[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 58 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2335-H2343]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARDS ACT


                             general leave

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
submit extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 1195, to amend the 
Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to establish advisory boards, 
and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pittenger). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 200 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. 1195.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1637


                     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. 1195) to amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to 
establish advisory boards, and for other purposes, with Mr. Duncan of 
Tennessee 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.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, today the House considers H.R. 1195, 
the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act. This 
bill is essential to provide small businesses a voice in the regulatory 
process and to help ensure community banks and credit unions continue 
to have a voice at the CFPB going forward.
  Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, yet our regulatory 
system silences these hard-working Americans. Regulations meant for 
large corporations trickle down and have disproportionate impacts on 
Main Street businesses. We must remember that these businesses are, by 
and large, owned and operated by our neighbors and friends. They 
represent a life's work and a vision of the American Dream.
  The CFPB was created to protect consumers in the financial 
marketplace, and it would seem impossible to responsibly undertake this 
endeavor of protecting the American consumer without consulting 
institutions that are most closely associated with the American 
consumer: small businesses and community financial institutions.
  H.R. 1195 is a straightforward and bipartisan piece of legislation. 
It would amend the Dodd-Frank Act to create a small business advisory 
board to advise the CFPB. This bill would also codify two other 
advisory committees created by Director Cordray: the Credit Union 
Advisory Council and the Community Bank Advisory Council.

[[Page H2336]]

  Under H.R. 1195, each board or council would advise the CFPB 
regarding concerns of its established membership. The Director of the 
CFPB would be required to appoint at least 15, but not more than 20, 
members to each board or council.
  This bill is publicly supported by the following organizations: the 
Credit Union National Association, the National Association of Federal 
Credit Unions, the Texas Land Title Association, the American Land 
Title Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Independent 
Community Bankers of America.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a truly a commonsense and bipartisan bill. Last 
Congress, an identical piece of legislation passed the House by voice 
vote. This Congress, H.R. 1195 passed out of the committee by a vote of 
53-5. The ranking member, who is with us today, has voted for this bill 
two times, yet we find ourselves here today debating the merits of 
providing a voice for small businesses and community financial 
institutions.
  This week, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was questioned 
about the health of American businesses. She said she was ``surprised'' 
to learn that small businesses were struggling.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1195 is just one small and commonsense step to 
providing a voice for our small businesses and community financial 
institutions in the regulatory process. It helps ensure that 
politicians and Washington bureaucrats aren't surprised to learn of the 
plight and struggles of these Main Street pillars. It gives these hard-
working Americans a voice and a seat at the table.
  Now, Democrats are going to say that our disagreement is with how the 
bill is paid for. Well, let me address that for a minute.
  House rules require that any increase in mandatory spending be offset 
with a reduction in mandatory spending elsewhere. The CBO says H.R. 
1195 will cost $9 million, in total, over the next 10 years. 
Republicans simply reduced the maximum amount that the CFPB can draw 
from the Fed over the same 10-year period to offset this cost.
  To put this into perspective, the CFPB, by statute, can draw 
approximately $6.7 billion over the next 10 years. This offset that we 
are debating today amounts to 0.1 percent of this amount. If Democrats 
really want to claim that a 0.1 percent reduction in the $6.7 billion 
that CFPB can spend over the next decade really threatens the Bureau's 
mission, perhaps it is time to examine the Bureau's current spending 
practices. I am quite confident that we can debate spending problems at 
the CFPB for the rest of the afternoon, should we need to.
  Just to reiterate, H.R. 1195 will not cut spending on consumer 
protection. Let me repeat that. Just to reiterate, H.R. 1195 will not 
cut spending on consumer protection. It will provide a voice for small 
businesses.
  Let's help our small businesses succeed. Let's help Main Street 
prosper, and let's vote today to move H.R. 1195 forward.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want the Members of the House to pay very close 
attention to this bill today because this bill represents tricks and 
games in ways that people don't often understand. But this is a prime 
example of how you take a good idea and mess it up. So I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 1195, a measure that is, again, a shining example of 
how far Republicans will go to squander compromise, consensus, and good 
faith to advance an ideological anticonsumer agenda.
  The bill before us today is just the latest instance of Financial 
Services Committee Republicans snatching defeat from the jaws of 
victory.

                              {time}  1645

  It makes clear their commitment to do all they can to undercut the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Let me say that again. They have 
spent so much time--amendment after amendment, attempt after attempt--
to try and gut and dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
and they have gone so far with this bill to undermine our efforts to be 
of assistance to small businesses and include them in a stronger 
advisory way to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because they 
hate the Bureau so much.
  Well, again, they do all they can to undercut this Bureau, an agency 
with an extraordinary record of success protecting consumers, reining 
in bad actors, and ensuring that we do not return to the predatory 
practices that put this Nation on the verge of economic collapse less 
than 10 years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, as originally written, H.R. 1195 was a good and decent 
measure offered by my colleague, Mr. Heck from Washington State, and, 
again, I applaud him for his leadership. The straightforward proposal 
offered by Mr. Heck would codify two of the advisory boards that the 
CFPB voluntarily created related to community banks and credit unions, 
while also creating a new small business advisory board for small 
businesses. Along with many other requirements of the Bureau, these 
boards create additional avenues for input from the entities that they 
have been given the power to regulate under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform Act.
  So here is what we are talking about. The Bureau itself had created a 
number of advisory committees. Mr. Heck saw room for strengthening the 
ability of small businesses to have an advisory role, and so he created 
this bill. But, because, again, my friends on the opposite side of the 
aisle, the Republicans, hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
so much, they decided that they were going to play tricks and games and 
create an opportunity to reduce the funding so they could try and limit 
the Bureau's ability to do its work by adding all of these amendments. 
I am going to point out the tricks of these amendments as we go along 
here today.
  So in a rare show of bipartisanship, the Financial Services Committee 
passed H.R. 1195 by a vote of 53-5. Many of my Democratic colleagues 
supported the proposal, just as we have supported the many efforts of 
the CFPB to be responsive to the unique needs of small businesses, 
community banks, and credit unions. But, as usual, that bipartisanship 
was short-lived, as Chairman Hensarling added an amendment designed to 
pay for this measure by undermining the CFPB's authority and 
independent funding.
  I find it ironic that this House has determined now is the time to 
offset the cost of legislation. Don't forget, we have the pay-for kings 
and queens on that side of the aisle. They said, they worked for, and 
they made a big issue that everything must be paid for, except when 
they decide to try and slip something in that they don't pay for. And 
they have done that on this floor with some of these bills that we will 
be talking about.
  But with this bill, they decided a new kind of trick; and that is, 
let's find a way to take it from the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau because not only will this pay for it, but this will reduce 
their ability to do their job paying for other things.
  Just last week, the House majority voted to repeal the estate tax 
without paying for it at a staggering cost of $269 billion. At a time 
when far too many Americans are struggling with stagnant wages and 
historic income inequality, my Republican counterparts seem all too 
willing to add to the Nation's deficit in order to pass giveaways for 
the richest 0.2 percent of Americans.
  Yet when it comes to a reasonable bill to enhance the voice of small 
businesses, community banks, and credit unions, which they claim to 
care so much about, the Republicans insist that the only way to pass 
the legislation is by cutting the CFPB--an agency that 84 percent of 
small-business owners support, according to polling from the small-
business majority.
  The truth of the matter is that, after several years of attempting to 
cap CFPB funding, the Republicans have chosen to transform Mr. Heck's 
bill into a vehicle to make drastic cuts to the CFPB's budget.
  While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim 
otherwise, the CFPB itself estimates Chairman Hensarling's poison pill 
amendment will cut its budget by about $45 million over the next 5 
years and by $100 million over the next 10 years, capping it 
substantially less than the amount that they are currently able to 
request.

[[Page H2337]]

That means this vote is one to weaken an agency with the explicit 
mission of standing up for consumers and taxpayers who have been 
subject to the deceptive practices of unscrupulous corporations.
  The chairman's amendment guarantees that this otherwise bipartisan 
proposal will never become law, garnering significant opposition in the 
Senate and a veto threat from the Obama administration, who said this 
measure was ``solely intended to impede the CFPB's ability to carry out 
its mission of protecting consumers in the financial markets,'' and 
further, they said, ``could result in, among other things, undermining 
critical protections for families from abusive and predatory financial 
products.''
  Mr. Chairman, Republicans could have chosen any number of offsets to 
account for the cost of this proposal or, as they have done so many 
times before, waive their CutGo rules. Make no mistake about the intent 
of the Hensarling amendment. It is designed to back Democrats into a 
corner by attaching an unacceptable provision cutting CFPB's budget to 
a proposal that Democrats supported in committee.
  The important work of the CFPB will not be undermined on our watch, 
and this backdoor attempt to cut its budget sets a dangerous precedent 
of using bipartisan bills as a way to sneak through measures that 
undermine the Bureau's independence and its ability to protect 
consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, we don't understand on this side of the aisle why it is 
that our Republican friends hate the CFPB so much and have done so much 
to undermine them, to undercut them, and to try to reduce their 
funding. They know as well as we know that prior to the establishment 
of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that we put into Dodd-
Frank's reforms, consumers had no protections in the Government of the 
United States of America. Our regulatory agencies were not doing their 
jobs.
  They say they were focused on safety and soundness. But who was 
working for the consumers? Nobody.
  And so now we have a Bureau working for the consumers that is doing a 
wonderful job. And here we have every attempt that you can dream of, 
every scheme that you can think of, being levied by our friends on the 
opposite side of the aisle because they want to kill the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau. As I have said, this is not going to 
happen on our watch. They can try any trick that they want. We are on 
to it.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the ranking member 
that the Republicans, during the Rules Committee hearing, asked if they 
had a pay-for that they would like to offer in substitute for that, and 
they chose not to. So I think what we are hearing is that the minority 
is choosing to say that small businesses in this country aren't worth 
$9 million. And what $9 million is is, in 3 minutes, that will be the 
increase in our national debt in this country. So Republicans do take 
our deficit seriously, and we take the rules of this House seriously 
because the rules of the House require that when you have an increase 
in mandatory spending, you have to have an offset for that. What 
Republicans were trying to do is follow the rules of the House.

  It is now my pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to yield as much time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), one of 
the primary sponsors of this legislation.
  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I do rise today in support of H.R. 1195, 
the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act. The 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau continues to issue regulations 
designed for massive, systemic-risk financial institutions without 
considering how those same rules harm small businesses, community 
banks, and credit unions.
  That is why my good friend and colleague, Congressman Denny Heck, 
joined with me to establish a small business advisory board within the 
CFPB. The goal is simple: to advise and consult with the CFPB on how 
any proposed regulations would impact the small-business community. 
Members of the small business advisory board must represent a small 
business dealing with financial services products. The legislation also 
encourages the CFPB Director to ensure participation of women- and 
minority-owned small businesses when appointing members to the board.
  H.R. 1195 also makes permanent the Credit Union Advisory Council and 
the Community Bank Advisory Council, both of which are currently 
voluntary and can be eliminated at any time at the discretion of the 
CFPB Director.
  Credit unions and community banks are struggling under enormous 
compliance burdens designed for too-big-to-fail banks. They are hiring 
compliance officers instead of loan officers, meaning less access to 
capital for small businesses to grow and to create jobs.
  Clear and open communication between the CFPB, small businesses, 
community banks, and credit unions will improve rulemaking and lead to 
better outcomes for consumers.
  H.R. 1195 is supported by the Credit Union National Association, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Land Title Association, and the 
independent community bankers association. This legislation also enjoys 
strong bipartisan support, having passed out of the Financial Services 
Committee by a vote of 53-5.
  Allow me a moment to address the concern that was raised by the 
ranking member and other Democrat colleagues in their objection to how 
we propose to pay for the advisory boards. The CBO estimates this 
legislation will cost taxpayers $9 million over a 10-year period. In 
those same years, the CFPB will have access to $6.7 billion in 
operating funds.
  We propose making a very small reduction--just 0.1 percent--in the 
amount the CFPB is allowed to draw, which will pay for the advisory 
boards without additional cost to taxpayers. If the CFPB can't find $9 
million in savings over 10 years out of a total potential draw of $6.7 
billion, then they need another advisory board of small-business owners 
who will travel to D.C. and teach the CFPB how to budget.
  Mr. Chairman, our economy is growing today at a tepid pace of 2.2 
percent. We have in reality about 12 percent unemployment when you 
consider the underemployed and when you consider those who have given 
up. Small banks and other lending institutions are under enormous 
compliance restrictions and guidelines, the same as the major banks. 
They need a voice at the table. We need opportunity. We need people to 
be able to expand their businesses, and yet they can't get capital 
through these small banking lending institutions.
  That is what this bill is all about. It is all about jobs. It is all 
about families and people's lives and their futures.
  The CFPB is supposed to be focused on protecting consumers, not 
protecting bureaucratic fiefdoms and perks. Our commonsense, bipartisan 
legislation helps focus the CFPB on their sole, core mission of 
benefiting consumers.
  Small businesses create jobs. Bureaucrats create rules. Please join 
me in supporting H.R. 1195 so that heavyhanded D.C. regulators are 
forced to take time to consider how their burdensome and unnecessary 
regulations negatively impact small business and make necessary 
adjustments to protect consumers while allowing small businesses, 
credit unions, and community banks to help grow the economy and create 
good-paying jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck). He is the next gentleman that 
you are going to hear from this side of the aisle. He is the author of 
the legislation that certainly would have given small businesses a seat 
at the table of the CFPB. He worked very hard on this bill, and he is 
one of those persons on our committee who reaches across the aisle all 
the time on bipartisan efforts.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, in a gesture of reaching across 
the aisle, let us be clear that prior to this bill's arrival at the 
Rules Committee, it was Mr. Pittenger and myself who worked in a 
collaborative and in a bipartisan way, hard for nearly the last 2 
years, to get it to this point where we might have an opportunity to 
vote upon it.
  I cannot exaggerate to you how saddened I am, how much I regret, and

[[Page H2338]]

how surreal I find it that I stand here now and ask my colleagues to 
please vote ``no'' against my bill, oppose the bill that I have worked 
so hard on for nearly 2 years.
  Its content, prior to its arrival in Rules, had been laid out 
commonsensically: codify the Credit Union Advisory Council; codify the 
Small Community Bank Advisory Council; and create a nonbank advisory 
board for the appraisers, the title insurers, the real estate agents, 
escrow company, all people that the Bureau regulates and with whom they 
should have an iterative conversation going with respect to the 
proposed regulations.
  It wasn't easy getting here even before Rules. There was a lot of 
back and forth, a lot of compromising along the way. We had to allay 
fears from the consumer groups that this was a Trojan horse. We 
accepted amendments; we broadened the bill; we did a lot of things 
together, but with a collaborative spirit and the support of the 
ranking member, we did pass the bill out of committee 53-5, and then a 
torch was put to it. A torch was put to it.
  As has been described, the bill now includes a so-called pay-for 
amendment to lower the cap of available funds to CFPB by $45 million by 
the year 2020 and $100 million by the year 2025. It is bad policy; it 
is bad precedent, and it is completely unnecessary.
  The amendment was inserted under color of being a pay-for. Well, I 
have got a couple problems with that. The first is obvious. CBO 
projection is $9 million. We are talking about a cap that cost $45 
million and $100 million. It is a multiple of it--or $75 million to 
$100 million by last count.
  The second, of course, is the fact about how the rule is applied, 
which has been heralded here, and, in fact, genuflected as an important 
rule to provide for pay-fors when there are expenditures caused by 
proposed legislation.
  The motivation is, frankly, inscrutable to me. I honestly don't know 
how you do it with a straight face. Literally, a matter of hours ago, 
voting for $300 billion, with a ``b,'' with no PAYGO or pay-for and to 
stand up here and say, Well, we absolutely have to have a pay-for for 
$9 million over 10 years, but $300 billion was okay, I say sincerely: I 
don't know how you do that with a straight face.
  Frankly, there is so much about this that I find surreal. Much in the 
debate was about questioned architectural practices by the agency. The 
truth of the matter is GSA took over construction, what, 2-plus years 
ago? If that is the issue, write an amendment to the GSA budget; don't 
punish CFPB.
  It has been argued that this funding is unique; therefore, it has to 
be curtailed, unrelated to the underlying purpose of the bill. Maybe 
that is true. Check the history. It was a Republican who wanted it 
funded by the Fed--Mr. Shelby, I believe. That may be unique in that 
way.
  It has been suggested CFPB is nonbudgeted--again, unrelated to the 
underlying purpose of the bill. Well, guess what, so is every other 
bank, regulator, agency in the Federal Government: the FDIC, the OCC, 
the Fed itself, FHFA, and NCUA. They are all nonbudgeted; but, no, 
let's pick this one out of the pack and punish it.
  There is so much about this that is surreal to me. I believe that 
there is a bit of a trial under way here today, and we are laying a 
marker down on April 21 on whether or not we are actually going to be 
able to function in a bipartisan way. We did. It took hard work, 18-
plus months with Mr. Pittenger, 53-5 in committee; and now, as I say, 
we are putting a torch to it.
  We are going to decide. This is a test. Are we going to use the CFPB 
as a piggybank to pay for all other manner of agendas? Are we going to 
ask them to swallow this poison pill in the goal of getting a 
bipartisan bill passed?
  It is a test of whether or not we are going to do that. It is an 
experiment to see how radically--and it is radical--we can change bills 
and still keep ``yes'' votes in the name of consistency, although there 
is certainly no consistency between the pay-fors provided in this 
proposed legislation and that for legislation that passed last week.
  By the way, in addition to the estate tax and the sales and use tax 
totalling over $300 billion, we did two CFPB bills last week, too. 
Nobody offered pay-fors on those, so it isn't consistent.
  This is surreal, standing here, asking you to oppose the bill that I 
have worked so hard on with Mr. Pittenger. It is surreal. I am reminded 
of my favorite passage in ``Through the Looking Glass.''

       If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. 
     Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what 
     it isn't. And contrariwise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what 
     it wouldn't be, it would. You see?

  This is surreal; but I say my strongest assertion that what is the 
most sad about this--and I have said this in Rules, and I am going to 
say it now--you know, you know you are killing this bill.
  You are killing it and evidently don't care, 18 months of hard work 
out the window to do something good and worthwhile, but you know you 
are killing the bill. You know you are killing it because you are not 
passing here veto-proof; and the administration has, as the ranking 
member suggested, already issued the Statement of Administration 
Policy.
  I will go one further. This bill will never see the light of day in 
the United States Senate. You are killing the bill that we worked on 
for 2 years to help nonbank businesses have a better structured 
institutionalized relationship, which is as it should be, and you are 
doing it by inconsistently applying a House rule for which you grant 
waivers left and right when you were of a mind.
  This is good legislation. My friend from North Carolina has worked 
hard. Frankly--and I will say it--he deserves better than this. This 
bill deserves better than this. The businesses that are regulated by 
CFPB deserve better than this, than to kill this bill, which is what 
you are assuredly doing.
  Vote ``no'' on my bill.
  The CHAIR. The Chair reminds Members to direct their remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I just want to remind him that 
the GSA only took over the management of the project, not the budget, 
so GSA doesn't have control over this entity's budget.
  I think the thing that is troubling to me is my colleagues are 
talking about a drastic cut. You have got an entity that can draw $6.7 
billion over a 10-year period, and $7 million is a drastic cut.
  Basically, the CBO says that this bill now is revenue neutral, and 
these numbers that are coming of $45 million, those are CFPB's numbers, 
but these are the nonpartisan CBO numbers.
  I think one of the things we have to do is we have to deal in the 
facts and reality here, and this is a very small amount of money.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Dold).
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bureau of Consumer 
Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act.
  I want to thank my friend from North Carolina for his work, and I 
want to thank my friend from Washington for his work as well on what 
really should be a bipartisan bill. Honestly, I think the American 
public, Mr. Chairman, will take a look at what is happening here on the 
floor and are going to be baffled by it as well.
  As a small-business owner, let me just tell you, Mr. Chairman, there 
are nearly 29 million small businesses in our Nation; 99 percent of all 
employer firms in the United States are considered small businesses; 
over 56 million Americans work in these small businesses; and two-
thirds of all net new jobs.
  Last I checked, the labor force participation rate is near a three-
decade low, so the net new jobs that we are looking for are created by 
small business. Two-thirds are created by small business.
  This is a bill that would basically say to the CFPB: we want you to 
have a small business advisory board.
  With all of the businesses that are out there, the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, an agency in Washington that sets the rules and 
regulations with far-reaching impacts into our economy, completely 
fails to ensure that small businesses have a permanent seat at the 
table when the CFPB is making decisions, making decisions that impact 
the lives of millions of Americans and businesses across the land.

[[Page H2339]]

  This is a commonsense piece of legislation. If we are going to talk 
about small businesses, my goodness, please, let's talk about having 
small business representation at the table.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of decisions that get made in this 
Chamber. There are a lot of decisions that get made in Washington. I 
have to tell you, one of the things that I try to do is I try to 
surround myself with people that it impacts.
  If we are going to talk about health care, I try to surround myself 
with physicians and patients and nurses, to try to get their input in 
terms of how this bill or how a bill that comes to the floor would 
impact them. Surround yourself with people that might know more about a 
topic than you do; educate yourself.
  The fact that the CFPB doesn't already have a small business advisory 
board or small business voice at the table is unacceptable--
unacceptable in today's day and age.
  This is something that we need to support. Frankly, I want it to be a 
bipartisan bill. I think the underlying substance of it is bipartisan, 
and only at the last minute are we talking about not making this a 
bipartisan bill over the pay-for.
  Mr. Chairman, I want you to think about this for a second as a 
business that gets regulated time and again. They don't come with a 
pay-for there. Basically, they say: this is what we need you to do, and 
you find a way to pay for it.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DOLD. This body is, in essence, saying to the CFPB, Mr. Chairman, 
to the CFPB and Director Cordray, we are saying: please get small 
business input into what you are thinking.
  In order to do that, the dollars that are out there, Mr. Chairman, 
are talking about trying to fly people in, small businesses in. That is 
where the dollars are coming from.
  We think the CBO has scored this at about $9 million out of nearly a 
$7 billion budget over 10 years. Surely, this can't be the thing that 
is killing the bill. There has got to be something bigger that is 
killing the bill because, frankly, the American public, Mr. Chairman, 
are going to roll their eyes and say: you have got to be kidding me.
  We are going to disregard small businesses from being able to come in 
and weigh in on something that is going to drastically impact the 
economy because they don't want to take what could potentially be $9 
million in airfare and other things to try to make sure they can get 
the small business advisory board to come to Washington.
  If we find that there is a problem, I will be the first one to reach 
across the aisle to say we need to fix this. This is a problem that we 
need to solve, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to support this bill to get small businesses engaged.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I first need to remind 
the gentleman from Illinois that Mr. Heck worked hard to put small 
business advisory at the table and to codify the other businesses that 
the CFPB had already put at the table. They snatched it right away from 
the table. They took away small business.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), who 
is the cochair of the Progressive Caucus and a member of the Financial 
Services Committee.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. ELLISON. I would like to thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just remind my colleagues that, yes, the bill 
was bipartisan, but the amendment was not. The amendment, which was 
rigidly partisan, is what has put this good idea in a space of being 
very partisan on this House floor.
  You would have thought that after the hard work that Mr. Heck had put 
into this bill that maybe somebody would have listened to him and would 
have said, ``Mr. Heck, you have put your time in on this bill. We are 
not going to do this to your bill. We are going to stick with that 
bipartisanship that we had all along,'' but that kind of consideration 
has gone missing in this place.
  The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that the Republican leadership has 
brought us another bill in a long series of bills to weaken the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and no small-business person who 
is listening to this debate should be bamboozled, tricked, or led 
astray in believing that the rhetoric on this floor is about helping 
them. The fact is that a lot of small-business people are protected by 
predatory lenders that the CFPB stops. A lot of small-business people 
open their businesses with a credit card. They rely on the CFPB to keep 
the predation away from them. They, in fact, are the beneficiaries of 
the work of the CFPB's.
  All of these bills to attack the CFPB harm the American people. These 
bills make it easier to steer customers into costly loans that strip 
their wealth and limit their economic mobility. These bills divert CFPB 
resources from protecting consumers to costly, unnecessary, 
bureaucratic activities.
  Last week, we had a bill to repeal the CFPB rules that protect buyers 
of manufactured homes from what had been before Dodd-Frank a predatory 
market. Enough Democrats voted ``no'' on H.R. 650 to sustain the 
President's veto. That is a good thing. We should not remove consumer 
protections for high-cost loans that are targeted at buyers of 
manufactured homes. Also last week, the GOP brought another bill which 
would weaken the CFPB protections against controlled business 
arrangements in real estate transactions.
  Today, the Republican majority considers what is a good idea. H.R. 
1195 would require the CFPB to establish a small business advisory 
council. It is a pretty fair idea. You could argue that it is already 
there, but if you don't believe it is, it is not at all a highly 
objectionable bill. In fact, it has merit. What is wrong with a little 
bit more input from small business? That is a good thing. The fact of 
the matter is that it is a Trojan horse that is being used to attack 
the CFPB all over again.
  My question is this: Why would you want to destroy an organization 
that has identified $5.3 billion, which is the approximate amount of 
relief to consumers ordered by the CFPB enforcement actions? It is $5.3 
billion that hard-working Americans have saved from predatory lenders. 
Why in the world, unless you favor predation in financial markets, 
would you be against the CFPB? There are 15 million consumers who 
receive relief because of the CFPB, and I hope they let their voices be 
heard all across the United States against these people who 
relentlessly try to rip down the CFPB. $208 million is the amount of 
money that has been ordered to be paid in civil penalties as a result 
of CFPB's enforcement actions against people who do not help the market 
but who distort the market.
  The CFPB helps business because good, honest, decent businesses--and 
America is full of them, the ones that play by the rules--get harmed 
when a cheater goes without being punished. When a business that cuts 
corners and abuses consumers does not get eliminated from the market or 
punished because of its bad behavior, it means that playing by the 
rules is no longer profitable or the thing to do. The CFPB makes the 
market work as it should.
  There were 145 banks and credit unions under the CFPB's supervisory 
authority as of June 2014. That is a good thing. There are 30 million 
consumers with debts in collection, and larger debt collection 
companies are now under Federal supervision for the first time because 
of the CFPB. The CFPB is a good institution. Vote ``no'' on this Trojan 
horse bill.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I am delighted to hear that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are concerned about $9 million. I wish they had been as concerned 
when we had hearings and we found out that the CFPB is going to spend 
$216 million on the luxury renovations of a building that they do not 
own and when we found out that the taxpayers are also going to get to 
fund a two-story waterfall that falls into sunken gardens and that has 
a four-story glass staircase. How about the spending of $14 million on 
marketing and advertising? How about the $61.3 million they spent on 
management consulting fees?

[[Page H2340]]

  It should be an affront to small businesses around the country that 
an organization that can't control its spending is being asked not to 
spend an additional $9 million so that small businesses can have a 
voice at the table.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Pittenger).
  Mr. PITTENGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, really what we are talking about are the merits of 
entitling this enormous agency, the largest in the history of this 
country, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to be accountable to 
nobody, not to be accountable to the executive branch and not to be 
accountable to the Congress. They are able to do whatever they want to 
do. They make all of their own rules. They determine the winners, and 
they determine the losers. They have zero accountability.
  Let's discuss their funding of $6.7 billion over a 10-year period. 
Yes, what we are talking about is an offset to pay for an advisory 
board to protect small business--$9 million. That is 0.1 percent. Let's 
look at the priorities then of the CFPB's.
  Truly, would any of us lease a building, not own it, and spend $260 
million on renovations? That is more per square foot than of any luxury 
hotel in Las Vegas.
  Yes, how about a two-story waterfall into a sunken garden? How 
magnificent. Is that more important than an advisory board that is for 
small business to ensure that we can create jobs?
  How about a green roof and a four-story glass staircase? It costs 
millions. Is that more important than an advisory board for small 
business?
  How about a tree bosk and a timber porch--how lovely--so that 
employees can have a place of restful contemplation and meditation? Do 
bureaucrats really need a serene place to rest while they are on the 
job? Are they that concerned about their plight?
  My goodness. Here are struggling, hardworking, tax-paying Americans 
who are trying to build their businesses, who are trying to find 
capital, who are looking to community banks that are under siege with 
burdensome regulations. It is the same as the major banks. This isn't 
right. This makes no sense. This is not fair. We need to get priority 
where priority is due.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). She serves on the Financial 
Services Committee and is a strong supporter of the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau's.

  Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, Madam Ranking Member.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1195 and not because I 
don't think it is a wonderful idea that Mr. Heck has come up with, 
along with his colleague from the Republican side, for a small business 
advisory panel within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  Prior to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we had example, 
after example, after example of Wall Street's preying on consumers and 
treating working class Americans just like an ATM in order to feather 
their bonuses; but here, today, we find yet another not so veiled 
attempt to defund the CFPB.
  I guess I could take the PAYGO rules a little bit more seriously if 
just last week we had not repealed the estate tax to the tune of $270 
billion for the 6,000 wealthiest Americans. It is a tax from which only 
6,000 people will benefit. I am certainly not looking for a pay-for. I 
am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the notion that we have got to 
offset this $9 million for the CFPB. As has been mentioned, the CFPB 
has returned $5.3 billion to more than 15 million consumers who have 
been harmed by financial fraud, and I think PAYGO is just more of a 
convenient excuse to cut the CFPB than an actual principle that we 
follow here.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for American consumers. Oppose these 
attempts to attack the CFPB and to expose our constituents to these 
emboldened financial fraud centers. Let's reject H.R. 1195.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on both sides.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentlewoman from California has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to this floor opposed to this version of H.R. 
1195, and as I have listened to the debate, I have become even more 
opposed to the legislation. Most fifth graders know a Trojan horse when 
they see one, and today's legislation is, indeed, a Trojan horse. Let 
me tell you why.
  Once again, Republicans are trying to roll back and limit consumer 
protections. Once again, they are attacking the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau by adding burdensome legislation that replicates what 
the Bureau is already doing and by stripping funding from the CFPB in 
future years. Let's remember that this was the agency that was created 
to prevent the very abusive practices that led to the 2008 financial 
crisis; yet here they go, pretending to help small businesses and 
community banks and credit unions but are gutting the agency that is 
responsible for protecting consumers.
  Just 6 years ago, we saw the fallout of the financial crisis right in 
my district in Prince George's County and in Baltimore City, where 
homeowners lost their homes. It was Black and Latino families who 
suffered the most in Prince George's County and Baltimore City, and it 
is not over for us. Many of those homeowners were small-business 
owners, and they used their homes to leverage their businesses. They 
can't do that anymore because they are still underwater and because the 
rules are still set against them.
  We are still in crisis, and we need a robust, unencumbered, 
unburdened Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect consumers, 
homeowners, and small businesses that are still struggling and are 
vulnerable. We need a robust lifeline CFPB as our credit unions and 
community banks are struggling. They need real relief that is hidden 
behind this Trojan horse legislation.
  Many of my Republican colleagues have long opposed the CFPB, and they 
have long sought to dismantle it. This legislation is no different, and 
it needs to be defeated. If they want bipartisan legislation, we need 
to start all over again and do something that really is in the interest 
of consumers.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I think that we have done a very good job on this side of the aisle 
of exposing what is happening on the opposite side of the aisle as 
simply an attempt to try and gut and demean the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.

                              {time}  1730

  Let me just deal with this argument that they made about the cost of 
renovation for the CFPB.
  Bloomberg Businessweek, in an article, entitled, ``Republican Attacks 
on a CFPB Office Renovation Don't Add Up,'' found that Republicans took 
liberties with their math. Using data from a report prepared by the 
CFPB's inspector general, Bloomberg found that renovation would only 
cost $421 per square foot, if you inflate the price by including rental 
of temporary space and paying for movers, compared to the GOP claim of 
$590. Actual construction costs are only $283 per square foot, half of 
what the Republicans claim.
  However, and I think this is very interesting, there is one very 
expensive renovation happening in Washington, D.C., right now. It is 
the Cannon House Office Building, which houses Members and committees 
of the House of Representatives. All end costs for the renovation of 
the Cannon Building approved by Speaker Boehner will be $753 million, 
or $911 per square foot, much pricier than the Bellagio or the Burj 
Khalifa. If we want to talk about what is high cost, take a look at 
ourselves right here in Congress for what we are doing.
  Having said that, I just wonder why the continued attempts on the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Maybe it is because somebody else 
is being protected.
  Let's look at some of the work of the Bureau: a January 2015 
settlement

[[Page H2341]]

against J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo for $35.7 million after uncovering 
a scheme where loan officers illegally referred customers to affiliated 
businesses in exchange for cash and marketing services.
  Look at a July 2014 settlement against Rome Finance for $92 million 
for a predatory lending scheme that targeted servicemembers by hiding 
finance charges, withholding information from billing statements, and 
engaging in illegal debt collection practices.
  Another settlement from July 2014 against payday lender ACE Cash 
Express for $10 million for intentionally trapping consumers in a cycle 
of debt, a practice formalized in their employee training materials, as 
well as illegal debt collection practices, including harassment.
  I could go on and on and on how the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau has taken on some of the biggest corporations, the biggest 
businesses in this country to protect consumers. What is it you are 
afraid of? What is it you are worried about? Why are you trying to kill 
the agency that is protecting consumers rather than applauding them for 
making sure that the consumers don't continue to be taken advantage of 
the way they were prior to 2008 when we didn't have any consumer 
protection? I ask you to question yourselves about why you hate the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so much.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I have read H.R. 1195. Let me tell you what it doesn't do first.
  It doesn't shut down the CFPB. It doesn't keep the Bureau from 
carrying out its mission of consumer protection--so all of those things 
that the other side has been saying that the CFPB has been doing in a 
positive way, they can continue to do that--nor will the employees of 
CFPB have to take a pay cut, nor will the construction project and the 
other consulting fees that they keep passing out be impacted in any 
way.
  So the charge on the other side that somehow Republicans are trying 
to kill CFPB, I think you need to go back and read the bill. The bill 
doesn't say anything about killing the CFPB.
  What does H.R. 1195 do? It provides a voice for small businesses in 
this country, the number one job creators in America, the people that 
are day in and day out on the front line in our communities. It allows 
them to have a voice with an agency that has a huge impact on the 
future of this country. It also codifies and makes sure that community 
banks and credit unions have a voice at the table in the future.
  One of the bill's sponsors said he was sad. I am sad. I am sad that 
people today are on this floor arguing that paying for a program that 
will provide a voice for our small businesses is a point of contention, 
that somehow we are not acting in a bipartisan way. This is a 
bipartisan bill. It passed by voice vote in the last Congress. It 
passed overwhelmingly, I think 55-5, in the Committee on Financial 
Services just a week ago.
  I think we have to focus on what this bill does. This bill does make 
sure that small businesses have a voice moving forward.
  If we have a government that doesn't listen to the people, then we do 
not have good government. So this bill is about good government. It is 
about saying to the American people: Hey, the bureaucrats may not have 
all the answers, so it is good to bring the people that have been out 
there that are running businesses that have some expertise in those 
areas that this agency is trying to regulate and set precedence for, it 
is good for government to listen to the people.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to pass and vote for H.R. 
1195.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, as originally introduced, H.R. 1195 was that 
rare piece of legislation with bipartisan support. It supported the 
simple proposition that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 
could benefit from the guidance of advisory councils comprised of 
representatives from small businesses, credit unions, and community 
banks.
   As introduced, the legislation would have required the CFPB to hear 
from small business representatives regarding the impact of proposed 
rules on financial products used by consumers for family and household 
purposes. The bill also encouraged the CFPB to ensure the participation 
of credits unions and community banks that serve traditionally 
underserved communities.
   The CFPB--and all relevant government agencies--should continue to 
focus on expanding banking opportunities in underserved communities, 
which are too often subjected to the worst forms of predatory financial 
practices.
   According to the Corporation for Enterprise Development, my hometown 
of Baltimore, Maryland, is one of the top ten unbanked large cities in 
the country--13.9 percent of residents have no checking or savings 
account, and more than one in four residents is underbanked. Too many 
of these folks rely on alternative financial services like check-
cashing stores, rent-to-own agreements, or pawnshops.
   While Maryland has instituted a 33 percent usury cap and storefront 
payday lending operations do not exist in the state, Maryland residents 
with small-dollar credit needs have continued to turn to on-line 
lenders--lenders that are too often perpetrating fraudulent and abusive 
practices.
   But this does not need to be the reality in Baltimore or any 
American city.
   According to the Urban Institute, the small-dollar credit market in 
the United States reached approximately $21.4 billion in 2012. Credit 
unions and community banks across the country have begun to tap into 
this market by experimenting with small-dollar, short-term loans that 
help consumers stretch their monthly budgets or pay for emergency 
expenses without trapping them in a cycle of debt.
   The CFPB has taken a critical first step toward reforming the small-
dollar industry by releasing proposals for a potential rule that would 
require short-term lenders to either ensure borrowers have the ability 
to repay their loans or to provide affordable repayment plans. This is 
why I was so disappointed by a recent amendment to H.R. 1195 from the 
Rules Committee that would pay for the new advisory councils the bill 
would create by capping or reducing the CFPB budget by $45 million over 
five years and $100 million over ten years.
   In contrast, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the 
new councils would cost only $9 million over ten years--confirming that 
the new amendment is nothing more than an attempt to slash the CFPB 
budget.
   By transforming a simple bill into a major budget cut, this 
amendment is simply another in a series of continuing attacks on the 
work of the CFPB, which has provided $5.3 billion in relief to 
consumers since its creation.
   Just as the CFPB embarks on its latest effort to protect consumers 
from predatory and abusive practices, we simply cannot afford a 
weakened consumer protection agency.
   As amended, H.R. 1195 is not only a disappointment--it's an insult 
to the same underserved communities the bill would have helped the CFPB 
to better serve. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and its 
attempt to undercut protections for working American families.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendment printed in part C of House Report 114-74 shall be 
considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as 
read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1195

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Bureau of Consumer Financial 
     Protection Advisory Boards Act''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY BOARDS WITHIN THE BUREAU OF 
                   CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010 is amended by inserting after section 1014 (12 U.S.C. 
     5494) the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1014A. ADVISORY BOARDS.

       ``(a) Small Business Advisory Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish a Small 
     Business Advisory Board--
       ``(A) to advise and consult with the Bureau in the exercise 
     of the Bureau's functions under the Federal consumer 
     financial laws applicable to eligible financial products or 
     services; and
       ``(B) to provide information on emerging practices of small 
     business concerns that provide eligible financial products or 
     services, including regional trends, concerns, and other 
     relevant information.
       ``(2) Membership.--
       ``(A) Number.--The Director shall appoint no fewer than 15 
     and no more than 20 members to the Small Business Advisory 
     Board.
       ``(B) Qualification.--Members appointed pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) shall be representatives of small business 
     concerns that--

[[Page H2342]]

       ``(i) provide eligible financial products or services;
       ``(ii) are service providers to covered persons; and
       ``(iii) use consumer financial products or services in 
     financing the business activities of such concern.
       ``(C) Additional considerations.--In appointing members 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Director is encouraged to 
     ensure the participation of minority- and women-owned small 
     business concerns and their interests, without regard to 
     party affiliation.
       ``(3) Meetings.--The Small Business Advisory Board--
       ``(A) shall meet from time to time at the call of the 
     Director; and
       ``(B) shall meet at least twice each year.
       ``(b) Credit Union Advisory Council.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish a Credit 
     Union Advisory Council to advise and consult with the Bureau 
     on consumer financial products or services that impact credit 
     unions.
       ``(2) Membership.--The Director shall appoint no fewer than 
     15 and no more than 20 members to the Credit Union Advisory 
     Council. In appointing such members, the Director is 
     encouraged to ensure the participation of credit unions 
     predominantly serving traditionally underserved communities 
     and populations and their interests, without regard to party 
     affiliation.
       ``(3) Meetings.--The Credit Union Advisory Council--
       ``(A) shall meet from time to time at the call of the 
     Director; and
       ``(B) shall meet at least twice each year.
       ``(c) Community Bank Advisory Council.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish a 
     Community Bank Advisory Council to advise and consult with 
     the Bureau on consumer financial products or services that 
     impact community banks.
       ``(2) Membership.--The Director shall appoint no fewer than 
     15 and no more than 20 members to the Community Bank Advisory 
     Council. In appointing such members, the Director is 
     encouraged to ensure the participation of community banks 
     predominantly serving traditionally underserved communities 
     and populations and their interests, without regard to party 
     affiliation.
       ``(3) Meetings.--The Community Bank Advisory Council--
       ``(A) shall meet from time to time at the call of the 
     Director; and
       ``(B) shall meet at least twice each year.
       ``(d) Compensation and Travel Expenses.--Members of the 
     Small Business Advisory Board, the Credit Union Advisory 
     Council, or the Community Bank Advisory Council who are not 
     full-time employees of the United States shall--
       ``(1) be entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed 
     by the Director while attending meetings of the Small 
     Business Advisory Board, the Credit Union Advisory Council, 
     or the Community Bank Advisory Council, including travel 
     time; and
       ``(2) be allowed travel expenses, including transportation 
     and subsistence, while away from their homes or regular 
     places of business.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `eligible financial product or service' 
     means a financial product or service that is offered or 
     provided for use by consumers primarily for personal, family, 
     or household purposes as described in clause (i), (iii), (v), 
     (vi), or (ix) of section 1002(15)(A); and
       ``(2) the term `small business concern' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632).''.
       (b) Table of Contents Amendment.--The table of contents in 
     section 1 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 1014 the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 1014A. Advisory Boards.''.

     SECTION 3. BUREAU FUNDING AUTHORITY.

       The Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
     Protection, under section 1017 of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010, may not request--
       (1) during fiscal year 2020, an amount that would result in 
     the total amount requested by the Director during that fiscal 
     year to exceed $655,000,000; and
       (2) during fiscal year 2025, an amount that would result in 
     the total amount requested by the Director during that fiscal 
     year to exceed $720,000,000.

  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in 
order except those printed in part D of the report. 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 as 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. Kuster

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part D of House Report 114-74.
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 
1, and I offer that amendment at this time.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, beginning on line 19, strike ``is encouraged to 
     ensure the participation of'' and insert ``shall include 
     members representing''.
       Page 5, beginning on line 12, strike ``is encouraged to 
     ensure the participation of'' and insert ``shall include 
     members representing''.
       Page 6, beginning on line 6, strike ``is encouraged to 
     ensure the participation of'' and insert ``shall include 
     members representing''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentlewoman from New 
Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Hampshire.
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward.
  The underlying bill encourages but does not require the Director of 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to include women-owned small 
businesses and minority-owned small businesses in the membership of the 
small business advisory board. The bill also encourages the Director to 
include financial institutions predominantly serving traditionally 
underserved communities in the membership of the Credit Union Advisory 
Council and the Community Bank Advisory Council.
  My amendment would simply change the underlying bill to make the 
inclusion of these groups a requirement, to ensure that a broad and 
diverse range of voices are included in these bodies. Federal 
regulators should listen to stakeholders when writing new rules for our 
economy, and this amendment will help ensure that these advisory boards 
are more representative of the American people.
  I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, the underlying language in this bill 
was a bipartisan agreement that was worked out in the last Congress. 
When we were marking up this bill previously, it was brought up that 
minority representation would be important to this bill, and so the 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Hensarling, actually stopped the 
deliberation there and worked in a bipartisan way across the aisle with 
Ms. Waters to make sure that we put language in the bill that would 
encourage the Director to make sure that women and minorities' business 
concerns on the small business advisory board were taken into 
consideration.
  We have addressed that, and we kept that language that was agreed to 
and, by the way, was passed by a voice vote. Mr. Pittenger accepted 
that amendment, and the bill reported out of the committee 53-5. So, 
basically, we have kept our word and kept in the spirit of the 
agreement that was negotiated in the previous Congress, and that 
language is in this underlying bill.
  I would encourage folks not to vote for this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Hampshire will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Kuster

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part D of House Report 114-74.
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment 
No. 2. I offer that amendment at this time.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 20, strike ``minority- and women-owned'' and 
     insert ``minority-, women-, and veteran-owned''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentlewoman from New 
Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H2343]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Hampshire.
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Chair, the underlying bill before us today authorizes 
a small business advisory board to advise the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau on small business concerns and practices.
  I agree that small businesses must have a seat at the table when 
Federal regulators make decisions with wide-ranging consequences for 
our economy, and I appreciate that this legislation already encourages 
the participation of women-owned and minority-owned small businesses on 
the board. Women and minority entrepreneurs often have unique 
perspectives and concerns, and the CFPB would be well served by seeking 
and heeding their input.
  Similarly, as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I 
believe that veteran entrepreneurs have unique perspectives and 
experiences in the economy, and I believe that the small business 
advisory board would be strengthened by the inclusion of veteran small-
business owners. To that end, my amendment simply encourages the CFPB 
Director to also include veteran-owned small businesses in the 
membership of the small business advisory board.
  After fighting to protect the American Dream for all of us, many 
veterans have realized that same American Dream by starting their own 
business upon their return to civilian life. We owe it to our returning 
heroes to support their success.
  I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). Without objection, the gentleman from 
Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Guinta).
  Mr. GUINTA. I would like to thank Chairman Neugebauer for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Chair, it is an honor to stand alongside my fellow Granite 
State colleague in support of her amendment.
  Our State of New Hampshire has one of the highest populations of 
veterans per capita in the United States. Because of this, both the 
gentlelady from New Hampshire and myself understand the importance of 
working together to support our Nation's veterans and veteran-owned 
businesses. There are hundreds of veteran-owned businesses just in New 
Hampshire alone, and we need to ensure that our commitment does not end 
with their term of commitment to our military.
  I thank the gentlelady from New Hampshire for her amendment. I urge 
my colleagues both on the committee and in the full House to support 
this amendment. I would encourage them to support H.R. 1195, despite 
the objections of the 0.0015 percent in the pay-for that was earlier 
discussed.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to say that we support this. It is a thoughtful amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1745

  Ms. KUSTER. Madam Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of 
this amendment.
  I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New Hampshire for offering 
this measure, which will ensure that the concerns of our Nation's 
veteran-owned businesses are represented on the small business advisory 
board this legislation creates.
  Madam Chairman, our Nation's veterans heroically put their lives on 
the line for this country. And when they come home and decide to start 
a small business, they are carrying forth that patriotic duty by taking 
another risk for the betterment of our Nation.
  Just as our Nation has a responsibility to care for those who return 
from battle, we too have a duty to ensure those who have served in our 
Armed Forces have a voice at the table, in whatever vocation they 
enter.
  Early on, the CFPB recognized the unique needs of servicemembers, 
veterans, and their families by creating an office targeted to address 
their needs. Likewise, small businesses owned by veterans comprise a 
subset of our Nation's economic backbone that should not be ignored. 
This amendment ensures that the CFPB is made aware of their views, 
perspectives, and interests in the same manner as all small-business 
owners.
  But Madam Chairman, while I support this amendment and believe in its 
goals, I remain strongly opposed to the underlying bill, which would 
impose cuts to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and would set a 
precedent that could ultimately lead to a time when the Nation's 
leading consumer advocate is cash-strapped, underfunded, and 
financially unable to ensure that the views of veteran business 
owners--or any other business owners--are appropriately taken into 
account.
  Ms. KUSTER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Guinta) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, 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. 1195) to 
amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to establish 
advisory boards, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________