
It takes exception to the CFPB unilaterally expanding its oversight
role to include the Department's contracted Federal student loan
servicers. The Department has full oversight responsibility for Federal
student loans under Federal law.
The Department letter also expressed concern that:
CFPB's intervention in this area adds confusion to borrowers who now
hear conflicting guidance related to Title IV of student loan services
for which the Department is responsible.
So the memorandum of understanding was terminated because the two
separate departments, the CFPB and the Department of Education, were
sending information to students who were trying to make payments, some
were trying to catch up on payments, and they are getting two different
pieces of guidance.
So to reinstate this provides more confusion for the very people that
are being crushed by a generation of debt. So it is a deeply
problematic amendment, not because it has an ill intent.
The very issue that we are trying to confront here is a very real one
to these students, to their families, and to the lost prosperity and
economic opportunities that they are experiencing because of the
structure of this debt load and because of this Federalized approach to
student lending.
Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 2 minutes
remaining.
Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments from my colleague
from North Carolina.
But we want to make sure that private loan services who collect
payments, or those who collect payments from students, are doing their
job.
Now, yes, students want choices. I taught for 40 years on the campus
of Bennett College. I know the difficulty that students have, and I
know that they leave college with a lot of debt, but we should not hold
them hostage. They are asking for a choice to resolve the problems, and
they need someone there who will speak for them.
That is what this bill will do. That is what was done before, and we
need to restore that kind of confidence back into these students so
that they know that they can get some help when they need it.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, let me just say this: This is a good
amendment. This is a great bill. It is an opportunity for us to restore
some confidence and integrity into this process.
We should not hold our students hostage and penalize them because of
something that the Congressman said the government has done.
Madam Chair, we have an opportunity to fix this, and I would
certainly encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, let me state this clearly. Dodd-Frank
conferred authority over private student lending to the CFPB. It did
not grant the CFPB a role in Federal student lending that is overseen
by the Department of Education.
So this amendment is a counterpoint to what is existing law. The
memorandum of understanding was terminated for good reason.
This amendment is nothing more than an attempt to undo another
Federal agency's action without understanding the context in which it
was terminated.
I think the fundamental issue here is consumer choice, student
choice. We lack that currently.
[[Page H4090]]
When 90 percent of student lending is run by the Federal Government,
we have a problem. That is a nationalized set of lending.
With more consumer choice, with better technology, with real
innovation, we can give students better opportunities and better
choices. Those things are happening in the private sector, but in a
limited way, because the Federal Government is so deeply involved in
student lending.
Let's fix that issue of student lending with good reforms, with
proper innovation, with more choices.
Madam Chair, this amendment does not achieve those things, sadly, and
I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Lawson of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Madam Chair, I have an amendment on the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 40, after line 8, insert the following:
SEC. 9. REPORT ON FAIR LENDING INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS.
Section 1016 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010 (12 U.S.C. 5496) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Report on Fair Lending Investigations and Enforcement
Actions.--The Director shall issue a monthly report to
Congress containing--
``(1) the number of investigations opened and closed by the
Bureau relating to potential fair lending violations;
``(2) how many fair lending enforcement actions have been
taken or referred;
``(3) an analysis of consumer complaints relating to
potential fair lending violations; and
``(4) statistics on how many staff of the Office of Fair
Lending and Equal Opportunity are dedicated to fair lending
supervision and enforcement issues.''.
Page 40, line 9, strike ``sec. 9'' and insert ``sec. 10''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Lawson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise to support the Consumers
First Act and my amendment that would provide transparency in the
number of fair lending cases that are opened and closed by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau.
This Bureau was created under Dodd-Frank to provide consumer
protection from unfair lending practices. These individuals include our
Nation's veterans, students, those who have mortgages, and individuals
with auto loans, which is very prevalent.
Since the creation of the CFPB, it has helped over 31 million harmed
consumers with over $12 billion in relief. That is pretty substantial.
In addition, the CFPB has received and taken action on nearly 1
million complaints.
Today, the CFPB's ability to continue protecting our Nation's
borrowers has been severely limited by the Trump administration. The
administration has weakened the supervision and enforcement of fair
lending, blocked payday loan cases, dismantled protections for
servicemembers, and has reduced transparency and accountability.
The Consumers First Act fights back.
The bill, along with the amendment, specifically requires
transparency in fair lending investigations, requires interagency
cooperation, and demands diversity and inclusion efforts.
My home State of Florida has one of the highest rates of consumer
complaints in the Nation. Some of it might be due to the elderly
population that we have or the high number of just regular citizens who
need protection.
What would these consumers do without the CFPB? What would be their
recourse for Federal action?
Madam Chair, it is time that we put consumers first. I urge my
colleagues to support my amendment and to support the underlying bill.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I believe this amendment will divert
important resources away from pursuing fair lending violations. I know
that is not my colleague's intent.
We currently have an annual report requirement under this very
provision. I do not think a monthly report would give added clarity to
Members of Congress.
Moreover, when it comes to Federal regulatory agencies under the
jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee, I know of no other
monthly reporting requirement we impose upon regulators, and so this
would be inconsistent with other pieces of financial regulation and the
law that we currently have.
If Congress wants to control more of how the CFPB is using its
resources, we should bring them under the annual appropriations
process. That is a fundamental reform which is not included in the
underlying bill.
Madam Chair, I would say that while my colleague has a very important
issue he is raising here and trying to clarify on the actions of the
CFPB and ensuring that fair lending is enforced reasonably, I concur
with him that that is an important and good thing, but a monthly
reporting requirement will provide no additional clarity for us as
public policymakers.
Madam Chair, I stand in opposition to the bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Madam Chair, how many minutes do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Madam Chair, I would say to the distinguished
member from North Carolina, who I have enjoyed working with, during my
tenure in Florida, especially in the Florida legislature, one of the
biggest complaints was for protection for the consumers.
I spent my career there fighting on their behalf, for the voiceless
who did not have a voice, and I continue with this fight here, because
I know the importance of it.
Madam Chair, I can tell the gentleman, if I walked out of here today
and just walked down the street and asked an average person what was
more important to them, they would say the consumer protection that
they feel that they don't really have.
This is the most important legislation that I have seen since I have
been in Congress, because it goes straight to the people who need it
the most, our veterans, our students, regular consumers, just the
average people.
Big banks and institutions have a lot of protection, but the average
person does not have this protection.
Madam Chair, I can guarantee my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, if they vote for this protection, it will be in the same vein of
when our great President Lincoln said that: ``The world will little
note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what
they did here.''
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, in closing, I want to commend the author of this
amendment, who is using this opportunity to highlight his support of
fair lending enforcement by the CFPB. I commend him for that. I commend
my colleague for that. I believe he is a thoughtful legislator.
I reluctantly oppose this amendment, given the fact that we have
already provided in law and regulation an annual report of this same
data, and I believe that resources would be better spent on protecting
consumers directly around fair lending violations rather than reporting
on a monthly basis what they do on an annual basis.
Madam Chair, while I oppose this bill, I certainly commend my
colleague for his passion, his care for consumer protection.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lawson).
[[Page H4091]]
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1400
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Pressley
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 40, after line 8, insert the following:
SEC. 9. DEBT COLLECTION.
(a) Report on Debt Collection Complaints and Enforcement
Actions.--Section 1016 of the Consumer Financial Protection
Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5496) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(d) Report on Debt Collection Complaints and Enforcement
Actions.--The Director shall issue a quarterly report to
Congress containing--
``(1) an analysis of the consumer complaints received by
the Bureau with respect to debt collection, including a
State-by-State breakdown of such complaints; and
``(2) a list of enforcement actions taken against debt
collectors during the previous 12 months.''.
(b) Limitation on Debt Collection Rules.--Section 1022 of
the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C.
5512) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Limitation on Debt Collection Rules.--The Director
may not issue any rule with respect to debt collection that
allows a debt collector to send unlimited email and text
messages to a consumer.''.
Page 40, line 9, strike ``sec. 9'' and insert ``sec. 10''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman
from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to
H.R. 1500 and in support of the Consumers First Act.
I also want to thank Chairwoman Waters for her leadership and her
stewardship in this endeavor.
I am proud to cosponsor this bill, which will return the Consumer
Bureau to its intended role as a nonpartisan consumer watchdog that
protects the interests of American taxpayers, not those of special
interests.
In 2017, the Urban Institute found that 71 million Americans had a
debt in collection on their credit report. Meanwhile, collectors
estimate they contact consumers more than a billion times a year--a
billion.
During the 2008 financial crisis, people lost homes, jobs, and hard-
earned wealth. This crisis was the prime example of what can happen
when nobody is looking out for the consumers who are left to navigate a
financial system built to confuse, mystify, and capitalize on the most
vulnerable.
In response, Democrats created the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, an agency with the sole mission of protecting consumers and
holding lenders accountable when they put profits over people.
In my home State of Massachusetts, 46 percent of those living in
communities of color have debt in collections compared to only 18
percent of residents in predominantly White areas.
We know that debt collectors engage in some of the most aggressive
tactics: harassing, berating, and even falsely threatening legal action
against vulnerable consumers.
My amendment would require the Director of the Consumer Bureau to
issue quarterly reports to Congress, including an analysis of
complaints submitted by consumers. The Consumer Bureau's complaint
database has been a crucial tool to monitor harmful industry trends and
agency enforcement efforts in defense of consumers.
Since the beginning of this administration, more than 62,000
consumers submitted complaints on harmful and unfair debt collection
practices. The Consumer Bureau, under Director Mulvaney and now
Director Kraninger's failed leadership, has returned zero--zero--relief
to harmed consumers.
My amendment will require the Director to report on the various
enforcement actions taken against these debt collectors because we
cannot afford to go back to the days in which consumers were left to
fend for themselves in a financial industry that was stacked against
them.
Information is power. The more information we have, the more power we
have to protect consumers from harassment.
Recently, the Consumer Bureau released a proposed debt collection
rule filled with carveouts and loopholes that would allow debt
collectors to more aggressively target and harass consumers through
emails and text messages.
My amendment would prohibit the Director from issuing further rules
that would essentially open the floodgates and allow collectors to
bombard consumers.
I urge my colleagues to stand with consumers and to support my
amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. I am opposed to the amendment.
I would ask the amendment's author, if I am reading this correctly,
that on a quarterly basis they will disclose the previous 12 months'
action.
Am I reading the legislative text?
Ms. PRESSLEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McHENRY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for clarifying.
Madam Chair, I would say that having a quarterly requirement for an
annual report doesn't seem like the right approach. We currently have
an annual report, so what this amendment does is simply say, on a
quarterly basis, they must provide an annual report rather than have an
actual annual report annually. So this is really about micromanaging
the Bureau.
The Bureau currently reports on an annual basis, as the Congresswoman
from Massachusetts outlined. Moreover, it not only changes that, it
also changes what is currently in the middle of a 90-day public comment
period, which is the regulations put forward on May 7 by the Bureau on
fair debt collection practices.
What this amendment does is simply say that, for debt collection
purposes, you can't text or email a consumer. That is what this
amendment does. That is not modern. That is not the nature of how we
communicate with our smartphones in today's environment.
What this amendment would do is drive up the cost of healthcare, of
collecting on student loans. By not being able to communicate with
consumers in a modern way, they will not have the follow-up necessary
so that consumers will have some knowledge that perhaps they owe money
that they didn't otherwise know about.
And simply saying snail mail is the way to go does not seem like what
this amendment should be about nor what we should be about as a
Congress. We should be using all elements of technology to make sure
that our financial institutions, our government can actually
communicate with people in the way that they see fit. This amendment
limits that.
I think this amendment is unproductive. The public should have the
right to opine on the proposal put forward by the CFPB, and the public
should also have the right to be communicated with by their financial
service providers in a way that they see fit.
So, with that, I do ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Chair, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes
remaining.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Chair, I just think it is important to remind my
colleague across the aisle that consumers are being harassed
aggressively, and many of them did not even incur the debt for which
they are being harassed. So we need to close these loopholes.
The current rule is rife with loopholes and carveouts and will open
the floodgates for debt collectors to further bombard consumers. My
amendment will ensure that the Consumer Bureau continues to put
consumers first and protects them from relentless harassment. We simply
want this data to be accessible on a quarterly basis because it will
make it easier.
The Consumer Bureau is an independent agency, and it needs to
continue to operate as such. Under Dodd-
[[Page H4092]]
Frank, the Director is required to report to Congress annually, and the
GAO office is required to annually audit the agency's finances. The
efforts of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are intended to
weaken this agency.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Chair, again, this is ultimately about honoring
the very mission of the Bureau, and that is to put consumers first.
I support H.R. 1500, and I urge all of my colleagues to support my
amendment, which will be a further effort to protect consumers and to
guard against the harassment that so many Americans are experiencing
every day.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to say to the author of this legislation, I understand your
intention. We have a rule that is out for comment right now to get the
public feedback on this.
Moreover, I would say, under existing law, harassment by debt
collectors is not permitted, period, under current law. What is
prevented, though, is somebody who is trying to collect debts from
actually texting someone. That is a problem.
I don't think that is the intention of this amendment, but that is
the net effect, because the regulations put forward say that you can
text, you can email, something that the Debt Collection Act, written
before email, written before text messaging, did not contemplate. We
are updating this so that people can be communicated with in a modern
way.
There is nothing more annoying than finding on your voice mail some
random voice mail from somebody you have never heard of, and you are
supposed to call this random person and provide them information. How
about a text, right?
When I got a text from my pharmacy that said, ``Do you want to
reorder your prescription?'' and I texted back, ``Yes,'' that saved me
a phone call. I liked it.
When talking about student debt, if somebody doesn't even know that
they have missed a payment and the debt collector calls and they have
got a full voice mail, they may never know that they missed a payment.
If they got a text or if they got an email, that may be the way that
they actually want to be communicated with.
What we are talking about is innovation; what we are talking about is
modern communication; and what we are talking about is reasonable
regulation to ensure that consumers, especially students, are able to
be communicated with in the way that they seek and the way that they
like.
This amendment is premature because there is notice and comment out
under the rule that this seeks to undo, and this amendment is
unproductive because it limits the rights of individuals to be
communicated with in the way that they seek. That is what I would say.
To Members of Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I
would also say that they are going back to an old system. If they don't
want modernization under the current rule so that people can be
communicated with in the way that they seek, I would tell Members of
Congress to not text or email their constituents but only mail them
through the U.S. Postal Service.
Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Jackson Lee). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Burgess
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 27, line 5, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
Page 27, strike line 6 and all that follows through page
28, line 13.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, this amendment permanently subjects funding
for the CFPB to congressional appropriation and authorizes funding for
fiscal year 2020 at the fiscal year 2019 level.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is currently funded by the
Federal Reserve System, based upon a formula. Congress has never been
able to fully determine the funding level for the CFPB, limiting
congressional oversight and the American taxpayers' right to have a
voice in these activities.
As Acting Director Mick Mulvaney stated in his quarterly funding
request to Chairman Jerome Powell of the Federal Reserve Board of
Governors: ``By design, this funding mechanism denies the American
people their rightful control over how the Bureau spends their money.
This undermines the Bureau's legitimacy. The Bureau should be funded
through congressional appropriations. However, I am bound to execute
the law as written.''
If Democrats do not like the actions of the CFPB Director, they
should support returning control to the Congress, to the United States
House of Representatives, to the people's House, through the
appropriations process, as was envisioned by the Founders in the
Constitution. This amendment simply returns congressional oversight by
bringing funding for the CFPB under our discretionary appropriations
process.
Madam Chair, I urge all Members to support this important and
commonsense reform, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to amendment
No. 6.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, this amendment would take the widely
successful consumer complaint database dark, hiding from the public how
consumers report personally being harmed by financial institutions.
The Dodd-Frank Act required the CFPB to establish a consumer
complaint database to provide consumers with the opportunity to report
complaints about financial products and services.
A public database empowers consumers to seek redress when harmed and
benefits the public by providing firsthand stories to help other
consumers to avoid similar harms.
A public database also promotes market discipline and encourages
financial firms to treat their consumers fairly. The Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau has received over 1.5 million consumer submissions,
with a 97 percent response rate by financial firms to the consumer
complaints.
{time} 1415
This means that the American people know, need, and use this
function. Taking this away from the public only harms hardworking
people in need of help and benefits the bad actors.
Through its research, education, market monitoring, and the much-used
consumer complaint database, the CFPB has been able to directly address
problems in the market and issues that directly harm hardworking
families. This is especially useful for the millions of consumers who,
unfortunately, do not have the financial means, time, or access to the
judicial court system.
Mandating that the consumer complaint database remain transparent and
publicly accessible is an important aspect of this bill and will
promote better conduct from providers of financial services across this
country. Thus, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment to H.R.
1500, the Consumers First Act.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, this amendment strikes a section of the bill requiring
[[Page H4093]]
public availability of all consumer complaints, obviously a CFPB web
page. A provision of the bill requires that all consumer complaints be
made available on a public CFPB website. While it sounds like an
attempt at transparency, I am concerned about how it will affect the
entities against which the complaints are filed.
We had a similar provision that was included back in the stimulus
bill, the HITECH Act in ARRA in 2009, resulting in the loss of consumer
confidence in healthcare entities because there was no reporting
required on remedial action. That is, once you got on the list, you
could never get off the list.
The language of this bill requires disclosure of complaints, but
there is no information on which complaints must be posted and whether
they can be removed. Will entities be publicly held as guilty before an
investigation is conducted? Will there be a way to indicate that
remedial action has occurred?
Until these questions are clarified, we must not subject entities to
the immediate disclosure of consumer complaints.
This amendment strikes this provision so that we may thoroughly
discuss these issues before submitting them to become law.
Madam Chair, again, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 3 minutes
remaining.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I would like to reiterate my strong opposition to this
amendment.
Congress must ensure that consumer complaints to the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau are available to the public to hold
companies accountable to the American people for their actions or lack
of actions.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment to H.R.
1500, the Consumers First Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Burgess
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Redesignate section 9 as section 10.
Insert after section 8 the following:
SEC. 9 BRINGING THE AGENCY INTO THE REGULAR APPROPRIATIONS
PROCESS.
Section 1017 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010 (12 U.S.C. 5497) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by amending the heading of such subsection to read as
follows: ``Budget, Financial Management, And Audit.--'';
(B) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3);
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(1) and (2), respectively; and
(D) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F) of paragraph (1),
as so redesignated;
(2) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
(3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(b) and (c), respectively; and
(4) in subsection (c), as so redesignated--
(A) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and inserting
the following:
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Bureau for fiscal year 2020 an
amount equal to the aggregate amount of funds transferred by
the Board of Governors to the Bureau during fiscal year
2019.''; and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, this amendment permanently subjects the funding of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to congressional appropriation and
authorizes funding for fiscal year 2020 at the fiscal year 2019 level.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is currently funded through
the Federal Reserve System based on a formula. Congress has never been
able to fully determine the fund level for the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, limiting congressional oversight and the American
taxpayers' right to have a voice in these activities. Acting Director
Mick Mulvaney so stated during his quarterly funding request to
Chairman Jerome Powell of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
If the Democrats do not like the actions of the Director of the CFPB,
they should support returning control to Congress, to the people's
House, through the appropriations process.
This amendment simply returns congressional oversight by bringing
funding for the CFPB under our discretionary appropriations process.
Madam Chair, I urge all Members to support this commonsense reform,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment because it seeks to
limit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by using the
appropriations process to politicize and defund the agency.
All the bank regulators are independently funded. In addition to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the
FDIC, and the NCUA are all funded outside of the appropriations
process. In fact, so is the FHFA, the FSOC, and OFR.
Congress provided the regulators with independence from the executive
branch and the appropriations process to ensure that financial
regulators focused on protecting the financial system from harm.
However, ever since it was created, Republicans have focused on the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding because, more than any
other agency, it has helped level the playing field between Wall Street
on one side and families, communities of color, older Americans,
servicemembers, and students on the other.
Under the guise of the appropriations process, Republicans are
seeking to do by amendment what they were unable to do for the 8 years
they were in power, eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
entirely.
To that end, Mulvaney's first request for funds to be transferred
from the Federal Reserve to fund the CFPB's operations was zero. He
later asked Congress to turn the CFPB, which he previously called a
``sick, sad'' joke of an agency, into an appropriated one.
In addition, Republicans often point to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, which is subject to annual appropriations, as an example we
should follow. What they seem to forget is that during Trump's 35-day
shutdown, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau remained open while
the SEC was effectively shuttered.
Advocacy groups like Americans for Financial Reform also point out
that ``big banks would be able to use the politically charged
appropriations process to deny funding for rule-writing or enforcement
actions that Wall Street particularly dislikes. They could simply
starve the agency of the basic funds it needs to do its job or threaten
to do so in order to intimidate the agency out of taking actions to
curb abuses by powerful companies.''
The difference with Mulvaney and the Trump administration is that
they have purposely sought to ignore or disregard the law and the
independence Congress tried to create. Mulvaney, who reports directly
to Trump, clearly ignored the law when he directed the agency to stop
supervising banks for violations of the Military Lending Act.
Nevertheless, I am not surprised that Republicans' efforts to reform
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau involve trying to starve the
agency of funding.
Madam Chair, Democrats want to ensure the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau can do and is doing its jobs and puts consumers
first. This amendment does exactly the opposite, and I urge my
colleagues to oppose it.
[[Page H4094]]
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Director Mulvaney in his quarterly funding request to Jerome Powell
of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors: ``By design, this funding
mechanism denies the American people their rightful control over how
the Bureau spends their money, which this undermines the Bureau's
legitimacy. The Bureau should be funded through congressional
appropriations. However, I am bound to execute the law as written.''
It says pretty clearly in the Constitution that no money may be drawn
from the Treasury except as an appropriation by the United States
Congress.
Most people do not accuse us of underspending when it comes to the
appropriations process, so I fail to see that as a valid argument.
Look, if you don't like the actions of the Director of the CFPB,
support returning the funding to the Congress, support returning
control to the Congress so you will have the control that you seek.
Madam Chair, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I would like to reiterate my strong opposition to this
amendment.
Today, the House is trying to return the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau to its mission of putting consumers first. This
amendment, instead, is meant to slow down and ultimately starve the
agency by using the appropriations process.
Madam Chair, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have tried
everything they could try to dismantle the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau. I think it is odd that they would spend their time
opposing what is good for consumers and, yet, embracing the very
institutions that caused us to have a recession in 2008 and to harm the
American people.
Madam Chair, I ask that everyone oppose this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURCHETT. Madam Chair, I rise today to speak on behalf of Dr.
Burgess' Amendment to H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has two primary
flaws. First, Congress does not oversee the agency, and a sole director
determines its priorities. Second, instead of securing funding through
the Congressional appropriations process, the CFPB receives money from
the Federal Reserve. This funding method exempts it from budgetary
limitations and is a prime candidate for the irresponsible use of tax
dollars.
These practices do not serve the American people, those that this
agency was designed to protect. Because of this current lack of
oversight and accountability, the agency is vulnerable to political
whims. An agency this powerful should have Congressional oversight.
Dr. Burgess' amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, would help to
right these wrongs. It would subject the CFBP to the Congressional
appropriations process, just like other federal agencies of similar
scope and size. This is not a partisan amendment: The simple change
would increase resistance to political impulses and accountability to
the American people.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Cohen
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Redesignate section 9 as section 10.
Insert after section 8 the following:
SEC. 9. CREDIT SCORES INCLUDED IN FREE ANNUAL DISCLOSURES.
Section 609 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.
1681g) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end and inserting a period;
(B) by striking ``except that--'' and all that follows
through ``(A) if the'' and inserting ``except that if the'';
and
(C) by striking subparagraph (B);
(2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(7) If the consumer reporting agency is a consumer
reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on
consumers on a nationwide basis as described in section
603(p), each such agency shall disclose a current credit
score generated using the scoring algorithm, formula, model,
program, or mechanism that is most frequently used to
generate credit scores sold to creditors, subject to
regulations of the Bureau, along with any information in the
consumer's file at the time of the request concerning credit
scores or any other risk scores or other predictors relating
to the consumer, if such request is made in connection with a
free annual disclosure made pursuant to section 612(a).
``(8) Such other consumer information as the Bureau
considers appropriate with respect to consumer financial
education, including the information required by subsection
(f)(1), information describing the credit score of the
consumer with respect to a range of possible credit scores,
and the general factors contributing to the credit scores of
consumers.''; and
(3) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``, a consumer reporting agency'' and all
that follows through ``shall include--'' and inserting ``or a
risk score, a consumer reporting agency shall supply to the
consumer--''; and
(ii) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(A) any credit score or risk score in the file of the
consumer at the consumer reporting agency;'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(ii) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) Credit score.--The term `credit score' means a
numerical value or a categorization derived from a
statistical tool or modeling system used by a person who
makes or arranges a loan to predict the likelihood of certain
credit behaviors, including default.
``(B) Risk score.--The term `risk score' means a numerical
value or a categorization derived from a statistical tool or
modeling system based upon information from a consumer report
for the purpose of predicting the likelihood of certain
behaviors or outcomes, and includes scores used for the
underwriting of insurance.'';
(C) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
``(6) Maintenance of credit scores.--All consumer reporting
agencies shall maintain in the consumer's file credit scores
or any other risk scores or other predictors relating to the
consumer for a period of not less than 1 year beginning on
the date on which such information is generated.'';
(D) by striking paragraph (7) and redesignating paragraphs
(8) and (9) as paragraphs (7) and (8), respectively; and
(E) in paragraph (7) (as so redesignated), by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``, except that a
consumer reporting agency described in section 603(p) shall
provide a credit score without charge to the consumer if the
consumer is requesting the score in connection with a free
annual disclosure made pursuant to section 612(a)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. The coauthor
of this amendment is Mrs. Beatty from Ohio.
Madam Chair, this amendment will allow consumers to obtain free
access to their credit scores. It directs the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau to require that consumer reporting agencies disclose
free credit scores to consumers who make that request.
Federal law currently allows consumers to obtain one credit report
per year from each of the major credit bureaus that monitor consumer
credit information. These free reports include all the current data on
which a credit score would be based but don't include the credit score
itself.
For consumers, this is kind of like trying to figure out how well
their favorite baseball team is doing based on newly created analytics
for the modern sports fan and not for us who know just home runs, ERA,
and strikeouts. If not for the current win-loss record, would people be
able to know how their team is doing.
Good credit scores mean better interest rates on mortgages, bank
loans, and credit cards; smaller deposits for rent and utilities; and
even lower insurance premiums.
As important as credit scores are, they are still a mystery to most
Americans. While most understand the fundamentals, such as the
importance of
[[Page H4095]]
paying bills on time, there is a lot of uncertainty about how the
credit score is actually determined.
Many Americans don't know, for example, that maxing out your credit
card can be about as bad as making a late payment. Many people also
wrongly believe their credit scores reflect their income, age, marital
status, education, or even ethnicity.
A large majority of Americans are unable to define a good credit
score--700--and many don't know that small changes in behavior could
have a large impact on the interest rates that they will pay on loans.
With that in mind, this amendment directs the CFPB to determine if
agencies should also disclose other consumer information appropriate
with respect to consumer financial education.
{time} 1430
People with poor or mediocre credit scores pay for them with higher
interest rates, bigger security deposits, and higher insurance
premiums.
The one number that can make or break someone's financial future more
than salary is their credit score. I believe consumers have a right to
obtain their credit score for free from the same source that supplies
it to other entities.
I would like to acknowledge my former staffer, Michael Fulton, now an
executive with the Memphis International Airport, who worked on the
original bill, the Fair Access to Credit Scores Act, which I introduced
9 years ago in the 111th Congress.
I look forward to working more on this important issue with
Chairwoman Waters and my partner on this amendment, Congresswoman
Beatty from Ohio.
I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman
from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
Mrs. BEATTY. Madam Chair, the inclusion of credit scores on the free
annual credit report is an issue that my colleague from Tennessee and I
have worked on for several Congresses. Under current law, all consumers
are entitled to a free annual report from the three credit reporting
agencies. However, despite providing consumers with all of the
information that makes up their credit scores, the free annual report
does not actually include a credit score. That needs to change.
Adoption of this amendment would do just that.
I want to thank Chairwoman Waters for working with us.
I also want to share that financial literacy is a lifelong journey,
and as co-chair of the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, I
believe that knowledge of one's own credit score is essential. There
are few three-digit numbers as important to consumers as their credit
score. Despite the importance, nearly 60 percent of U.S. adults are
unaware of what their score is.
Whether applying for a home or an auto loan, applying for a line of
credit or a credit card, or even applying for a job, undoubtedly, a
credit score plays an integral role in the everyday financial lives of
all Americans. I am asking and urging my colleagues to support this
important amendment.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment
that would place, I believe, an unnecessary burden on credit bureaus
with no benefits to consumers.
Currently, consumers have access to free credit scores through the
annualcreditreport.com website run by the big three credit reporting
agencies, or CRAs. On this website, consumers can get three separate
credit scores, one at each of these three CRAs, for free. This
amendment will use the CFPB to require that the CRAs provide an
additional credit score to consumers. That is right, a fourth credit
score.
Specifically, the amendment requires CRAs to use the credit score
that is most frequently used. What the legislation fails to mention is
that the most frequently used score is a FICO score. FICO scores are
not free.
This amendment requires that the credit bureaus, all private
companies, purchase credit scores from FICO, another private company;
and in doing so, it is mandating the transfer of potentially hundreds
of millions of dollars from one company to another company.
One has to ask oneself, why is this designed to punish these three
CRAs or to create a massive payday for FICO? This is the USA, not USSR,
not China, and not Venezuela. The government has no right to force a
private company to hand millions of dollars to another private company
simply because the government official prefers one product over
another.
In addition, the chairwoman has introduced legislation to reform the
CRA and has yet to bring a bill up before the committee. I would
imagine this amendment that deals with credit scores, not consumer
protection, is better suited to be debated under regular order in our
committee than thrown onto a bill that seeks to amend CFPB governance.
In short, this amendment has the government picking winners and
losers, provides little or no benefit to consumers, is irrelevant to
the subject of this bill, and should be soundly defeated.
This sets a horrible precedent, Madam Chairwoman. We are dictating
one private company to pay another private company for a service. When
do we ever do that? That is amazing precedent to set. How can we do
this?
We are not a dictatorial government here. We allow the winners and
losers to be chosen by the people through economic freedom. We don't
dictate who buys a product from here and who buys a product from there.
That is what the people are allowed to do on their own, and that is
what makes our country so great is economic freedom to be able to do
that: pick and choose between what companies provide what services and
which ones they want to pay for. Instead of dictating how one company
should pay another, we should be allowing the freedom for them to
choose.
Again, this amendment is about picking winners and losers. It
provides no benefit to consumers and should be soundly defeated.
Madam Chair, is my understanding correct that the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) has no time remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Chairwoman, in the minute that I have, I can't read
the bill to the gentleman, but what the gentleman talked about is not
the bill. It might be something somewhere up in the stratosphere, but
this has nothing to do with picking one company, or Venezuela, or some
other communist country. This has to do with giving consumers the fair
opportunity to see what their credit score is
That is America. That is fairness. That is justice.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chairwoman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
There is landmark legislation in the 1990s that required a free
credit report. The underlying components of a free credit report are
given directly by the agencies to the people. What this would require
is the CFPB to go purchase the FICO, or take the FICO score, which is
derived from the underlying credit reports.
The underlying credit reports are much more meaningful in terms of
the value they provide to consumers. The flaws that they have in them,
consumers can remedy.
We currently have existing law that does the right thing here. I urge
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this, while a thoughtful idea, a bad
idea in how it is constructed.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I have the right to close, so I reserve
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has the right to close.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Chairwoman, this is a good bill. I appreciate the
idea of thoughtful. It is thoughtful and it is good. And maybe it
distinguishes the parties. One party is looking out for consumers to
have an opportunity to get a chance to see their score and
[[Page H4096]]
have a fair chance in the American economic system, to participate, and
the other doesn't care.
Madam Chairwoman, I ask that we pass the bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the ranking member.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, it is insulting to hear a colleague say
that the other party does not care about the consumer. That is
absolutely wrong. It is not becoming to the House, and it is not
becoming to the debate on this House floor.
We care about consumers; we all do. It is about how we take care of
them and how we defend them.
This is a bad amendment, badly constructed. We already have a free
credit report. We don't need the CFPB to get between consumers and
their free credit report. This amendment does that, and I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Bonamici
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
On page 33, insert after line 15 the following:
(5) Report on risks to young consumers and student
borrowers.--Not less than once annually, the Assistant
Director and Student Loan Ombudsman shall issue a report to
Congress containing an analysis of complaints submitted to
the Bureau by young consumers and student borrowers during
the previous year and offering an independent evaluation of
risks to young consumers and student borrowers posed by
policies and practices in the marketplace for consumer
financial products and services.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chairwoman, I rise today to offer an amendment to
H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act.
I thank Chairwoman Waters and my colleagues for their leadership in
restoring essential functions of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, which this administration so recklessly rolled back.
During my years of work as a consumer protection attorney, I learned
firsthand how strong consumer protection laws help to keep Americans
financially secure. This administration's efforts to weaken the CFPB
have harmed millions of people across the country, including young
consumers and student borrowers.
I commend my colleagues for including in the original bill the
restoration of the CFPB's Office of Students and Young Consumers, which
this administration closed last year. Shutting down this office
diminished the CFPB's mission and weakened its enforcement
capabilities.
Before its closure, this office returned more than $750 million to
students and student loan borrowers through actions against
unscrupulous student loan servicers. They also helped more than 60,000
borrowers who submitted complaints about the student loan industry to
the CFPB.
Notably, in January of 2017, the CFPB and the Office of Students and
Young Consumers stood up to the Nation's largest student loan servicer,
Navient, for misallocating payments and improperly steering borrowers
away from income-based repayment plans.
The amendment I am offering today with my colleague, Congressman
Harley Rouda, would build on this office's critical role in protecting
young consumer students and student loan borrowers. This amendment
would require the Assistant Director and Student Loan Ombudsman of the
newly restored Office of Students and Young Consumers to issue an
annual report to Congress on risks to young consumers and student
borrowers.
Specifically, this report would analyze complaints that were
submitted to the CFPB in the previous year by young consumers and
student borrowers and offer an independent evaluation of the risks to
this population as a result of policies and practices in the consumer
financial products and services marketplace. This report will help us
understand the risks that our young consumers and borrowers face, and
it will help inform the work of Congress on how to best fight back
against those who seek to prey on our Nation's young people.
I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment that will
help students, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chairwoman, I claim the time in opposition, though
I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, this is a reasonable amendment that
highlights the issues facing young borrowers.
As I said in previous amendment debate, in 2009 and 2010, the student
loan industry was nationalized. Ninety percent of student loans are
government loans. It is the government that is putting and saddling a
generation of students in unsustainable debt. That is deeply
problematic.
As a result of the pay-for of the ACA and as a result of the pay-for
under ObamaCare, that industry is now 90 percent government. That is
problematic.
This amendment doesn't deal with the substance of that, though it
does deal with the risk factors associated with young consumers and
student borrowers. I think it is important that we highlight the needs
of young borrowers, the needs of students, and this amendment will
provide that type of data on an annual basis. I think it is a good
amendment.
I appreciate the author for her willingness to engage in this debate,
but also highlighting the need for us to think more thoughtfully here
in Congress, think more deeply around financial literacy.
We passed a bipartisan resolution a month ago that highlighted the
National Endowment for Financial Education and the needs of financial
literacy, the basic understanding of interest rates, the time value of
money, and basic fundamentals of financial literacy that young people
need to be aware of and the population needs to be aware of more
generally. This amendment gets to that subject matter that is a
bipartisan concern and is a bipartisan approach to that bipartisan
concern.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the
Congresswoman for offering it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for his
bipartisan support. This is an issue that we all hear about from our
constituents.
As a member of the Education and Labor Committee, I know that we are
working hard on affordable higher education; but, in the meantime, we
need to make sure that we are aware of the problems that so many
student loan borrowers have. This amendment will help us get the
information through a report, and I appreciate that this will help us
inform our approach here in Congress, as well as get a better
understanding of the practices of student loan services.
{time} 1445
Again, I thank the gentleman for his bipartisan support, I thank
Chairwoman Waters for her support of the amendment, I urge all of my
colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, I want to close by reminding Congress and reminding my
colleagues that in 2009 and 2010 the Democrat House, Democrat Senate,
and Democrat President nationalized the student lending industry.
Ninety percent of student loans last year were done by the government.
Only 10 percent were done by the private sector.
That is deeply problematic. It is government that is saddling a
generation of students with debt that is unsustainable for them. The
lost economic potential as a result of that is
[[Page H4097]]
deeply problematic for our Nation and for the individuals who are
affected here.
To highlight the risk factors facing young consumers and student
borrowers is the right thing. For our Congress to have that proper data
is important, but do remember the nature of what is happening in the
student loan industry is being driven by a proactive decision of
Congress to nationalize that area of student lending. That is
problematic. We need to resolve that issue. It is an issue I want to
continue to highlight in any debate that we have around student
lending.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Number 10 Offered by Mr. Case
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 36, line 25, strike ``and''.
Page 37, line 7, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 37, after line 7, insert the following:
``(C) ensure that at least 1 member is an expert in
consumer privacy.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman
from Hawaii (Mr. Case) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 1500
which would ensure at least one member of the Consumer Advisory Board
be an expert in privacy.
Over a decade ago, predatory lending and lax regulation led to one of
the most devastating financial crises in our lifetime or any lifetime.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, or CFPB, was established
by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
in response to this crisis. The CFPB is tasked with implementing and
enforcing federal consumer financial laws while ensuring consumer
access to fair, transparent, and competitive financial products and
services.
Under former Director Richard Cordray, the CFPB returned roughly $12
billion to over 30 million consumers who fell victim to deceptive
financial practices, handled over 1.2 million consumer complaints about
financial firms, reined in payday lenders, examined mortgage and
student loan servicers, combated discrimination in lending, and held a
number of bad actors accountable.
Under this administration, the CFPB's leadership ordered a number of
changes that weakened its ability to protect consumers. This included
firing members of the Consumer Advisory Board and reducing the size of
the board. This hurt the CFPB's ability to help and protect consumers.
The board's experts help inform the CFPB about emerging practices and
trends in the consumer finance industry and share analysis and
recommendations. It helps ensure the government fully leverages
expertise of those from outside of government.
H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act, would reverse anticonsumer
changes taken by the administration and strengthen the Consumer
Advisory Board. The bill would require the CFPB director to appoint at
least 25 members, at least two-thirds of which would have to represent
consumers, including fair lending and civil rights experts and
representatives of communities affected by high-priced mortgages. My
amendment would require at least one member of that board to be a
demonstrated expert in privacy.
My amendment is needed because the interplay of privacy and
technology in the financial landscape has changed dramatically since
2008. As internet connectivity increases, Americans now transmit more
of their personal and financial information on the internet at
exponentially higher rates than in the past, and their data is at risk.
Since 2013 there have been at least 10 major data breaches
compromising billions of consumers. A number of these breaches exposed
consumers' financial information. For example, Marriott International's
2018 breach compromised the personal information of some 500 million
customers, including credit card numbers of more than 100 million. In
2017 Equifax was breached, exposing the personal information of 143
million consumers, including Social Security numbers. In 2014 the
Nation's largest bank, JPMorgan Chase, was breached, compromising 76
million, or two in three U.S. households. The list, unfortunately, goes
on and on.
In the wake of these high-profile data breaches and privacy
violations, consumers are increasingly concerned about their online
personal and financial privacy. A recent Pew Research Center public
opinion study found that over half feel that their personal information
is less secure than it was just 5 years ago, and 68 percent of internet
users believe current laws are not good enough in protecting people's
privacy online.
Our consumers are demanding action on the issue of privacy, and our
privacy laws and enforcement significantly lag much of the rest of the
world. Obviously, the current system is not working to ensure that
personal privacy is protected.
My amendment responds to these concerns by ensuring that an expert in
consumer privacy is part of the membership of the CFPB's Consumer
Advisory Board. It will make sure that these concerns are front and
center at the table as the board provides its advice to the CFPB.
My amendment is a small, yet important, nonpartisan amendment in
response to the growing movement in Congress and across the Nation and
world to protect consumers' personal data and basic right of privacy.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I
am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, this amendment would ensure at least one
member of the Consumer Advisory Board is an expert in consumer privacy.
I think Congress has a proper role that they can exert in the make-up
of boards, advisory boards, or make-up of commissions, and I think this
is reasonable legislating around that.
We constantly hear from both financial firms and their regulators
that cybersecurity and insufficient data privacy standards are
significant threats to consumers and financial stability.
Moreover, as employees of the Federal Government, we know of Federal
Government data breaches of Federal employees. We have to do more to
make sure that we stop that and stop malicious state actors from these
cyberattacks.
Billions of people were impacted by data breaches and cyberattacks in
2018 alone. The problem is only growing, and the threats are becoming
much more sophisticated. Given the importance of this conversation,
ensuring that one individual on the Consumer Advisory Board has
consumer privacy expertise offers a reasonable solution.
Madam Chair, I commend my colleague from Hawaii for offering this
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments o my colleague very
much and the support. This clearly demonstrates that when it comes to
consumer privacy, there is no party involved. We are all concerned
about it regardless of our party. So I appreciate those comments.
I would only add that certainly this member of the board should deal
not only with data breaches, but also with the basic rules and
regulations that govern privacy. We need a large, massive, and
increased broad government debate over our own rules on privacy in this
country where, in fact, we do lag the rest of the world.
Madam Chair, I appreciate, again, my colleague's support, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
I commend my colleague for offering this amendment. I urge my
colleagues to support it. It is a reasonable step for Congress to say,
clearly, that data breaches, cybersecurity, and personal privacy
matter. As a matter of public policy, we need to be interested in it.
[[Page H4098]]
I would also urge my colleagues and reach out to the other side of
the aisle for us to have a deeper conversation about cyber data and
privacy. We need to legislate in these areas.
Without our taking action, we are allowing the Europeans to set the
global standard, and we are allowing the European Union to set the
standard for our data and privacy here in the United States. That is
not appropriate. As American policymakers, we should be interested in
legislating in a bipartisan way to achieve that type of data privacy
and cybersecurity that is necessary for the American economy, not just
in the short run, not just for the next election, but for the next
generation to make sure that they are safe and secure.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I commend my
colleague for raising this important issue, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Golden
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 36, line 20, after ``communities,'' insert
``representatives of servicemembers, veterans, and their
families,''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Golden) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, I first want to thank Chairwoman Waters for
her hard work and the hard work of the committee on behalf of American
families in Maine and across the country who have fallen victim to
financial schemes.
I rise today to offer my amendment on behalf of military
servicemembers and veterans and their families. One of the challenges
that military men and women face are countless financial scams that
exist in the financial marketplace. Travel just outside of a military
base, Madam Chair, and there will be payday lenders with high interest
rates, title loan companies, and supplemental life insurance schemes
all looking for their next target.
Military personnel who are distracted by financial problems created
by these schemes cannot focus on doing their jobs to the best of their
abilities. If the problems get out of hand, they can even end a
military career. On average, thousands of servicemembers are separated
each year from the military for financial hardship and other issues
related to these types of schemes. Even worse, many servicemembers or
their families come under pressure from scammers while they are in the
midst of a deployment.
Just as an example of this, I was in an infantry unit. I served in
Afghanistan and Iraq. I have known people who have actually taken the
time, when they get that rare opportunity, to hop on to a sat phone.
They should be calling their family or a loved one, and instead they
are calling to talk to a debt collector because they had fallen victim
to one of these scams, then had it turned over to a debt collector. By
law that is not supposed to happen, but too often servicemembers don't
know what their rights are and what the law is, and they end up trying
to deal with this kind of a stress while in the midst of a deployment
to a place like Iraq.
We know it is not right. We need to make sure struggling military
families can have resources that they can turn to for help.
Unfortunately, these challenges don't stop upon leaving the service
either. According to a study done by the AARP, nearly eight in ten
veterans report having received a scam attempt in the last 5 years. I
get them myself. I get them in the mail. I get them from people talking
to me about my VA home loan or education benefits and others, offering
what sounds like a good deal, but we know it is not.
Recognizing the vulnerability of vets and servicemembers to predatory
lenders and other financial scams, Congress created the Office of
Servicemember Affairs at the CFPB. The office monitors complaints from
servicemembers and veterans and their families and takes appropriate
action to protect them.
Since 2011 the CFPB has received approximately 123,000 complaints
from servicemembers, and the problem is not improving; it is actually
getting worse. From 2016 to 2017, there was a 47 percent increase in
complaints received from servicemembers.
My amendment helps ensure that the CFPB can better protect veterans
and servicemembers from financial abuse, fraud, and scams. The
provision opens up CFPB's Consumer Advisory Board to a representative
veteran from the military community and the veterans' community.
The advisory board is a critical part of CFPB's role as a watchdog
for consumers. They inform CFPB about emerging trends, they share
analysis and recommendations for action and policies, and they assess
the consumer impact of emerging financial products, practices, and
services.
Putting a family member of a servicemember or a veteran on the
advisory board will ensure that CFPB is better informed of new and
emerging scams and tactics targeting servicemembers and veterans so
that we are better able to protect them.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I
am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, this amendment will help ensure that
servicemembers, veterans, and their families have representation on the
CFPB's Consumer Advisory Board.
As I stated with the previous amendment, I think it is fair and just
for Congress to make the decision on who should be members of the
advisory boards, various agencies, and the make-up of boards and
commissions as well as for government.
Congress' action in the past ensures that men and women serving our
Nation do not fall victim to fraud and unscrupulous lenders, and this
amendment is consistent with those efforts.
{time} 1500
Moreover, I think there is a missed opportunity in this bill. Mr.
Barr, my colleague from Kentucky, offered an amendment before the Rules
Committee to this bill to say that the Military Lending Act gives
explicit authority to the CFPB. That amendment was not made in order by
the Rules Committee. I think it was a bad decision.
If my colleague supports defending those in the military from
unscrupulous action, I would encourage him to cosponsor Mr. Barr's
amendment because it is conforming with his very concern about making
sure that military families and veterans are protected. The Military
Lending Act and the supervisory authority to the CFPB is just the way
to do that.
I am supportive of that measure. It should have bipartisan support
and should have been made in order under this amendment.
So, both sides of the aisle have these concerns. I am grateful that
the gentleman from Maine and the gentleman from Texas have offered a
good amendment.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, I will go ahead and close and leave it to
the gentleman to close on his end.
This amendment will help servicemembers, veterans, and their families
make sure that they are protected financially and give them a voice at
the table. I encourage my colleagues to support it. I thank the ranking
member for encouraging his colleagues to support it as well.
I would be happy to talk to our colleague from Kentucky about ways in
which we can work together to protect our servicemembers and veterans.
I know we are all in on that together, to do the best that we can for
our servicemembers and veterans.
Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member, the chairwoman, and the
entire committee for their support, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the
balance of my time
[[Page H4099]]
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Escobar
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 39, line 24, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
Page 39, line 25, insert before the period the following:
``, and military- and veteran-serving financial
institutions''.
Page 40, line 4, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
Page 40, line 4, after ``businesses'' insert the following:
``, and military- and veteran-serving financial
institutions''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Escobar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I would like to thank Congresswoman Waters for her
incredible work and leadership on this bill, which will help restore
trust in Federal consumer protections and ensure those protections
extend to all communities.
I also thank my colleague, Representative Golden, for cosponsoring my
amendment. This amendment would direct CFPB to include representatives
of military- and veteran-serving financial institutions in their
advisory committees.
There are over 18 million veterans in America today and nearly 3
million Department of Defense employees. Many in these communities
choose to bank with financial institutions that cater to their unique
needs. These over 20 million Americans deserve a voice at the CFPB from
technical experts who know how to best serve our veterans and military.
We know that many military members pick a financial institution and
stick with it. That is because these organizations have the skills and
experience to help servicemembers with challenging circumstances, like
frequent moves and deployments, that the average civilian customer
won't face.
These organizations help support our veterans and military at
critical life moments, providing early capital to help start a
business, helping finance a new home, and even partnering with
educational institutions to provide technical assistance to veteran
entrepreneurs.
They know the unique needs and concerns of their clientele, including
identity theft during deployments, VA loan issues, and improper credit
reflections that occur when the VA experiences administrative delays.
And they can share key industry insight to help CFBP ensure vets and
servicemembers are protected as they move through financial systems.
On a personal note, I share my home, El Paso, with nearly 50,000
veterans and am neighbors with more than 45,000 military and civilian
personnel at Fort Bliss. At Fort Bliss, we also train units from every
U.S. State and territory, so our amenities end up benefiting many
outside our immediate community over time.
Communities like ours deserve to be heard, and my amendment will help
ensure that that happens.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
though I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, this amendment will direct the CFPB to
appoint representatives of the military- and veteran-serving financial
institutions to advisory committees. It is another step in ensuring
servicemembers, veterans, and their families have a voice in consumer
protection.
Military- and veteran-serving financial institutions are unique and
can provide the CFPB advisory boards with insights into the biggest
risks facing veterans, servicemembers, and their families.
I do concur that there should be more military representation across
all fronts at the CFPB and across the government.
Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Chair, I have no further speakers or comments. I
urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment and the underlying
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Neguse
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 40, after line 8, insert the following:
SEC. 9. REPORT ON SENIOR CONSUMERS.
Section 1016 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010 (12 U.S.C. 5496) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Report on Senior Consumers.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall issue an annual
report to Congress containing--
``(A) an analysis, in coordination with the Office of
Financial Protection for Older Americans, of consumer
complaints from older Americans, including a State-by-State
breakdown of complaints by type of consumer financial product
or service; and
``(B) any legislative or regulatory recommendations the
Director may have to improve consumer protections for older
Americans.
``(2) Older americans defined.--In this subsection, the
term `older Americans' means individuals who have attained
the age of 62 years or more.''.
Page 40, line 9, strike ``sec. 9'' and insert ``sec. 10''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I first want to join my colleagues in
thanking Chairwoman Waters for her leadership for so many years and, in
particular, her leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.
We are here today to reinstate the powers of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, which have been severely weakened, and it includes
the curtailing of enforcement of fair lending laws and removing a
standalone office on student loans. We must ensure, however, that our
elderly population is included in this debate. We must not leave our
elderly behind.
My amendment is simple and straightforward. It will require the
Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to issue an annual
report to Congress of consumer complaints from older Americans,
including a State-by-State breakdown of complaints by type of consumer
financial product or service.
Madam Chair, studies show that people 50 and older hold 83 percent of
the wealth in the United States. However, these same individuals, who
grew up in a workforce very different than the evolving,
technologically driven one of today and who are experiencing aging
health disparities, are prime targets for scammers. This has resulted
in our seniors losing anywhere from $2.9 billion to $36 billion each
year from financial exploitation.
Having served as the director of my State's, Colorado's, Department
of Regulatory Agencies in the past, I had the honor of working on
behalf of Coloradans to protect them from unfair, deceptive, and
fraudulent business practices. We certainly saw many of these practices
up close.
While I am proud that our department was able to recover millions of
dollars for consumers across Colorado, including senior citizens, we
must do more. In an era of sophisticated targeting of our seniors, we
must act, and I certainly believe that is the case at the Federal
level.
So, in a world in which we continue to hear of calculated financial
fraud and various data breaches, I believe we
[[Page H4100]]
should be working to protect all consumers, not making it easy for bad
actors to take advantage of them, in particular, making sure that we
protect vulnerable populations.
Madam Chair, that is why I encourage my colleagues to support this
important amendment, and, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, though I am not
opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, older consumers are undoubtedly at the
highest risk of becoming the victims of financial crimes. That is the
unfortunate case that we are facing today.
That is why, earlier this month, the House passed multiple pieces of
legislation to highlight the issues of elder financial abuse and the
mechanisms to combat it.
The statistics on senior citizens who are exposed to financial
exploitation are shocking. Older Americans lose approximately $36.5
billion each year to financial crimes, scams, and abuse. One in five
seniors have reported being victims of exploitation, and only 1 in 44
cases of financial abuse are reported.
The gentleman from Colorado has offered an amendment that will
require the CFPB to study and report on consumer complaints filed by
older Americans and recommend legislative or regulatory actions to
enhance consumer protections to those citizens.
This amendment would increase transparency and allow the CFPB to
identify trends in elder financial abuse. Those insights could be used
and can be used to protect senior citizens.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I thank my
colleague for offering a good amendment, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member for his remarks,
for articulating the need for this amendment, and for his support. I
very much appreciate it.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the
balance of my time
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Stevens
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Ms. STEVENS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 36, line 25, strike ``and''.
Page 37, line 7, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 37, after line 7, insert the following:
``(C) seek to appoint individuals involved in the
industries affected by the Bureau, including individuals who
represent community banks, credit unions, small business
owners, or experts in United States economic growth and
jobs.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Ms. Stevens) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. STEVENS. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to
H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an essential agency that
has protected millions of consumers and put more than $12 billion back
in Americans' pockets.
I worked in the Obama administration, in the United States Department
of the Treasury, when the CFPB was first established in the wake of the
financial crisis and saw firsthand how this agency has grown to serve
as a force for accountability, transparency, and fairness on behalf of
working Americans. That is why it is so important to restore and
protect the CFPB from the attempts to weaken this critical agency.
My amendment to the Consumers First Act ensures that community banks,
credit unions, small business owners, or economic growth experts are
appointed to serve as members of the Bureau's Consumer Advisory Board.
The Consumer Advisory Board is a resource for the CFPB, providing the
agency with expertise, analysis, and recommendations.
We must keep the channels open to small businesses, smaller banks,
credit unions, and community advocates. This amendment gives community-
oriented small businesses a seat at the table when it comes to the
CFPB's decisionmaking, while furthering the goal of ensuring our
financial system works for everyone.
We need that on-the-ground information. We need to hear from our
small businesses.
In my district, credit unions and community banks offer helpful
resources to individual borrowers as they look to purchase a home,
start a small business, or expand a manufacturing order.
These institutions have invaluable knowledge that we should take
advantage of as we work to protect consumers from fraud and abuse.
My district, Michigan 11, is also home to several thousand small
businesses, including manufacturers and the country's most robust
automotive supply chain.
{time} 1515
We have got retail, we have got restaurants, and we have the
capability to continue to unlock the channels of innovation, but we
need a CFPB that works for us, and we need the voice of the small
business at the table.
Our small business owners contribute so much to our communities, and
they have a finger on the pulse of our economy more than anyone else.
We should welcome the expertise of these key stakeholders at the CFPB
as they continue to do incredible work for the American people and our
economy.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, the gentlewoman from Michigan has offered
an amendment that will help ensure the Consumer Advisory Board has a
balanced perspective by including individuals who represent community
banks, credit unions, and small business owners, or economic growth
experts.
Community banks, credit unions, and small businesses are
disproportionately affected by heightened regulatory burdens.
Dodd-Frank imposed 4,000 new Federal regulations on financial
institutions, including smaller institutions that lack the resources of
larger ones. As a result of that, we have seen the decline of nearly
2,000 banks, from about 6,400 banks at the end of 2010, to the end of
last year, that number was 4,600. This is a significant issue for
community financial institutions, the weight of regulation.
The number of credit unions has also declined by nearly 3,000 over a
similar period of time, down to 5,600.
While community banking organizations, such as credit unions and
small community banks, represent 17 percent of all U.S. bank assets,
they make up nearly half of all small business loans. Small businesses
account for over half of all U.S. employment, and nearly two-thirds of
all employment growth over the last decade.
These institutions fuel our economy and spur job growth. They deserve
a seat at the table.
I commend my colleague from Michigan for offering this amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. STEVENS. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from North Carolina
for his celebratory remarks. This is an important day in Congress
because this is the role that we play; overseeing agencies,
strengthening their work and delivering for the American people.
I have got to applaud our chairwoman of Financial Services for the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau work that she has done,
particularly with this act. It is long overdue.
We are thrilled to introduce this amendment that will bring the voice
of small business to the table.
[[Page H4101]]
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
As I said, small community financial institutions have been
disproportionately affected by the regulatory burden of Dodd-Frank,
which has driven small community banks to either merge, or go out of
business. Likewise, the same for credit unions.
So for them to have a seat at the table at the CFPB, I think, is
right, fair, and appropriate. I appreciate my colleague from Michigan
offering this. I support the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes.''
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. STEVENS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 33, line 15, strike the quotation marks and final
period and insert after such line the following:
``(5) Collection of student loan servicer data.--
``(A) In general.--The Assistant Director and Student Loan
Ombudsman shall require each servicer of student loans to
submit an annual report to the Assistant Director with
information regarding the servicer's loan portfolio,
including data regarding the following:
``(i) The size of the servicer's portfolio.
``(ii) The repayment status of unique accounts.
``(iii) Borrower-initiated and servicer-initiated contacts,
and the outcome of each such contact.
``(iv) Income-driver repayment applications and
recertifications.
``(v) Any other data the Assistant Director and Student
Loan Ombudsman determines necessary to carry out the
functions of the Office of Students and Young Consumers.
``(B) Report.--The Assistant Director and Student Loan
Ombudsman shall include, in each report required under
section 1035(d)(1), a description of the information
collected under this paragraph, along with any findings or
determinations the Assistant Director made with respect to
such information.
``(C) Guidance.--Not later than 90 days after the enactment
of this subsection, the Bureau shall issue guidance to
student loan servicers to facilitate the data collection
required under this paragraph.''.
Page 40, line 8, after the second dollar figure insert
``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, first of all, let me recognize the chair
of the committee, my friend from California, for her steadfast work to
defend American consumers.
Madam Chair, students are in a difficult situation nowadays in the
knowledge-based economy, where we are told over and over again that
America, to be competitive, has to have an educated workforce, and we
need more and more young people to go into college and then to graduate
school; not to say that we don't have needs for people to get out of
high school and go into career tech.
But these generations are burdened with unbelievable student loans,
and they are also burdened with, in urban areas, high housing costs and
also lower wage expectations. We have to fix this; and one way to fix
it is to have more oversight and performance standards for those
companies, those for-profit companies, in particular, that control 93
percent of the market of Federal student loans.
Madam Chair, 44 million Americans hold an estimated $1.5 trillion in
student debt. Over 1 million borrowers defaulted on their student loans
last year.
Default is a financially devastating event that affects the
individuals many times for the rest of their lives, as it affects their
credit standing and also their ability to get a house, and to get a
good job. Default is a financially-devastating event, as I said.
In the past decade, the Federal Government created several repayment
plans designed to assist borrowers in financial distress, but the
default rate remains stubbornly high.
One major reason is the student loan servicing industry. These for-
profit companies operate with little oversight nor accountability.
Evidence shows that servicers often provide inaccurate information
and inadequate customer service, making the already complicated process
of enrolling in the correct repayment plan close to impossible.
My amendment would simply require the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau to collect and publish data from student loan servicers,
providing a first-ever look at how these companies perform at serving
American consumers. That is important.
These are basic performance standards that I would think all of my
colleagues across the aisle would want in any business practice--
particularly for-profit companies--they would want performance
standards for them, if they are publicly-traded they would want them
for the shareholders and, most importantly, for American consumers and
students.
For example, this amendment would show if student loan servicers are
making it easy for their customers to recertify their incomes for their
repayment plans. We know that this is a common roadblock to successful
repayment.
This amendment would simply require the CFPB to fulfill their
statutory duty and provide needed oversight and transparency of this
important industry. Everybody should agree that more information, in
this instance in particular, is in everyone's interest and everyone's
interest in the future of this country and future generations.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I am opposed to the amendment. I appreciate
the gentleman's interest in this issue, but I have concerns with this
amendment.
Before I get into the substance of the amendment, I do want to remind
my colleagues that the Democrat majority, in 2009 and 2010, passed
through the House and the Senate, and got signed by the President, the
nationalization of the student loan industry, giving it to the
Department of Education to administer.
Knowing their limitations, the Department of Education, at the time,
contracted with loan servicers that are private enterprises, but under
the direction and the regulatory enforcement of the Department of
Education.
Now, the Democrat majority is unhappy, and the Federal Government is
crushing an entire generation with debt by the decision they made to
help pay for the ACA or ObamaCare.
To get to the substance of the amendment, this amendment would
require loan servicers to submit considerable data to the CFPB, data
that they are already submitting to their primary regulator, the
Department of Education.
I am troubled by the sheer volume of information that would be
collected and by the lack of definitive guardrails around what the CFPB
can and cannot collect.
We had an amendment before that said we need to have on the Advisory
Committee a privacy expert. Well, this amendment runs counter to this
need for us to have enhanced privacy standards for those that are
seeking loans, and enhanced privacy standards for individuals in
society, because this would now require a second area of government to
collect data, sometimes counter to what the Department of Education
would suggest is the right and proper data to collect.
The Department of Education has authority over student loan
servicing, and that work is performed on the Department's behalf under
its regulation. And the servicers fall under the Department of
Education's regulatory authority broadly.
[[Page H4102]]
While I support the spirit of this amendment that was offered, I ask
my colleagues to oppose it.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, just briefly, while I respect some of
the issues brought up by my colleague, I do think, if the data is
already there and they are supplying it for the Department of
Education, we should make it relatively easy for the Consumer
Protection Bureau to get that same information and, if needed,
get more.
As a former business owner, these are the kind of performance
standards I would not be afraid to show to my clients; and I would
think that Congress and the American people, considering the importance
of this investment, at a minimum, would require these kind of
performance standards.
So I would hope that Members on both sides of the aisle would support
the effort in a spirit of transparency, and performance standards for
privately-held companies.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, in closing, this amendment is not
practical. It should be offered when we reauthorize the Department of
Education. I would support it if it is mandated on the part of the
Department of Education to collect this data, which is the right
regulator of this nationalized industry of making student loans.
Rather than collecting more data, what we need to do is get into the
action of fixing the problem of student debt. We need to make sure we
have more choices for students, better communication with students, and
a better understanding of the consequences of this massive debt load.
We can collect all the data we want, but the Federal Government will
eventually have to take responsibility for these bad actions we have
taken to saddle a generation with student debt that they cannot afford.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Tlaib
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 40, line 8, after the second dollar figure insert
``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 40, after line 8, insert the following:
SEC. 9. REPORT ON PAYDAY LOAN AND CAR-TITLE LOAN
INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.
Section 1016 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010 (12 U.S.C. 5496) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Report on Payday Loan and Car-title Loan
Investigations and Enforcement Actions.--The Director shall
issue a quarterly report to Congress containing--
``(1) the number of investigations opened and closed by the
Bureau relating to payday loans and car-title loans;
``(2) the number of enforcement actions that have been
taken or referred relating to payday loans and car-title
loans;
``(3) an estimate of the amount of fees customers have paid
relating to payday loans and car-title loans;
``(4) an estimate of the number of times in the previous 12
months a typical payday loan customer has rolled over their
loan; and
``(5) an estimate of how many car-title loan customers lost
their car in the previous 12 months.''.
Page 40, line 9, strike ``sec. 9'' and insert ``sec. 10''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I am proud to be a supporter of H.R. 1500,
the Consumers First Act. The act ensures that the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau serves its statutory purpose of protecting consumers
from unfair, abusive practices, and holding greedy corporations
accountable when they take advantage of people in our communities.
The residents of the 13th District in Michigan are charged a whopping
369 percent APR rate by payday lenders.
According to the Center for Responsible Lending, payday loans drain
over $4.1 billion in fees a year from people in 35 States that allow
triple digit interest rates for payday loans. Car title loans drain
over $3.8 billion in fees annually from people in 22 States.
Madam Chair, together, these loans drain nearly $8 billion in fees
every year, money that should be going to pay rent or buy groceries.
Instead, it is going to line the pockets of predatory lenders who are
making record profits.
Across Michigan, 600 payday lending storefronts each issue 3,000
loans a year. Most of those loans are used by a borrower to repay their
prior loans; and 90 percent of these loan borrowers in Michigan re-
borrow within 60 days.
This is why I am offering an amendment that ensures that our
residents are protected from predatory lending in the payday and auto
loan industries. This amendment will provide those of us in Congress
with the information necessary to know how these industries are
operating and how our residents are being impacted directly.
A doctor can't treat a disease without the necessary lab work or
research. This also applies to our ability, as public servants, to push
back against these loans being offered in all corners of our
communities that push our residents more into poverty.
{time} 1530
This payday lending amendment would require the CFPB to report to
Congress quarterly the number of investigations opened and closed
relating to payday and car title lenders.
It requires an oversight report every quarter on the number of
enforcement actions, an estimate of how much in fees payday or car
title customers pay, how many times in the previous 12 months payday
customers rolled over their loans, and how many car title loan
borrowers lost their cars in the previous 12 months.
Madam Chair, we have a responsibility to tackle this debt trap crisis
that is set up for more profits for corporations but leaves the
American people in financial despair with no escape.
In Michigan, predatory lenders are looking to squeeze money out of
low-income people with deceptive and abusive practices and have,
unfortunately, found a steady stream of business back home in our
districts.
Taking advantage of people in difficult situations is immoral, but
companies continue to stretch and break the law for an extra buck,
regardless of the human cost.
In my district, Detroiters with payday loans are more likely to file
for bankruptcy, be evicted, or face utility shutoffs than any other
Detroiter without payday loans.
Madam Chair, I say to my colleagues, these numbers are not unique to
the State of Michigan. Our constituents are being harmed by these
abusive, greedy practices, and we have to make sure we have all the
information we need to take action and protect our families.
We know that many consumers who are forced to get high-interest,
high-fees payday loans are targeted low-income families. Many are taken
advantage of because they have relatively few other places to turn.
According to the New York Fed, more Americans than ever were at least
3 months behind on their auto loans, and it said delinquencies were
worsening among subprime borrowers. Auto debt is now nearing $1.3
trillion.
Madam Chair, many of our constituents are a missed payday or a family
emergency away from being forced to rely on payday loans or missing an
auto payment. Many are already in that position. It is our job to make
sure we have the information necessary in this body to protect them.
Madam Chair, this amendment strengthens consumer protection, and I
encourage my colleagues to support it.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I would ask the author for a point of
clarification.
As I read it, the amendment requires quarterly reporting to Congress.
Is that correct?
Ms. TLAIB. Will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H4103]]
Mr. McHENRY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. TLAIB. Yes.
Mr. McHENRY. Am I to read it correctly that that quarterly report is
supposed to give 12 months of data?
Ms. TLAIB. Correct.
Mr. McHENRY. Okay. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for
clarifying.
Madam Chair, looking at this, that means that on a quarterly basis,
it is an annual report. It is a bit clunky.
What we already see with the issues of payday and car title lenders,
we know that those are State-regulated products, but we also know,
according to the Bureau's 2018 Consumer Response Annual Report, payday
loans account for 0.7 percent of consumer complaints, title loans
account for 0.2 percent of consumer complaints. This is less than 1
percent of the consumer complaints the CFPB already deals with.
The issues of reporting here, if this were merely an annual report to
reposition the data that they put out on an annual basis, I would not
see that as a burden or a major cost to the CFPB, but doing an annual
report on a quarterly basis would be more costly.
While I am not opposed to this data being made public--I do think
that would be additive to the public--the fact that this is a quarterly
filing for an annual report, I don't think that that is going to be
quite as sensible as it otherwise could be.
Moreover, if you look at the Consumer Response Annual Report on the
consumer complaints to the CFPB, 80 percent of those consumer
complaints revolve around the credit reporting agencies and credit
repair firms.
I think we should be focused on that, as a policy matter. I think
there is bipartisan consensus that the credit reporting agencies need
to undergo a change in the law by which they must abide to make sure
that consumers are protected and their data is protected.
This is bipartisan work that I hope Chairwoman Waters and I can
engage in this Congress. We have raised similar concerns about credit
reporting agencies in the past, and I do think there is an opportunity
for us to have bipartisan legislating that protects the consumer.
Madam Chair, I commend my colleague from Michigan for offering this.
I know this is a major issue in Michigan and a major issue for the
question of car insurance, the cost of car insurance as well, and a
number of other issues that I know that she seeks to remedy for her
constituents.
Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman raising this concern to us
as a body, but I respectfully oppose the amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I do want to clarify to my good colleague
that this is not an annual report.
We want to know, every quarter, changes in payday complaints. So just
be aware that this is about a quarterly report regarding those changes.
This is not an annual report.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I do want to note the burden outweighs the
cost on our residents back home.
We need to be able to know exactly what is happening on the ground at
home in regard to these kinds of practices and abusive behavior by
payday lenders.
We as a body need transparency and understanding of what is going
through the CFPB, and we are not able to remedy these challenges for
our residents without that information.
Madam Chair, I hope that we can agree this is a bipartisan issue.
This would impact a majority of our States across this Nation.
Madam Chair, again, I hope I can get some support from my good
colleague, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, in my reading of the bill, I would suggest
that when it says, ``the Director shall issue a quarterly report to
Congress containing,'' and then in subsections 4 and 5 it says 12
months of data, that 12 months is--I don't want to be snarky about it,
but 12 months is a year.
So on a quarterly basis, CFPB has to provide 12 months of data. That
is what I mean by on a quarterly basis CFPB has to provide an annual
report. Twelve months being a year, a year being annual, filing yearly
is annual.
I don't mean to be completely snarky about it, but I think if we
simply had an annual report, this would be a much better structured
amendment.
Madam Chair, while I oppose the amendment, I do so reluctantly.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Green of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 31, after line 5, insert the following:
(g) Restoration of Rule Prohibiting Forced Arbitration in
Consumer Contracts.--
(1) Repeal of joint resolution.--Public Law 115-74 is
hereby repealed.
(2) Restoration of rule.--Not later than the end of the 3-
day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act,
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau shall reissue the
final rule of the Bureau specified in Public Law 115-74
(relating to ``Arbitration Agreements'') in the same form as
such rule existed on the day before the date of enactment of
Public Law 115-74, except the Bureau shall specify that the
rule takes effect after the end of the 60-day period
beginning on the date such rule is reissued.
Page 40, line 8, after the second dollar figure insert
``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Green) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I am honored to present amendment
No. 17, which deals with consumer choice. It deals with whether
consumers will be forced into arbitration or whether they will have the
choice of having arbitration or litigation.
With litigation, the consumer can have the choice of having the case
presented as one person or as part of a group.
This amendment is one that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act
called to our attention by way of a study that was required.
After performing the study, the CFPB issued a final rule to regulate
the use of mandatory arbitration clauses. In so doing, it was something
that we believed would have been beneficial to consumers. Yet, before
the rule could take effect, it was rescinded by Congress in November
2017.
My amendment offers a direct, straightforward solution. It simply
reinstates the CFPB final rule, a rule that was the product of a
careful study. It was analyzed properly. It was done by way of
stakeholder consensus.
My belief is that this rule will reinstate a law that will give
consumers choice as opposed to forced administration.
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Cartwright).
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr.
Green) for yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Green amendment.
Madam Chair, to the Members of this House, when we file into this
room, we file past a three-times-life-size statue of Thomas Jefferson,
one of our Founders in this Nation. And Jefferson said he considered a
trial by jury ``as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which
a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.''
Trial by jury was that important to Thomas Jefferson that he said it
was that important.
Daniel Webster, who is quoted up here on our wall, said, ``The law:
It has honored us.'' Let us honor it by executing it in its fullest
severity.
How do we do that? We allow jury trials for American citizens.
We teach our children accountability, responsibility, being
accountable for your actions. The way to do it in America is to allow
jury trials to decide who is at fault.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett)
[[Page H4104]]
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, I rise only to commend the gentleman from
Texas for his important work on this arbitration issue.
There has been a very effective movement to quash the rights of
consumers. In the financial services area, people are told to deal with
it.
Our colleague Hank Johnson has the Forced Arbitration Injustice
Repeal Act as it relates to nursing homes and employment. Our colleague
Katherine Clark has a bill to repeal these arbitration restrictions
with reference to discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual
harassment in the workplace. Each of these is very important.
Arbitration is arbitrary. It does not fairly resolve disputes. It is
biased toward the financial institution, and toward the employer and
others in other cases. Arbitration is a model that does not work well
to solve most disputes of this type.
It has even been suggested, amazingly enough, to bring arbitration
into the drug price debate now. I don't believe arbitration is a way to
solve these problems, and it is certainly not a way to get us lower
drug prices
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, the gentleman's amendment would reinstate a
bad rule by the CFPB that was repealed.
The CFPB's own data demonstrates that consumers fare better under
arbitration than under litigation. On average, plaintiffs' attorneys
account for approximately 31 percent of payments plaintiffs receive
from class action settlements. Plaintiffs' attorneys collect, on
average, $1 million per case; actual plaintiffs receive just $32 each.
If Members want to be consumer friendly, if Members are about
consumer protection, let's let the consumers get the benefit if they
are wronged rather than trial lawyers and the trial bar.
This is a trial lawyer's dream amendment.
Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to vote
``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, who has the right to close?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman in opposition, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), has the right to close.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chair, this is a consumer's dream come true because it gives
the consumer choice.
It does not deny the business owner, the credit card company, or the
bank the opportunity to have arbitration. What it does is it allows the
consumer to have the choice to either elect to have arbitration or to
go to litigation, and when litigating, the consumer can litigate as an
individual.
{time} 1545
When I was a judge of a small claims court, I had many persons who
were litigating their cases before me. I also understand that there are
times when people believe that they should have lawyers to represent
them. It is not unusual for businesses to have lawyers to represent
them. In fact, businesses have lawyers on call to represent them 24
hours a day.
Why can consumers not have the same opportunity to litigate that
businesses have to litigate? That is what this is all about. My
colleague, on the other side, would simply have consumers have no
choice, go to arbitration only, and then, possibly, gain some
emolument.
My belief is that consumers ought to have choice. That is what this
amendment is about.
Madam Chair, this is part of the reason why consumers are so angry
with this Congress. We deny them their constitutional rights, the right
to a trial and the right to make a determination for themselves as to
whether or not they will engage in arbitration or litigation.
Consumers should have choices. Businesses have choices. Consumers
should have no less than what businesses have.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, let me just reiterate: This amendment is for trial
lawyers. That is what they are trying to reinstate, forcing consumers
into the hands of trial lawyers. Every million dollars plaintiffs
receive in attorney's fees, the actual plaintiff, the one who is
harmed, the one who is wronged, receives, on average, $32. That is not
fair. That is not equitable. That is not right.
It is not defending an abstract concept. It is actually defending
those consumers' right to receive compensation for the harm that they
have experienced. Also, it allows that consumer to enter into
contractual agreements with people they seek to.
This amendment would reinstate a rule that would take that consumer's
right away from them and put it into the hands of the trial lawyer once
again. It is a profit center. It certainly is.
In November last year, the President signed a joint resolution passed
by Congress disapproving of the arbitration rule under the
Congressional Review Act. Congress spoke, in the House and in the
Senate, and we changed the law.
Pursuant to the joint resolution, the arbitration agreement rule has
no force or effect. That means, moreover, that a rule similar to that
can no longer be written going forward. That is under the Congressional
Review Act.
This amendment serves as little more than a payday for plaintiffs'
attorneys.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report
116-79 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Steil of Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Burgess of Texas.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Burgess of Texas.
Amendment No. 14 by Ms. Stevens of Michigan.
Amendment No. 17 by Mr. Green of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Steil
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Steil) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 234, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 222]
AYES--190
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
[[Page H4105]]
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hern, Kevin
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Radewagen
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOES--234
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
San Nicolas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Armstrong
Hartzler
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Kinzinger
Lamborn
Meeks
Norcross
Payne
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Turner
Walker
{time} 1619
Mr. HORSFORD, Ms. SANCHEZ, Messrs. GOTTHEIMER, PHILLIPS, SCOTT of
Virginia, PANETTA, DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, CONNOLLY, McEACHIN,
SCHRADER, TAKANO, WELCH, and COHEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. TIPTON, SMUCKER, BURGESS, OLSON, POSEY, ROY, ABRAHAM, WEBSTER
of Florida, WESTERMAN, and BISHOP of Utah changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Burgess
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 236, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 223]
AYES--191
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Radewagen
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOES--236
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gaetz
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
[[Page H4106]]
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
San Nicolas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Armstrong
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Kaptur
Kinzinger
Meeks
Payne
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Walker
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1629
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Pelosi was allowed to speak out of order.)
Honoring USCP Chief Verderosa
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chair, I am pleased to rise to join our
distinguished Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy, to honor the dedicated,
distinguished service of an outstanding public servant, United States
Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa.
Madam Chair, throughout 34 years in law enforcement, Police Chief
Verderosa has proven himself as a leader of the highest patriotism and
professionalism and has proudly carried forth the Capitol Police's
nearly two-century history of storied service.
Chief Verderosa has held seemingly every consequential job in the
Capitol Police, from the fields of emergency response, to dignitary
protection, to the highest ranks of leadership.
Through it all, he has distinguished himself for his strong, steady
leadership, particularly during some of the most challenging times for
the Capitol Police force and the Congress.
That outstanding leadership was on display after the 2017
congressional baseball shooting, 2 years ago next month. Chief
Verderosa responded to that attack with courage, vision, and grace,
bringing help and healing to those affected and to our entire
congressional community.
In every day of his tenure, he has led with those same qualities,
navigating everything from mass protests, to the more than 11 million
annual visitors to the Capitol Grounds, to multiple Lying in State and
Lying in Honor ceremonies.
Chief Verderosa has earned the respect of all: the rank-and-file
officers of the Capitol Police, Members of Congress, foreign
dignitaries, and the American people.
On a personal note, as someone who benefits from the protection of
the Capitol Police every day and everywhere I go, I want to express my
gratitude to Chief Verderosa for his hard work and commitment to the
safety of all Members.
In his retirement statement, Chief Verderosa said: ``The mission of
the department is simple. We protect the legislative process.''
Chief Verderosa, thank you for your relentless dedication to
protecting the legislative process and this legislative body, ensuring
that the people's House can do the people's work. We are profoundly
grateful. We wish you well in your well-earned retirement.
Madam Chair, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California
(Mr. McCarthy), who is the Republican leader of the House.
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Chair, I thank the Speaker for yielding, and I
thank her for her words. I want to join the Speaker in thanking the
chief.
Three decades, 34 years--it is not a job; it is a way of life when
you become a police officer. Your job is a little different, and we see
it each and every day.
Think of the complexity of being a Capitol Police officer. It is not
just the safety of the women and men who serve in here; it is the
thousands of visitors who come every day. But it is also the
responsibility of keeping a government by the people, for the people,
and of the people open.
Every day we see it, and we all have felt it. It is not just
protecting us when it is inside this building. We saw it just a short
time ago on a baseball field. We are reminded of the number of Members'
lives your officers saved that day.
We are reminded of the number of times, just in a building that the
majority leader room has, of the officers giving the ultimate sacrifice
inside these Hallowed Halls to save the others.
So we thank you for your work, but, more importantly, we thank you
for the force. We thank you for all the officers.
We know last week was National Police Week. They were here in the
Capitol and throughout Washington, D.C. We know every day that we hear
the other lives that were lost protecting us throughout the Nation.
We thank you for your service, and on behalf of a very grateful
Congress, thank you for your decades of service, and we wish you all
the best in retirement.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Burgess
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 235, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 224]
AYES--192
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Radewagen
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOES--235
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
[[Page H4107]]
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Biggs
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
San Nicolas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Armstrong
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Kinzinger
Meeks
Payne
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Walker
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1642
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Stevens
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Ms. Stevens) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 418,
noes 10, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 225]
AYES--418
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Allred
Amodei
Arrington
Axne
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cline
Cloud
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davidson (OH)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Estes
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx (NC)
Frankel
Fudge
Fulcher
Gabbard
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez (TX)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TX)
Griffith
Grijalva
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Haaland
Hagedorn
Harder (CA)
Hartzler
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill (AR)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
Lamb
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lesko
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
Meadows
Meng
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Mullin
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Norcross
Norman
Norton
Nunes
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Olson
Omar
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Pence
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radewagen
Raskin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose (NY)
Rose, John W.
Rouda
Rouzer
Roy
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan
Sablan
San Nicolas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scalise
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Spanberger
Spano
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Stewart
Suozzi
Takano
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watkins
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yarmuth
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOES--10
Amash
Biggs
Ferguson
Gaetz
Green (TN)
Harris
Hern, Kevin
King (IA)
LaMalfa
McClintock
NOT VOTING--9
Armstrong
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Kinzinger
Meeks
Payne
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Walker
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1648
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Green of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Green) on
[[Page H4108]]
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 193, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 226]
AYES--235
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
San Nicolas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Steube
Stevens
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--193
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Radewagen
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--9
Armstrong
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Kinzinger
Meeks
Payne
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Walker
{time} 1654
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Barragan). There being no further amendments,
under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Jackson Lee) having assumed the chair, Ms. Barragan, Acting Chair of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
1500) to require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to meet its
statutory purpose, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House
Resolution 389, she reported the bill, as amended by that resolution,
back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted in the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. STEIL. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Steil moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1500 to the
Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 40, after line 8, insert the following:
SEC. 9. PAYMENTS TO VICTIMS FROM THE CIVIL PENALTY FUND.
Paragraph (2) of section 1017(d) of the Consumer Financial
Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5497(d)(2)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Payments to victims.--No funds from the Civil Penalty
Fund shall be made available for any purpose other than
compensating actual victims of activities for which civil
penalties have been imposed under Federal consumer financial
laws.''.
Page 40, line 9, strike ``sec. 9'' and insert ``sec. 10''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
{time} 1700
Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It
will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the
bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
Madam Speaker, the Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial
Civil Penalty Fund, into which the Bureau deposits civil penalties it
collects from wrongdoers.
Civil penalties should be used exclusively to make victims of
financial consumer crimes whole. We should track down actual victims of
fraud. However, current law allows the Bureau to use this account as a
slush fund.
We should give the money back to the victims.
This motion would put an end to the CFPB slush fund. This motion
requires the CFPB to do the right thing: Give the money to the victims.
[[Page H4109]]
The CFPB's ability to take away penalty funds and use them in
unaccountable ways is unparalleled among financial regulators.
Where does this money go?
Both the Government Accountability Office and the Federal Reserve's
Inspector General, which oversees the CFPB, found that the CFPB lacks
internal procedures. The CFPB lacks accountability. The CFPB lacks
transparency.
Where does this money go?
Let's put an end to the slush fund at the Bureau. Let's redirect
where this money belongs. Let's give the money to the victims.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today, not just as a new Member of
Congress, but as someone who has spent my career as a consumer
protection lawyer studying families pushed to the brink of financial
ruin.
I have sat all day long listening to the personal stories of families
driven to bankruptcy by predatory loans, financial scams, and unlawful
and immoral debt collectors.
I rise today as someone who has personally spoken to thousands of
families in foreclosure; as someone who has had to look into the eyes
of parents and children and tell them: ``I'm sorry, but the bank is
going to take your house.''
These are not experiences that someone can forget. I carry these
stories of California families with me every day. That is why I ran for
office. It is why I stand up for a level playing field for families.
I cannot fathom how the minority, with this amendment, is shrugging
off the devastation of the 2008 collapse.
Ten years ago, in 2009, Orange County was coming off a year when home
prices fell 30 percent. Imagine being a family planning for retirement
and, all of a sudden, your primary source of security is gone.
Ten years ago, in May 2009, California had an unemployment rate of 11
percent.
Do Members of this body not remember how many of our friends and
neighbors spent sleepless nights wondering if they could keep a roof
over their heads?
The 2008 economic collapse cast a long shadow. One study from the CDC
found that suicides, spurred by evictions and foreclosures, doubled
between 2005 and 2010. Those are going to be difficult victims to
locate.
Because of this human tragedy, Congress acted and created the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency whose sole focus is to
ensure that financial services companies and Wall Street megabanks
could not again cheat families and tank our economy.
We created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, even though
special interests were spending $3 million a day to defeat it. Think
about it; an industry so wealthy that even in its collapse, they had
$40 million to spend on lobbyists.
Now these same special interests are, again, attacking the CFPB. This
amendment is just another effort by the same Members who voted against
the CFPB's very creation to limit the agency's effectiveness.
In my nearly 2 decades as a consumer advocate, I have never met a
single American, Democrat, Republican, or Independent, who likes being
cheated. If the Members today were listening to their constituents, and
not special interests, they would support the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau.
I am a proud capitalist, and it is in that deep belief in healthy and
strong markets, that I rise today in opposition to this motion to
recommit.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 231, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 227]
AYES--191
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOES--231
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
[[Page H4110]]
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Armstrong
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Kinzinger
Meeks
Payne
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Walker
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1712
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 191, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 228]
AYES--231
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--191
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--9
Armstrong
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Kinzinger
Meeks
Payne
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Walker
{time} 1724
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table
____________________