[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 171 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          REFORMING CFPB INDIRECT AUTO FINANCING GUIDANCE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. EARL BLUMENAUER

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 18, 2015

  The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1737) to nullify certain 
guidance of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and to provide 
requirements for guidance issued by the Bureau with respect to indirect 
auto lending.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I will vote against H.R. 1737, the 
Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Act. There are arguments to be 
made on both sides of this debate, and I am confident that the people 
I've worked with over the years in the auto industry are straight 
shooters. It is clear, however, that there are areas of serious abuse. 
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has found that there 
are instances where auto lenders, including some dealers, charge higher 
interest rates for people of color than they charge white car buyers 
with similar credit worthiness and financial standings. These higher 
interest rates come in the form of on-site and undisclosed interest 
rate markups. Several lawsuits have highlighted these matters.
  I understand there are alternative arguments. Auto dealers should 
have the flexibility to give car buyers the best price possible, and 
interest rate negotiations can be a good way to save consumers money 
and to streamline the sales process. Further, CFPB's mandate to enforce 
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and prevent discrimination in all 
lending was clear even before the 2013 guidance targeted by this 
legislation.
  On balance, however, it is important not to undercut the CFPB as the 
administration is working hard to protect it. Perennial Republican 
budget proposals attempt to limit or eliminate funding for the CFPB, 
and earlier this fall the House Financial Services Committee passed 
legislation that would replace the CFPB with a politically appointed 
committee.
  I'm hopeful that regardless of the outcome of this debate that there 
is a way to be able to work in a more cooperative basis on this issue. 
I'm interested in how we both meaningfully address real concerns while 
simultaneously protecting consumers and the delicate momentum of the 
newly-created CFPB under continuous attack.

                          ____________________