[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 125 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H6225-H6233]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 111, PROVIDING FOR
CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY BUREAU OF CONSUMER
FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 468 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 468
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 111) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating
to ``Arbitration Agreements''. All points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint
resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; and
(2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Walorski). The gentleman from Colorado
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying resolution.
Congressional Review Act resolutions must follow a prescribed form
according to law. This rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 111
in keeping with that form.
[[Page H6226]]
Madam Speaker, we are here today to prevent Federal overreach by the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, also known as the CFPB. According
to the D.C. Circuit Court, this unaccountable government agency has
more unilateral authority than any single commissioner or board member
in any other independent agency in the United States Government.
On July 10, 2017, the CFPB exercised that vast authority by issuing a
776-page final rule that restricts the ability of consumers to enter
into arbitration agreements. The CFPB's misguided rule effectively
eliminates arbitration clauses, instead forcing consumers into
significantly more burdensome court proceedings. Eliminating this
overbearing rule is a big win for consumers.
Arbitration is an alternative to the judicial system, and it often
results in a better outcome for consumers. According to the CFPB's own
study, arbitration can be up to 12 times faster than litigation. This
study also found that a class action lawsuit's average payout was just
$32 per person, not even close to the $5,389 awarded on average from
arbitration.
Moreover, it costs less for consumers to file an arbitration
complaint than it does to file a new complaint in Federal court, making
the arbitration system more accessible to all Americans.
Arbitration allows parties to use an independent mediator, instead of
hiring expensive lawyers, to settle a dispute. While the rule
promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a bad deal
for consumers, it is a huge win for trial lawyers, who make an average
of $1 million per case.
The legislation being considered today would eliminate the CFPB's
prohibition on an individual's right to enter into contracts that
include arbitration agreements.
The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to eliminate a rule from
the executive branch, and prevents a substantially similar rule from
being proposed in its place.
Checks and balances between the three branches of government are the
cornerstone of our Constitution. The Congressional Review Act allows
Congress to exercise our Article I authority and stop executive
overreach that was never intended by the original legislation.
The Congressional Review Act is a powerful tool because it only
requires 51 votes to pass in the Senate. To date, Congress has passed
14 CRAs that have been signed by the President. One by one, we have
eliminated Obama administration rules that harm Americans and small
businesses across this country.
Despite the work we have ahead, these CRAs are important to bringing
regulatory relief to millions of Americans. President Trump campaigned
on a promise to end government overregulation that hurts Americans and
small businesses. He turned those words into action by signing an
executive order that requires two regulations be eliminated for every
new regulation that is proposed.
President Trump has exceeded those expectations in his first 6
months. For every new proposed rule, he has eliminated 16 regulations.
Unfortunately, he has limited tools to rein in the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, because it was designed to be unaccountable under
Dodd-Frank. This is an agency that continues to be run by an unchecked
Director. The structure of the bureau has even been ruled
unconstitutional by the judicial branch.
A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed legislation to
restructure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, restoring
congressional oversight duties and moving the agency back under the
regular legislative appropriations process. I hope the Senate will
consider this bill and bring accountability to the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and the underlying
bill, and eliminate the bad antiarbitration rule issued by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation,
H.J. Res. 111, disapproval of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau's arbitration rule.
Before turning to the underlying legislation, I want to raise
concerns about the bulk of the work this week, which is the so-called
minibus appropriations bill, in which this body will seek to spend over
$700 billion of deficit expenditures. That funding bill combines four
major appropriations bills and represents more than half of
discretionary spending. It includes our spending for the legislative
branch, veterans, energy and water, and the Department of Defense.
Unfortunately, there is additional deficit spending that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to put in the
bill, providing $1.6 billion to build a border wall, directly contrary
to the promises President Trump made on the campaign trail that another
country would pay for the wall. Republicans are seeking to pass the
bill to you, Madam Speaker, and our fellow taxpayers to pay for this
wall, in direct violation of President Trump's promise.
They also stripped out a bipartisan amendment by Representative Lee
that would end the 2001 AUMF and require Congress to come up with a new
Authorization for Use of Military Force within 8 months that was placed
into this bill in committee. Representative Lee's amendment was
stripped out by the Rules Committee despite it being in the committee
mark and despite bipartisan support to require an Authorization for Use
of Military Force. We really need to start making some decisions about
the direction of our military. Representative Lee's amendment would
have forced Congress to have that discussion.
Congress, unfortunately, seems to only work--or works best--when we
are on the clock, the day or two before the expiration of funding, the
day or two before an arbitrary time limit. This would apply a similar
test to force Congress to have a discussion around the Authorization
for Use of Military Force.
I have full confidence that, had that time not been met, Democrats
and Republicans could have provided additional short-term extensions
for the Authorization for Use of Military Force until such time
Congress could come together to pass a new one, agree with the Senate,
and send it to the President's desk.
Now on to the matters at hand.
This underlying resolution of disapproval weakens consumer
protections while protecting big banks rather than consumers. This rule
was crafted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help restore
consumer rights and give consumers the ability to join together when
they are taken advantage of by big banks.
Instead of debating ways to improve consumer protections or increase
access to financial services, my colleagues instead have brought a
Congressional Review Act resolution that would stop our own financial
safety mechanisms from taking any future action on arbitration clauses
in consumer financial products.
Now, we have all seen these arbitration clauses. You might need a
magnifying glass because the font is small, the contract is large. Even
sophisticated consumers often don't know that by unilaterally signing
those rights away, they are removing their ability to address their
grievances in court. In many cases, removing the ability to have any
justice because when you have a large class, each of whom suffers a
small amount of damage, even the cost of administering an arbitration
claim can be prohibitive if the claim per affected individual is $50,
$75, or $100. Absent these kinds of protections, you give broad license
for big banks to rip off large numbers of consumers and take a small
amount of money from each of them. That is what this rule is intended
to prevent.
The House Financial Services Committee did not hold any hearings on
this rule. It didn't go through committee. It appeared just a few days
ago when it was introduced. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
didn't have the opportunity to testify about their studies or their
findings, or the process they went through to finalize the rule,
including input from the general public.
Congress has authorized the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to
examine the use of arbitration agreements by financial institutions and
[[Page H6227]]
consumer contracts; and, if necessary, to take appropriate steps to
limit the use of them, to prevent arbitration agreements from being
forced on consumers. In any particular case, both sides can certainly
agree to arbitration. Given the choice, many consumers will choose
arbitration. This is about forcing consumers and giving them no
alternative but to give away their rights to sue in a court of law in
favor of an arbitration process.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that 90 percent of
arbitration agreements built into the fine point of financial consumer
products actually do prohibit class action lawsuits. In cases involving
credit card issuers, companies being sued used the arbitration clauses
buried in the fine print contract to block class action lawsuits 65
percent of the time.
Again, even with the lower costs of administering an arbitration
case, it is prohibitive if the claim per person is relatively small. So
we are talking about situations where people are illegally ripped off
of $20, of $100, of their annual credit card processing fee illegally
charged. Their redress, absent a class action, is essentially
nonexistent because even though the cost of pursuing an arbitration
case is significantly less than the courts, they still can either take
up an enormous amount of time or, if you hire outside counsel,
thousands of dollars. Thank goodness, not the hundreds of thousands of
dollars that a full court case can entail, but certainly thousands of
dollars.
And if you were deprived of $30 or $50, are you just supposed to
accept it? Or can hundreds or thousands of people who were ripped off
band together and seek justice, as this rule would allow for?
Long before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took any action,
the Department of Defense already recognized that forced arbitration
clauses in consumer loans to servicemembers stripped away the rights of
servicemembers and ultimately banned forced arbitration clauses in
consumer loan products made to servicemembers. We don't want people
taking advantage of members of our military. So, too, we don't want
anybody taking advantage of members of the American public.
But we know that big banks don't want consumers to have more power
when it comes to financial products. They prefer the deck remained
stacked against consumers, even when a bank or a credit card company
breaks the law.
When it comes to financial service products, most consumers are
entirely at the mercy of our financial institutions. These arbitration
clauses are buried in pages and pages of small print and disclosures
that are very technical for people with a college degree, no less a
high school degree, no less not even graduating from high school. The
consumer doesn't have the ability to modify the contract before they
sign it--take it or leave it--or negotiate on any type of footing
equally with the bank. They are left with a take-it-or-leave-it choice.
According to the Bureau study, more than 75 percent of consumers
surveyed did not know whether they were subject to an arbitration
clause in their agreements, and less than 7 percent knew that those
clauses limit their ability to bring a claim to court. That means 93
percent of the people who sign these agreements don't even realize they
are signing their right to sue away, and that is because they are
buried in fine print, are unclear, and run contrary to the fundamental
American principle of the ability to seek justice when you are wronged.
This final rule restores consumer rights to band together when there
is a systemic and widespread form of misconduct by a bank. This
resolution of disapproval would stop consumers from even knowing if
others were harmed in a similar manner by the same bank or lender so
they could potentially band together.
I am glad that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau final rule
actually gave some power back to consumers. And now here we have the
Republicans trying to take that power right away and give it back to
the big banks.
Madam Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a letter signed
by 310 organizations that include civil rights, faith-based, and
consumer advocacy groups that support the arbitration rule.
July 12, 2017.
Re Final Rule on Arbitration Agreements.
Monica Jackson,
Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, Washington DC.
The 310 undersigned consumer, civil rights, labor,
community, and non-profit organizations write to state our
strong support for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB)'s final rule to limit pre-dispute binding mandatory
(or forced) arbitration clauses in consumer finance
contracts. The rule, which will restore consumers' ability to
band together in court to pursue claims, is a significant
step forward in the ongoing fight to curb predatory practices
in consumer financial products and services and to make these
markets fairer and safer.
Lenders and other financial services companies use forced
arbitration to push consumers out of court and into a private
arbitration system that is tilted against them. Forced
arbitration eliminates the right to a civil jury trial,
limits discovery, restricts or prohibits public disclosure of
proceedings and outcomes, and makes meaningful appeals
virtually impossible. It also often prohibits consumers from
banding together in a class action to hold the company
responsible.
Recent scandals again demonstrate the very real harm forced
arbitration causes consumers. Reports show that customers had
been trying to sue financial services institutions over
fraudulent accounts going back a number of years. However,
some banks forced those customers into secret, binding
arbitration by invoking fine print in consumers' legitimate
account agreements to block them from suing over reasons as
outrageous as fake accounts, also helping to keep the scandal
out of the public eye. Even in cases where widespread fraud
has been exposed, banks continue to invoke these fine-print
clauses to kill lawsuits stemming from their illegal acts and
block consumer recovery.
The CFPB's thorough arbitration study further documents how
forced arbitration blocks consumer access to courts,
shielding banks and lenders from meaningful accountability
for their unlawful behavior. Finalizing the proposed rule
will restore crucial class action rights that deter systemic
abuses and bring much-needed transparency to consumer
financial arbitration.
The CFPB Study Data Shows That Forced Arbitration Eliminates Consumer
Claims and Shields Companies from Accountability
The CFPB's study verified the prevalence of forced
arbitration clauses--including class action bans--in consumer
financial contracts and found that this practice impacts tens
of millions of consumers. Yet it also revealed that consumers
typically have no idea they are signing away their right to
sue in court when they participate in the financial
marketplace.
The most obvious impact of forced arbitration clauses is
that they block most consumer claims from going forward at
all. Class action bans prevent consumers from bringing
complaints of fraud or other abusive or deceptive practices
in financial services because the individual value of these
claims is often too small for a single consumer to afford to
bring alone. Without the option to join together in a class
action, just 25 consumers with claims of under $1,000 pursued
arbitration each year. In a county of over 320 million, these
numbers leave no doubt that class action bans effectively
wipe out consumer claims and thus shield corporate wrongdoers
from liability. In the few claims that went to arbitration,
the study also confirmed that forced arbitration
overwhelmingly favors industry over consumers.
Class Actions Provide Great Benefit for Consumers Cheated by Systemic
Wrongdoing and Deter Risky or Illegal Conduct
The data makes clear that class actions provide a practical
way for groups of consumers who have suffered the same kind
of abuse from the same corporate wrongdoer to join together
to attempt to hold the financial institution accountable. The
CFPB study found that 34 million consumers received a total
of $2.2 billion in cash payments, debt forbearance, and other
in-kind relief from 2008-2012--not including any attorneys'
fees or court costs.
These findings were echoed in an empirical study by
disinterested academics, which found consumer class actions
against illegal overdraft fees ``deliver[ed] fair
compensation to a significant portion of class members.''
Several major banks settled class actions that claimed the
banks had purposely reordered consumer transactions to
maximize the amount of overdraft fees charged to the
consumer. This study found that plaintiffs in these cases
recovered up to ``65% of damages, with the variation based
largely on the strength of the class's claims and the
likelihood of winning certification of the class.'' Yet
unknown thousands of other consumers subject to similarly
unlawful overdraft fee practices likely got little or no
relief when class actions against their banks were dismissed
due to arbitration clauses.
Even assuming that their claims would be fairly resolved in
arbitration, leaving 34 million consumers to find their own
attorney, establish the individual facts of their case, and
take time off work to attend an arbitration will never be
more efficient than pooling time and resources between
millions of
[[Page H6228]]
consumers harmed in the same way by the same bank or lender
to challenge abusive practices. Indeed, additional empirical
scholarship demonstrates that most consumers are unaware when
they have been harmed, unaware that the harm violates a law,
or have decided that filing individual claims is not worth
their time and expense.
Collective action is critically important, not only for
enabling those already victimized to obtain justice, but also
for deterring bad behavior and preventing harm to other
victims. While each individual consumer may only lose $25 or
$50 to a fraudulent charge or illegal fee, for example,
unlawful practices implemented at a systemic level can add up
to millions or more in ill-gotten gains for banks and lenders
who violate the law. Government enforcers have limited
resources, and the prospect of class actions helps ensure
that banks and lenders obey legal requirements that protect
consumers.
The Rule's Reporting Requirements Add Crucial Transparency to
Arbitration
Our organizations strongly support the proposed provision
to begin shining a light on individual arbitrations through
reporting requirements. Unlike our legal system, which is
built upon hundreds of years of precedent, common law
principles, and statutory standards of fairness and ethics,
arbitration firms have few constraints on their practices and
scant record of their proceedings. The substantially shorter
history of consumer arbitration has nonetheless produced both
anecdotal claims of unethical behavior and documented
systemic abuses by unregulated arbitration films.
The rule's reporting requirements will lend crucial
transparency and accountability to a previously opaque
system. Increased transparency can help consumers make
informed decisions when choosing how to pursue their claim,
in line with well-established principles of the free market.
Data collected by the CFPB will also help other government
entities, as well as the general public, ensure that
arbitrators operate within the law and treat all parties
fairly.
The Rule is in the Public Interest and for the Protection of Consumers
Because forced arbitration undermines compliance with laws
and creates an uneven playing field between corporations that
use forced arbitration and those that allow for greater
consumer choice in dispute resolution, it is in the public
interest and in the interest of consumer protection to
prohibit or strictly curtail the use of forced arbitration
clauses in consumer financial contracts.
We commend the CFPB for finalizing its rule to restore
consumers' right to choose how to resolve disputes with
financial institutions and address the public harm caused by
forced arbitration, as thoroughly documented in its three-
year, comprehensive study.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our views.
National Signatories
9to5 National Association of Working Women; Action In
Maturity, Inc.; Affordable Housing Alliance; AFL-CIO; Alianza
Americas; Alliance for Justice; Allied Progress; American
Association for Justice; American Association of University
Women (AAUW); American Council of the Blind; American Family
Voices; American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers;
Americans for Democratic Action; Americans for Financial
Reform; Association of University Centers on Disabilities;
Bankruptcy Law Center; The Bazelon Center for Mental Health
Law; Center for Economic Integrity; Center for Economic
Justice.
Center for Global Policy Solutions; Center for Justice &
Democracy; Center for Popular Democracy; Center for
Progressive Reform; Center for Responsible Lending; Centro
Legal de la Raza; CFED; Committee to Support the Antitrust
Laws; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America;
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety; Consumers Union;
Consumer Voice; Daily Kos; Demos; Disability Rights Education
& Defense Fund; Economic Analysis and Research Network
(EARN); Economic Policy Institute; The Employee Rights
Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy; Equal Justice Society.
Equal Justice Works; Fair Share; The Financial Clinic; Food
& Water Watch; Fund Democracy; Government Accountability
Project; Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights;
Hindu American Foundation; Homeowners Against Deficient
Dwellings; Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; The
Institute for College Access & Success; Institute for Science
and Human Values; Interfaith Center on Corporate
Responsibility; International Association for College
Admission Counseling; Jobs With Justice; Justice in Aging;
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; League
of United Latin American Citizens; Main Street Alliance;
Manufactured Housing Action; Mission Asset Fund.
NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.;
National Association for College Admission Counseling;
National Association of Consumer Advocates; National
Association of Social Workers (NASW); National Center for Law
and Economic Justice; National Center for Lesbian Rights;
National Center for Transgender Equality; National Coalition
for Asian Pacific American Community Development; National
Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC); National Council of
Jewish Women; National Council of La Raza; National Consumer
Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients); National
Consumers League; National Employment Lawyers Association;
National Employment Law Project; National Fair Housing
Alliance; National Health Law Program; National Latino
Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association; National Legal Aid and
Defender Association.
National LGBTQ Task Force; National Partnership for Women &
Families; National Organization for Women; National Urban
League; National Women's Law Center; New Rules for Global
Finance; Occupational Safety & Health Law Project; Other98;
People's Action; Privacy Rights Clearinghouse; Progressive
Congress Action Fund; Protect All Children's Environment;
Public Citizen; Public Justice; Public Knowledge; Public Law
Center; The Rootstrikers Project at Demand Progress;
Salvadoran American National Network (SANN); Service
Employees International Union (SEIU); Small Business
Majority.
Southern Poverty Law Center; TURN--The Utility Reform
Network; United Auto Workers (UAW); United Church of Christ
Justice and Witness Ministries; United Policyholders; U.S.
PIRG; Veterans Education Success; Woodstock Institute;
Workplace Fairness; Worksafe; World Hunger Education,
Advocacy & Training (WHEAT); Young Invincibles.
State and Local Signatories
Alabama: Woodmere Neighborhood Association--AL.
Arkansas: Arkansans Against Abusive Payday Lending--AR;
Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families--AR.
Arizona: Arizona Community Action Association--AZ; Arizona
PIRG--AZ; Gila County Community Services--AZ; Mesa Community
Action Network--AZ; Save the Family Foundation of Arizona--
AZ.
California: California Reinvestment Coalition--CA;
CALPIRG--CA; Center for Public Interest Law, University of
San Diego School of Law--CA; Consumer Attorneys of
California--CA; Consumer Federation of California--CA; East
Bay Community Law Center--CA; Golden State Manufactured-home
Owners League--CA; Law Foundation of Silicon Valley--CA; The
Greenlining Institute--CA.
Colorado: 9to5 Colorado--CO; Bell Policy Center--CO; Build
Our Homes Right--CO; Colorado AFL-CIO--CO; Colorado Alliance
of Retired Americans--CO; Colorado Council of Churches--CO;
Colorado Fiscal Institute--CO; Colorado Latino Forum, Denver
Chapter--CO; Colorado Latino Leadership, Advocacy and
Research Organization (CLLARO)--CO; Colorado Public Interest
Research Group (PIRG)--CO; Colorado Trial Lawyers
Association--CO; NAACP State Conference--CO, MT, WY; National
Council of Jewish Women, Colorado Section--CO; The Interfaith
Alliance of Colorado--CO.
Connecticut: Capital For Change, Inc.--CT; CT. Citizen
Action Group--CT; Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.--CT;
ConnPIRG--CT.
Delaware: Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia--
DC; ACLU of Delaware, Inc.--DE; Community Legal Aid Society,
Inc.--DE; Delaware Alliance for Community Advancement--DE;
Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council, Inc.--DE;
Delaware Manufactured Homeowners Association (DMHOA)--DE.
Florida: Catalyst Miami--FL; Fair Housing Center of the
Greater Palm Beaches--FL; Florida Alliance for Consumer
Protection--FL; Florida PIRG--FL; Jacksonville Area Legal
Aid, Inc.--FL; Progress Florida--FL.
Georgia: Georgia PIRG--GA; Georgia Rural Urban Summit--GA;
Georgia Watch--GA.
Iowa: Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement--IA; Iowa
PIRG--IA.
Illinois: Chicago Jobs Council--IL; Citizen Action--IL;
Illinois Asset Building Group--IL; Illinois Association for
College Admission Counseling--IL; Illinois PIRG--IL;
Manufactured Home Owners Association of Illinois--IL;
Metropolitan Tenants Organization--IL; Partners In Community
Building, Inc.--IL; Project IRENE--IL.
Indiana: Habitat for Humanity of Northeast Indiana--IN;
HomesteadCS--IN; Indiana University McKinney School of Law--
IN.
Kansas: Interfaith Housing Services, Inc.--KS; Labette
Assistance Center--KS.
Kentucky: Homeless & Housing Coalition of Kentucky--KY;
Kentucky Council of Churches--KY Kentucky Equal Justice
Center--KY.
Louisiana: The Middleburg Institute/LABEST--LA; PREACH--LA.
Massachusetts: Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee,
Inc.--MA; Community Action!--MA; Consumer World--MA;
Massachusetts Consumers Council, Inc.--MA; MASSPIRG--MA; The
Midas Collaborative--MA.
Maryland: Baltimore CASH Campaign--MD; Baltimore
Neighborhoods, Inc.--MD; Belair-Edison Neighborhoods, Inc.--
MD; Civil Justice, Inc.--MD; Housing Options & Planning
Enterprises, Inc.--MD; Howard County Office of Consumer
Protection--MD; Maryland CASH Campaign--MD; Maryland Consumer
Rights Coalition--MD; Maryland PIRG--MD; Maryland United for
Peace and Justice--MD; Public Justice Center--MD.
Michigan: Michigan Association for College Admission
Counseling--MI; Michigan Disability Rights Coalition--MI;
PIRG in Michigan (PIRGIM)--MI; Progress Michigan--MI.
Minnesota: Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid--MN; Minnesota
Association for College Admission Counseling--MN.
Missouri: Missouri Association for College Admission
Counseling--MO; Missouri Faith
[[Page H6229]]
Voices--MO; Missouri PIRG--MO; MORE--Missourians Organizing
for Reform and Empowerment--MO.
Mississippi: Mississippi Center for Justice--MS.
Montana: AFSCME Montana Council 9--MT; Greater Yellowstone
Central Labor Council--MT Laborers Local #1686--MT; Montana
Organizing Project--MT Rural Dynamics, Inc.--MT.
North Carolina: Financial Pathways of the Piedmont--NC;
North Carolina Consumers Council--NC; North Carolina Justice
Center--NC; NCPIRG--NC; OnTrack WNC Financial Education &
Counseling--NC; Reinvestment Partners--NC; The Collaborative
NC--NC; Winston Salem Forsyth County Asset Building
Coalition--NC.
North Dakota: North Dakota Economic Security and Prosperity
Alliance--ND; Sacred Pipe Resource Center--ND.
Nebraska: Nebraska Appleseed--NE.
New Hampshire: Granite State Organizing Project--NH;
NHPIRG--NH.
New Jersey: Consumers League of New Jersey--NJ; Legal
Services of New Jersey--NJ; Manufactured Home Owners of New
Jersey, Inc.--NJ; New Jersey Association for College
Admission Counseling--NJ; New Jersey Citizen Action--NJ; NJ
PIRG--NJ; Sisters of St. Dominic of Caldwell--NJ.
New Mexico: Center for Economic Integrity--New Mexico
Office--NM; NMPIRG--NM.
Nevada: Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc.--NV;
Opportunity Alliance Nevada--NV.
New York: Bankruptcy Law Center--NY; Central New York
Citizens in Action, Inc.--NY; Community Service Society of
New York--NY; Empire Justice Center--NY; Empire State
Consumer Project--NY; Housing and Family Services of Greater
New York, Inc.--NY; Hudson River Housing--NY; JASA Legal
Services for the Elderly in Queens--NY; Keuka Housing
Council, Inc.--NY; Long Island Housing Services, Inc.--NY;
Make the Road New York--NY; MFY Legal Services, Inc.--NY;
NELA/NY (New York Affiliate of National Employment Lawyers
Association)--NY; New Economy Project--NY; New York Legal
Assistance Group--NY; New York Public Interest Research Group
(NYPIRG)--NY; New York State Association for College
Admission Counseling--NY; Public Utility Law Project of New
York--NY; Western New York Law Center--NY.
Ohio: Cleveland Tenants Organization--OH; COHHIO--OH;
Habitat for Humanity of Findlay/Hancock County--OH; Miami
Valley Fair Housing Center, Inc.--OH; Neighborhood Housing
Services of Greater Cleveland--OH; Ohio Association of Local
Reentry Coalitions--OH; Ohio PIRG--OH; Ohio Poverty Law
Center--OH.
Oregon: Innovative Changes--OR; Oregon Consumer League--OR
Oregon PIRG (OSPIRG)--OR.
Pennsylvania: Integra Home Counseling, Inc.--PA; Keystone
Progress--PA; PathWays PA--PA; Pennsylvania Association for
College Admission Counseling--PA; Pennsylvania National
Organization for Women--PA; PennPIRG--PA.
Rhode Island: RIPIRG--RI.
South Carolina: Columbia Consumer Education Council--SC; SC
Association for Community Economic Development--SC; South
Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center--SC.
Tennessee: New Level Community Development Corporation--TN;
Tennessee Citizen Action--TN.
Texas: Chinese Community Center, Houston--TX; Equal Justice
Center--TX; Family Houston--TX; Literacy Advance of Houston--
TX; Take Back Your Rights PAC--TX; Texas Appleseed--TX; Texas
Consumer Association--TX; Texas Watch--TX; TexPIRG--TX;
United Way of Greater Houston--TX.
Virginia: Virginia Citizens Consumer Council--VA; Virginia
Poverty Law Center--VA; Virginia Organizing--VA.
Vermont: Vermont PIRG (VPIRG)--VT.
Washington: Columbia Legal Services--WA; The Northwest
Consumer Law Center--WA; SafeWork Washington--WA; WashPIRG--
WA.
Wisconsin: Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee--WI; WISPIRG--WI.
West Virginia: Mountain State Justice--WV; WV Center on
Budget and Policy--WV; West Virginia Citizen Action Group--
WV.
Regional: Potomac and Chesapeake Association for College
Admission Counseling; Southern Association for College
Admission Counseling; Tri-State Coalition for Responsible
Investment; Western Association for College Admission
Counseling.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, this letter, which I think my colleagues
will find convincing, has 310 groups that have signed on in support of
this rule, including groups from across the ideological spectrum,
across the States, many faith-based groups, and many others, including
from my friend from Colorado's and my home State, the Interfaith
Alliance of Colorado; the National Council of Jewish Women, Colorado
Section; the NAACP State Conference of Colorado; the Colorado Fiscal
Institute; the Colorado Council of Churches; the Colorado Alliance of
Retired Americans, and many others.
{time} 1245
So I am glad that this will appear in the Record for all of Congress
to see. I will encourage my colleagues to read this letter and see who
signed it before casting your vote on the repeal of this rule, the
Congressional disapproval resolution. So this will appear in the
Record, and I know that my colleagues will study that Record before
making their decision.
Prior to the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
Federal consumer protection laws were enforced by a number of different
regulators and different agencies. This was uneven and, after the 2008
financial crisis, I was personally glad that we were able to pull
together the efforts to protect consumers in the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau.
But despite their success, Republicans have been going after the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ever since. Despite record profits
by banks and Wall Street, here we are trying to go back to a time when
there was nobody to keep them in check. Despite the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau returning nearly $12 billion to harmed consumers, the
Republicans continue to attack the agency.
This is entirely the purpose that the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau was created, this type of rule. Congress specifically authorized
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to study forced arbitration
agreements, and determine what steps were necessary.
The Bureau undertook an extensive rulemaking process that had public
comments. I hope my colleagues across the aisle who support this repeal
were active in that public comment process because that was an
important time to be heard. The banks participated in that, consumer
groups, and so many other stakeholders before the final rule was
issued.
My colleagues across the aisle have not offered any evidence in
support of this resolution of disapproval. Why are you seeking to strip
rights away from consumers in this fashion?
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that just 400
consumers per year pursue claims in arbitration, with only 16 receiving
any cash relief. Again, when you are ripped off of a relatively small
amount of money, you don't have redress in the courts as a sole
plaintiff. You don't have redress--I shouldn't say you don't; you
technically do--you don't have an economic form of redress in the
courts, and you don't have an economically viable form of redress
through arbitration.
So the only true mechanism, if you have a million people, each of
whom are deprived of $20 or $50, the only realistic legal mechanism is
a class action lawsuit, which this rule would protect.
There is also no evidence to show, no studies--I would challenge my
colleagues to cite them if there are--to show that removing this type
of clause can somehow increase costs to consumers.
Frankly, this resolution of disapproval is just a giveaway to big
banks at the expense of you, me, everybody who has a credit card,
everybody who has a loan--the wrong direction for the country.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of this resolution.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call on all of my
colleagues to support this resolution and the underlying legislation,
H.J. Res. 111.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's antiarbitration rule will
cause a great deal of harm to consumers, including consumers who wish
to settle a dispute with a firm in a timely and effective fashion, as
well as other consumers who will see their options and choices
diminished and their costs increased by this rule.
The CFPB's rule will hurt the very people the CFPB claims it is
supposed to help by depriving individuals of the efficient and
effective process of arbitration. The CFPB itself acknowledged that
arbitration is 12 times faster, on average, than class actions.
In today's fast-paced economy, hardworking Americans may want to
pursue a quicker option than becoming a party to costly and time-
consuming litigation that can take years.
Not only are class actions burdensome in terms of time, but they
often produce negligible benefits for the plaintiffs in question. In
fact, class actions reviewed in the CFPB study resulted in an average
recovery of only
[[Page H6230]]
$32 per class member. This is so minuscule that the firms being sued
are forced to charge their customers additional fees, which fees may be
larger than the initial recovery to cover the costs of the firm's legal
fees. This often leaves customers worse off financially than if they
had never chosen to settle their dispute.
Contrast this negligible or nonexistent relief and headache it causes
consumers with the average $5,300 of relief that consumers obtained
through arbitration in the cases that the CFPB reviewed in its own
study. Contrast the $32 average individual recovery as well with the
average $1 million that plaintiff lawyers make per settled case.
Madam Speaker, consider also the fact that 87 percent of class
actions generate no benefits for consumers whatsoever because they are
dismissed by the Court or settled with the named plaintiff only.
In addition to the direct harm the CFPB's antiarbitration rule will
cause to consumers, it will also have negative effects on a variety of
companies and firms that will have to prepare themselves for falling
victim to costly litigation. In light of that, they will be unlikely to
direct any financial resources toward providing their customers even
the option for arbitration.
In addition, many firms are unavailable to survive such costly
litigation, meaning they will either go out of business or be forced to
stop offering certain products and services.
How will this benefit consumers?
It won't. It will make their purchases costlier and the products and
services they need more difficult to find.
If you want to help ensure consumer recoveries and justice--and we
all do--depriving them of the most efficient and most remunerative
option is not the answer. Sadly, that is precisely what will result
from the CFPB's misguided, anticonsumer rule.
The CFPB's antiarbitration rule will close the door to recovery for
consumers, but open the door for million-dollar trial attorney's fees.
The underlying legislation considered today will reopen the door to
consumer recovery.
Mr. POLIS. It is wonderful to have so many Coloradans here, isn't it,
Madam Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Absolutely.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), another great State that borders the State of
Colorado.
Mr. DOGGETT. It once included the State of Colorado, or part of it.
Madam Speaker, I think Republicans are just scared. They are afraid
to leave town this week without doing another favor for Wall Street,
and this proposal to undermine consumer rights is the next gift that
they want to bestow on the big banks.
Republicans can never seem to find their voice, no matter how
outrageous the latest Trump tweet might be. They cannot pass meaningful
legislation on other subjects, but they feel compelled to answer when
Wall Street comes ``a calling,'' as it has on this bill.
Only last month, Republicans approved a bill to give Trump the power
to fire the chief cop on the beat; that would be the Director of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who Trump could now dump for
actually trying to do his job of protecting consumers from abusive
financial practices.
Of course, we see daily that Trump thinks the White House is just a
new venue for the latest sequel of ``The Apprentice,'' with him
declaring ``you're fired'' to one person after another, no matter how
much damage he does to our national security or to the economic
security of families that are struggling to make a go of it all over
America.
Well, today's Republican gift to Wall Street is about denying any
effective remedy to those who are abused by big banks. A bank can
rightfully go to court if a consumer abuses it, and that happens every
day in courts across America, with good reason, because it is not a
one-way street.
But in the non-negotiable, deceitful fine print at the back of the
contract, the bank can deny the consumer the very same opportunity to
go to court if that consumer is abused. It is called arbitration, but
what it really means is that if a consumer has been treated wrong,
neither a judge nor a jury can ever evaluate the facts and conclude for
the consumer.
Since usually the arbitrator depends upon the same bank or group of
banks to get repeat business, the arbitrator has an incentive to rule
against the consumer and for the bank. Often arbitration is little
better than going to the bank's own attorney and asking: Do you think
your client did anything wrong? And if so, should they do any more than
say ``I'm sorry''?
Arbitration is the very scheme that Wells Fargo relied upon to
obstruct any opportunity for ordinary consumers who tried to hold their
bank accountable for creating accounts to which they never gave any
consent and charging them for it. Wells Fargo used those arbitration
clauses to kick the consumers out of court and to continue its fraud
against consumers across America for another 2 years. That is the kind
of practice that we will have more of if this legislation is approved.
You know, in the Military Lending Act of 2007, Congress showed the
good sense to try to protect our servicemembers who are defending our
country all over the world in certain of their loan agreements from
having a lender impose a mandatory arbitration agreement. And what,
today, we should be doing is supporting similar protections for other
Americans who can be exposed to the same type of abuse.
Today's bill to undermine consumer protection is opposed by The
Military Coalition and 29 other servicemember and veterans groups
representing millions of people. This sorry bill is also opposed by a
number--I think literally hundreds of consumer, civil rights, labor,
and community groups.
All we are saying in rejecting this bill is to give consumers their
day in court, give them the same rights the banks want. In fact, treat
consumers as if they were banks because they should be treated with the
same dignity and the same rights; and we do that by rejecting this bill
and rejecting it soundly.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Institutions
and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Buck) for his help in quickly bringing this resolution to the
floor.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the
underlying resolution, which would block the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau from denying the American people the use of
arbitration as a means to resolve consumer complaints.
Since the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
consumer costs have gone up and access to financial products has been
severely restricted. In some cases, access has evaporated altogether.
The Bureau's arbitration rule is proof of what we have said for
years: the CFPB does not operate in the best interest of American
consumers. It does not protect the American people, their access to
financial products, or their ability to achieve financial independence.
Take as evidence the CFPB's own study on arbitration. It shows that
just 13 percent of class action suits actually provided a benefit to
consumers, with an average payout of $32. Let me say that again: an
average payout of $32.
Arbitration, on the other hand, provides an average of more than
$5,000--let me say that again: over $5,000--to the aggrieved parties.
Again, these figures come from the Bureau's own analysis, their own
study. The fact that they cannot somehow justify this rule in the name
of consumer protection should offend every single person on this floor
today, Madam Speaker.
Simply put, this rule is anticonsumer. It hurts the very people the
CFPB purports to protect. It is yet another example of the Washington-
knows-best attitude that makes the American people so mad.
This is also why Congress has the oversight tools granted under the
Congressional Review Act. In this instance, it is time for Congress to
intervene on behalf of the people we represent.
We have argued about the CFPB in the past, but the reality is that
this rule, in particular, will have devastating consequences for
American consumers. It should serve as a dramatic wake-up call for the
need to restrain what is the most powerful and
[[Page H6231]]
unaccountable government agency in the history of our Nation.
I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) and Chairman
Hensarling for their steadfast leadership on this very important issue.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues for their support on the rule and
the underlying measure.
{time} 1300
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Polis, for
yielding me the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule and underlying bill by
my Republican colleagues. The Republican bill favors big Wall Street
megabanks and financial interests over the American people. I would ask
my Republican friends: Don't you remember the financial crash of 2008
and who created it?
Their bill repeals a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule
which cuts down on those companies' abilities to use so-called forced
arbitration clauses which prevent cheated or defrauded consumers from
going to court. In other words, they prevent the victims from going to
court. They want to handcuff the customers, not the megabanks that took
them to the cleaners.
This takes us back to the days of when the fine print in the credit
card or other financial agreement prevented consumers from banding
together in class action lawsuits to challenge illegal behavior by the
most powerful financial giants in the world. Try to deal with one of
them as an individual. They don't even return phone calls, for heaven's
sake. You get in that robo system for hours and hours, and then the
phone call cuts off.
Republicans want to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, even after the agency's work for consumers resulted in $12
billion in relief to 27 million Americans who were harmed, and that is
just the beginning.
Why is this Republican-led Congress so keen on protecting companies
like Wells Fargo that used arbitration clauses and class action bans to
create fraudulent accounts, overcharge customers with debit fees and
mortgages, and even avoid responsibility for their misconduct? Criminal
misconduct.
You can laugh. Come and meet the millions of people who have lost
their homes across this country or are underwater on their mortgages.
There is no justice for them.
The idea that banks can rip off consumers by abusing obscure clauses
buried deep in their contracts is totally outrageous.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. KAPTUR. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule banning
the use of these clauses is simply a commonsense step to ensure that
all consumers have equal access to justice. This is the people's House.
We should protect consumers from the wolves. Our job is to keep them at
bay, not make it easier for them to prey on the American people. This
is not what President Trump ran on.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and stand with
America's consumers over special interests, particularly the financial
predators that brought this country to ruin.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, for months now we have been debating bills that hurt
hardworking Americans--bills that kick millions, tens of millions, of
people off health insurance; bills that gut safety and environmental
protections that would keep our air clean; bills that prioritize the
interests of Wall Street over Main Street.
This is not what my constituents want. It is also not what the
constituents of many of us want. Madam Speaker, for this reason,
Democrats have unveiled an agenda to increase wages, reduce costs for
everyday expenses, and give workers the training they need to compete
in 21st century jobs.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pocan's Leveraging
Effective Apprenticeships to Rebuild National Skills Act, H.R. 2933,
which would promote effective apprenticeships that would give students
and workers more opportunities to find good-paying jobs.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote of the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, we have less than 4 days left before the
scheduled August recess. I hope in that time we can focus on
strengthening the economy and empowering consumers rather than taking
away consumers' rights, like this bill does.
We should focus on fixing our broken immigration system to create
more economic growth and reduce our deficit, and we should create jobs
and make sure that more people are covered by healthcare, not less.
Instead, here we are, spending time on the floor of the House
stripping away consumer protections and spending American taxpayer
money on an unwanted border wall, in direct violation of President
Trump's promise.
Madam Speaker, I oppose this rule, and I oppose the underlying
legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on both, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been a continuous
example of Federal overreach. Once again, bureaucrats in Washington
have created a rule that will hurt consumers and make their lives more
difficult.
The last 8 years of overregulation have crippled our economy. Today,
we have a chance to end this antiarbitration rule and empower consumers
with an alternative to spending years in a courtroom.
We can't let concerns about the trial lawyer lobby impact the way we
treat consumers. Trial lawyers love this rule enacted by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau because they will be the biggest
beneficiaries. They will walk home with the big winnings, while the
individuals who have been harmed walk away with little.
Arbitration allows harmed individuals to receive payouts on the
merits of their case without enriching the pockets of trial lawyers at
the same time. This legislation is for consumers. It is for the average
American who relies on our financial system every day.
Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Sessions and Chairman Hensarling for
bringing this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues now to vote
``yes'' on the resolution, and then to vote ``yes'' on the underlying
bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 468 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2933) to promote effective registered apprenticeships, for
skills, credentials, and employment, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 2933.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not
[[Page H6232]]
merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the
previous question is a vote against the Republican majority
agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer
an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should
be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were 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 adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 184, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 410]
YEAS--229
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--184
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Bass
Brooks (AL)
Cheney
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis, Danny
Duncan (SC)
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Langevin
Meadows
Napolitano
Renacci
Richmond
Scalise
Wittman
{time} 1330
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 410.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in a meeting
with the Chief of Naval Operations. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 410.
Stated against:
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 410 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H6233]]
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 233,
noes 188, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 411]
AYES--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--188
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Bass
Brooks (AL)
Costello (PA)
Crowley
Cummings
Davis, Danny
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Meadows
Napolitano
Renacci
Scalise
{time} 1337
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________