[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 125 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H6268-H6278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY BUREAU 
  OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 468, I call 
up 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'', and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page H6269]]

  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 468, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 111

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection relating to ``Arbitration Agreements'' 
     (82 Fed. Reg. 33210 (July 19, 2017)), and such rule shall 
     have no force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, hardworking Americans want something different in their 
Nation's Capital. They want to change the toxic culture in Washington, 
D.C., that for far too long has allowed unaccountable bureaucrats to 
overreach and overregulate.
  The best way we can change Washington is to begin to drain the 
bureaucratic swamp, but it is not easy because we have seen in the last 
6 months the swamp fights back. The most recent example of this is a 
rule issued by one of the swampiest of Washington bureaucracies, the 
Orwellian-named Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  We all know that this is a rogue agency with a checkered past, chock-
full of rampant allegations of abuse, racial and gender discrimination, 
and Big Government nannyism, which constantly makes credit more 
expensive and less available to hardworking Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, so radical is this agency and so extreme in lacking 
accountability that a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of 
Appeals declared the Bureau's governing structure unconstitutional.
  Now, this unaccountable bureaucracy has joined forces in an unholy 
alliance with one of the Democratic Party's favorite special interest 
groups; namely, the trial lawyers lobby. And this unholy alliance will 
specifically deprive consumers of a low-cost, easy way to resolve legal 
disputes that can be accomplished without hiring trial attorneys.
  What the Bureau and the wealthy trial lawyers want is to take away 
arbitration for consumers and, instead, force them into class action 
lawsuits, which just so happens to require consumers to hire the very 
trial lawyers who will benefit most from this rule.
  Americans were promised a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but, 
instead, they obviously got a trial lawyer enrichment bureau. Oh, by 
the way, the director of this swampy bureaucracy rushed this regulation 
onto the books because it is widely reported he is on the way out the 
door to run for political office in Ohio.
  Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker, one accountable bureaucrat has decided 
that he knows better than the American people, and he has acted 
unilaterally to dictate the terms of contracts in a way that will 
actually increase consumer costs and reduce consumer choice. In a free 
and Democratic society, no one unelected individual should possess this 
much power.
  Mr. Speaker, making consumers pay more for less is the exact opposite 
of consumer protection, but it is exactly what this regulation means 
for every American.
  This regulation will perpetuate a justice gap that takes away a 
quicker, less expensive legal option for low-income and middle-income 
Americans.
  Even the CFPB's own study says this: the Bureau's own study found 
that 87 percent of the class actions it examined resulted in no 
consumer benefit whatsoever. In the mere 13 percent that actually 
provided some benefit, Mr. Speaker, the average payout per consumer was 
$32.
  How much did the trial attorneys make?
  31,000 times that amount.
  So, again, Mr. Speaker, we have an average payout of $32 for the 
consumers and millions for the trial attorneys. So no wonder the 
powerful trial attorneys lobby is so eager to see this rule go into 
effect.
  The Bureau's own study also concludes that arbitration is less 
expensive for consumers and up to 12 times faster than litigation.

                              {time}  1530

  Consumers who obtain relief in arbitration recovered in a CFPB study 
an average of $5,389. Again, Mr. Speaker, compare that to $32 the 
average consumer received under the CFPB study.
  Now, we are about to hear from some Members on the other side of the 
aisle that somehow consumers will lose their day in court and that 
somehow big banks will be helped. The CFPB's own study shows that not a 
single class action it examined, not a single one, resulted in trial by 
a judge or a jury. So no consumer got his or her day in court under the 
Bureau's preferred class actions. Instead, we know consumers are far 
more likely to obtain decisions on the merits in arbitration.
  With this rule, we once again see our colleagues in the other party 
hurting small community banks and credit unions. I have a statement 
that has been published already from the Independent Community Bankers 
of America. They are not Wall Street. This is small town community 
banks, and their statement says they strongly oppose the CFPB rule.
  Also, I have a statement from the Credit Union National Association--
again, Mr. Speaker, not Wall Street, but credit unions, our 
neighborhood credit unions. They say that the CFPB's rule will limit 
options for resolving disputes and could increase the number of 
frivolous lawsuits and that credit union members ``could suffer when 
costs rise and resources are depleted as a result of this rule.''
  Indeed, the CFPB, itself, estimates its final rule will increase 
costs for American businesses over $1 billion per year. That is money 
that our community banks and credit unions won't be able to lend to our 
small businesses, to our families, and to American workers.
  The CFPB's rule is bad for consumers, it is bad for community banks, 
it is bad for credit unions, and it is bad for our economy. Washington 
should be focused on creating more jobs, not more class action 
lawsuits.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is time to fight the bureaucratic swamp. It is 
time to pass the resolution offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Rothfus). I appreciate his leadership in helping protect consumers 
instead of enriching trial lawyers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 111 is an affront to hardworking Americans 
across the country. Using the Congressional Review Act, this joint 
resolution repeals the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's final 
rule to curb forced arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer 
financial products.
  Today, many banks require consumers wanting to open a bank account, 
get a credit card, or take out a private student loan to enter into 
forced arbitration agreements that take away their rights to 
collectively sue the bank for any harm. Instead, consumers must go 
through bank-friendly arbiters to resolve their grievances. These 
contracts are literally buried deep into the fine print, enshrouded in 
legalese. Consumers don't know what they are giving up--but the banks 
do.
  Arbitration proceedings, which happen behind closed doors, have no 
judge and no jury. Their proceedings and their outcomes heavily favor 
big businesses and Wall Street. Studies have shown that forced 
arbitration favors big business and results in less compensation for 
American consumers who have been abused or defrauded, if they receive 
any at all.
  Simply put, forced arbitration is an instrument that benefits large 
corporations and Wall Street banks, and it

[[Page H6270]]

hurts consumers. For example, everybody remembers Wells Fargo. Wells 
Fargo continues to use forced arbitration to prevent consumers from 
working together to sue the bank for opening up millions of fraudulent 
accounts using their personal information. Just weeks ago, the Consumer 
Bureau used a critical rule to finally clamp down on forced arbitration 
clauses. The Consumer Bureau should be applauded for taking this step 
to help consumers by fully restoring their legal rights.
  Once again, the Consumer Bureau has acted to make our financial 
marketplaces fairer and transparent. As is their practice, the Consumer 
Bureau issued this rule after careful deliberation and exhaustive 
review. As part of this deliberative process, they issued a 728-page 
report on the issue, considered views from all stakeholders, and 
consulted carefully with the other Federal financial regulators.
  The Consumer Bureau's final rule has widespread support, including 
from over 310 consumer, civil rights, faith-based, and senior groups, 
256 law professors and scholars, and the Military Coalition, an 
organization that represents 5.5 million current and former 
servicemembers and their families.
  Now, this rule was just finalized, but congressional Republicans are 
already shamefully forging ahead to cut it off at the knees. This 
resolution wouldn't just nullify the rule, it would also prevent the 
Consumer Bureau from ever issuing a rule that is ``substantially 
similar.'' That means, if Republicans pass this resolution into law, 
then, for the foreseeable future, consumers will be robbed of important 
legal rights and generally left at the mercy of industry-friendly 
auditors.
  Let's be clear. There is absolutely no valid public policy rationale 
for repealing this rule. It is a part of a pattern from congressional 
Republicans of irrational hostility toward the Consumer Bureau and its 
work and a callous disregard for the issues facing America's consumers. 
But just as they have with the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, Republicans are 
pushing an anticonsumer agenda that puts profits over people.
  Enough is enough. We must hold true to a fundamental principle of our 
democracy that each of us has a right to trial if we so choose. The 
rule fully restores this right to American consumers by giving them a 
choice between arbitration or the free exercise of their Seventh 
Amendment right to a trial by jury through whatever means they choose.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this senseless and 
harmful resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), who is the sponsor of the 
legislation and vice chairman of our Financial Institutions and 
Consumer Credit Subcommittee.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for 
his leadership on getting this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the CFPB's anticonsumer, anti-arbitration, pro-trial 
lawyer rule is just the latest example of the harm that can be done by 
an out-of-control, Washington-knows-best bureaucracy. This is a 
teaching moment for the country about how, when elites in Washington 
pander to special interests, they end up hurting the very people they 
claim to be protecting.
  We all want fairer outcomes for consumers, but the CFPB's unfair, 
deceptive, and abusive rule will deprive millions of Americans of a 
convenient, fast, and effective way to resolve their disputes.
  According to the CFPB's own study, only 13 percent of class actions 
provided a benefit to consumers, and the average payout was--get this--
$32. How is that pro-consumer? The same study, on the other hand, 
showed that consumers who obtain relief through arbitration recover 
over $5,300, on average. Again, that is $5,300 in arbitration against 
$32 through a class action.
  Meanwhile, trial lawyers in class actions earn about $1 million, on 
average. Consider that--$1 million for the plaintiffs' lawyers, a $32 
coupon, $32 cash, for a consumer. In other words, trial lawyers stand 
to earn 31,000 times more than a consumer in a class action.
  In arbitration, however, consumers get meaningful relief. Yet the 
CFPB has finalized a rule that would effectively get rid of arbitration 
and promote class actions as the preferred dispute resolution process. 
This hardly seems fair.
  The CFPB's anti-arbitration rule is an invitation to trial lawyers to 
take all they can get. Banks, credit unions, and other businesses that 
American consumers interact with on a daily basis will be forced to 
hold greater reserves because of the risk of future costly litigation. 
This will increase costs for consumers, and it will lead to less access 
or more expensive financial services for millions of Americans. It 
could also harm the safety and soundness of the financial system, 
according to the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the main Federal 
banking regulators.
  The Dodd-Frank Act requires that any move by the CFPB to regulate 
arbitration agreements needs to be in the public interest and for the 
protection of consumers. I fail to see how forcing consumers to accept 
a coupon for their troubles and handing millions of dollars in payouts 
to trial lawyers meets either of those goals.
  Only at the CFPB could endangering local banks and credit unions and 
restricting consumer access to financial services be cast as a win for 
the American people. But, again, this is what you get from the least 
accountable agency in history, an agency with, according to the D.C. 
Circuit Court of Appeals, massive and unchecked power that is headed by 
a Director who possesses more unilateral authority than any single 
commissioner or board member in any other independent agency in the 
U.S. Government.
  It has long been understood that expeditious, fair resolution of 
disputes is in the public interest and part of the public policy of 
this country. The CFPB rule we are reviewing today challenges that 
premise, as did the Dodd-Frank section that spawned this rule. But it 
is the people, acting through their elected Representatives, who have 
the final say in this matter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.J. Res. 111 so that Congress 
can, through the Congressional Review Act, strike down this unfair, 
deceptive, and abusive rule and push back against an out-of-control 
agency. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and stand for 
consumers, fairness, and the American economy.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) be allowed to control the 
remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who is a 
senior member of the Financial Services Committee and ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking 
member for yielding to me and for her leadership on this committee and 
in so many other ways.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this resolution. My 
friends on the other side of the aisle keep talking about what this 
bill does, but let me tell you what it does not do.
  I want to be absolutely clear that this rule does not say that 
arbitration is bad for consumers, and it does not say that consumers 
can't use arbitration. The only thing that the CFPB's rule says is that 
financial institutions cannot force consumers to waive their right to 
participate in class action lawsuits and only use arbitration. This 
protects an individual customer's rights. This is critically important 
because the evidence shows that consumers receive a great deal more 
relief from class action litigation against institutions than they do 
in arbitration.
  So my friends on the other side of the aisle always say that they 
believe in consumer choice and customer choice and that customers 
should be able to choose what is best for them and not be dictated to 
by this Congress, but mandatory arbitration clauses restrict choice 
for consumers. They prohibit

[[Page H6271]]

consumers from choosing class action lawsuits over arbitration.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman 
an additional 10 seconds.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. The CFPB's rule would restore 
this consumer choice, further empowering people, customers, empowering 
them to make their own decisions for themselves. This should be 
welcomed by any American. This should be welcomed.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution which would 
block the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from denying the 
American people use of arbitration as a means to resolve consumer 
complaints.
  I went to the CFPB website last night, and the first thing I saw 
read: ``We are the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a U.S. 
Government agency that makes sure banks, lenders, and other financial 
companies treat you fairly.''
  If we handed out grades to government agencies based on their ability 
to meet a mission statement, the CFPB would most decidedly receive an 
F. That is because the Bureau's arbitration rule does absolutely 
nothing to ensure that consumers are treated fairly. In fact, this rule 
is proof of what House Republicans have said for years: the CFPB does 
not operate in the best interests of the American consumers.
  The Bureau's own study, which we have cited several times already and 
will continue to cite, shows that arbitration helps consumers and that 
the alternatives are far less successful.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that this rule is 
anticonsumer. It hurts the very people the CFPB is supposed to protect, 
and it is yet another example of Washington bureaucrats looking out for 
their friends instead of the American people.
  Today, this body will cast a vote to ensure U.S. consumers are 
treated fairly and that they have the tools necessary to get the best 
possible settlement in their case.
  Mr. Speaker, if the CFPB can't adhere to a simple mission statement 
and provide actual consumer protections, Congress will do it for them.
  I want to again thank Chairman Hensarling and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) for their leadership on this issue and so 
many more issues that impact consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are 
siding with Big Business again, against our consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), the distinguished leader and a strong supporter of consumers 
and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I commend my distinguished ranking member of 
the Financial Services Committee for her brilliant leadership, for her 
bipartisanship, and for always trying to find a way to help America's 
consumers and protect America's taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very sad today because of what is happening on both 
sides of the Capitol. The cruelty, carelessness, and contempt 
Republicans are showing for working families boggles the mind. Now, 
Senate Republicans are careening toward shattering the healthcare of 
millions of Americans, with no regard or appreciation for the 
consequence.
  Every chance they get, they stack the deck against America's working 
families. Here, on this side of the Capitol, Republicans are stacking 
the deck even further against America's working families by seeking to 
deny those families their fundamental right to obtain justice in court.
  Eight years ago, unchecked recklessness on Wall Street ignited a 
financial meltdown that devastated families across the country. 
Democrats proudly took bold action and passed Dodd-Frank, the strongest 
set of consumer financial protections in history. But today, House 
Republicans are once again trying to destroy those protections for 
America's consumers.
  Last month, Republicans passed what we called the ``Wrong'' CHOICE 
Act, the Dodd-Frank repeal, which was a giveaway to the financial 
industry at the expense of hardworking families.
  Republicans are waging a war on the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, a bureau that has returned nearly $12 billion to 29 million 
wronged Americans, many of them seniors, veterans, and members of the 
Armed Forces.
  Forcing consumers into arbitration--indeed, forced arbitration--gives 
financial services providers a free pass to get away with abuse. It 
denies, again, veterans, servicemembers, and seniors justice against 
the predatory financial marketplace practices. Sadly, it reflects a 
Republican Party that works relentlessly to empower Wall Street and to 
rig the system against consumers. It denies them consumer class action.
  More than 800 years ago, the Magna Carta first laid out a basic right 
to justice as the foundation of a fair society. Even under a king, the 
Magna Carta declared, this much was owed the people: ``. . . to no one 
will we deny or delay right or justice.''
  Every day, Americans take a similar solemn pledge: ``liberty and 
justice for all.'' Republicans' attack on consumers insult those 
pledges and deny Americans their justice.
  All the American people deserve a better deal than what they are 
getting from the Republicans in Congress. Democrats are going to fight 
back. We will fight to protect hardworking American consumers. We will 
fight to put leverage back into the hands of the American people.
  Who has the leverage? If I am a financial institution and I know that 
you have no leverage, that you cannot act in a class action way, you 
can just imagine what I have in store for you. But if I think you have 
leverage and you can act in a different way and not be forced into 
arbitration, I might have more respect for our financial relationship 
with each other.
  We will put the leverage back in the hands of the American people. We 
will fight this resolution. I call upon my Republican colleagues to 
join Democrats in voting ``no'' because this bill is an unfair and 
unjust bill.
  Who is it unfair to? America's working families, America's consumers, 
and America's taxpayers.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Capital Markets, Securities, 
and Investments Subcommittee.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about a stacked deck: trial 
attorneys putting cash over conscience. That is not the answer that we 
are in search of, but it is the answer that others who are opposed to 
this certainly are.
  The CFPB, the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has a 
study itself that shows that consumers who actually use arbitration 
reach more favorable outcomes than those who are roped into lawsuits 
with cash-starved trial lawyers.
  It is astounding that only 13 percent of these lawsuits provide any 
benefit to actual consumers, but the Bureau is still pushing this ill-
advised rule. Arbitration decisions also come much more quickly for 
consumers. Again, the Bureau's own study concludes that arbitration 
decisions come 12 times faster than lawsuits.
  So let's review quickly: a faster, more favorable outcome for 
consumers versus helping trial lawyers line their pockets. This should 
not be hard.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, according to the D.C. Circuit Court, unelected 
Bureau Director Cordray has more unilateral authority than any other 
single commissioner or board member in any other independent agency in 
the entire U.S. Government.

  Congress must begin to use its authority to hold this agency 
accountable for its anticonsumer policies and actually provide the 
checks and balances that our Founders would have intended. That is the 
stacked deck that we have right now, folks.
  The Bureau's flawed arbitration rule does absolutely nothing to 
protect the consumers it is charged with protecting. Instead, it is 
nothing more than a windfall for trial lawyers and well-connected 
Washington elites. The

[[Page H6272]]

rule's only accomplishment will be to create more class action 
lawsuits, lining trial lawyers' pockets with more cash while providing 
no real protection to consumers.
  This anticonsumer rule will have the effect of making consumers wait 
longer for worse decisions as they seek resolutions for their disputes. 
In no way, shape, or form does this rule actually do what the Bureau 
was created to do: protect consumers.
  This CRA is an important step in allowing Congress to rein in this 
rogue agency. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a senior member of the 
Financial Services Committee and ranking member of the Small Business 
Committee.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the right to seek redress in the courts is one of the 
most fundamental rights we have as Americans. Unfortunately, companies 
routinely try to undermine this right by including mandatory 
arbitration clauses in contracts we use every day, including credit 
cards, student loans, auto loans, and cell phones.
  These clauses often state that a consumer must resolve a dispute they 
are having with a third party often chosen by the company at a location 
that is chosen by the company. Companies also use these clauses to 
block class action lawsuits brought by consumers.
  Now, once again, thanks to the CFPB, contracts that have these 
clauses will no longer be permitted to prohibit consumers from banding 
together or joining a class action. This rule helps hold companies 
accountable and protects consumers. That is why more than 280 consumer, 
civil rights, labor, community, and nonprofit organizations support 
this rule. That is also why unscrupulous firms are lobbying so 
aggressively to block this rule.
  Stand up for consumers. Vote ``no'' on this joint resolution.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), chairman of the Financial Services Monetary Policy 
and Trade Subcommittee.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: the anti-arbitration rule 
recently finalized by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is not 
consumer protection. It is a giveaway to special interest trial lawyers 
that will expose financial firms to ruinous liability; limit consumer 
access to affordable, high-quality financial services and products; and 
undermine consumers' ability to resolve disputes more quickly and more 
cost-effectively than class action lawsuits.
  The Bureau's own study found that, while trial lawyers earn millions 
of dollars in fees, in 90 percent of class action lawsuits, consumers 
were awarded absolutely nothing--nothing. Of the remaining 10 percent, 
the average payout to consumers was a mere $32. That same CFPB study 
found that the average arbitration payout was almost $5,400, or over 
150 times more than the average class action recovery.
  Even more troubling, the Bureau's unilateral decision to ban 
alternative dispute resolution will result in increased litigation 
costs for financial services firms, undermining their safety and 
soundness, forcing consumers to pay higher prices and making it more 
difficult to obtain credit cards and other financial services and 
products. That is not pro-consumer.
  For these reasons, I am a proud cosponsor of Congressman Rothfus' 
bill that would disapprove this misguided resolution to the 
Congressional Review Act.
  Congress should be making the laws of the land, not unaccountable, 
unelected bureaucrats at the CFPB circumventing the democratic process. 
That is why, in addition to invalidating this bad anticonsumer, pro-
trial lawyer, anti-arbitration rule, Congress must act swiftly to rein 
in the Bureau and subject this agency to the congressional 
appropriations process, reclaiming Congress' constitutional power of 
the purse over this out-of-control agency.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution of 
disapproval to block this ill-advised, anticonsumer rule and reclaim 
its authority under Article I of the Constitution.

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a leading member on this 
consumer issue.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, if you listen to my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, they are going to tell you that having access to a 
lawyer in a court is a bad thing, but it is the foundation of American 
justice. The foundation of American justice is that, if somebody rips 
you off, you can sue them in court.
  These arbitration clauses are the fine print, Mr. Speaker, that you 
find in these contracts that say, if you have a dispute with this 
particular company, you can only go to arbitration. And these 
arbitrators are almost always picked by the company themselves.
  The fact is this is not justice. It is a railroad court. It is not a 
real court, and consumers are less well off. That is why over 100,000 
individual consumers across the country wrote in to support the rule 
during the public comment period.
  If my friends on the other side of the aisle are right, how come they 
don't have 100,000 people saying that their position is correct?
  The people have spoken. They have engaged in the comment period and 
said: We want to be able to go to court to hold these people 
accountable.
  Wells Fargo ripped off literally hundreds of thousands of Americans. 
In 2 million transactions, they opened up accounts people never asked 
for.
  If you sue them, you might just be limited to an arbitration clause, 
which limits your award, and they pick the judge. Why not be able to 
join with other Americans and sue in court the good, old-fashioned way: 
get some discovery, get some money back, get some justice? This is what 
it is all about.
  We believe that the American people deserve to take them to court if 
they take your money and rip you off. That is what we are standing up 
for today.
  This is nothing but a U.S. Chamber, Big Business giveaway that they 
are talking about. We stand on the side of American consumers. American 
consumers want to take them to court.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), vice chairman of the Oversight 
and Investigations Subcommittee.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, this resolution of disapproval will repeal 
the CFPB's Arbitration Agreements rule, a rule that consumers are going 
to be able to be protected by, according to the CFPB. That is their 
stated mission: to protect the consumers.
  Let us look at the data that has been provided by the CFPB. Just 13 
percent of the class action suits actually provided a benefit to the 
consumers. And what was that whopping benefit? Thirty-two dollars. 
Thirty-two dollars that they are willing to celebrate over as 
compensation for people who have been harmed.
  Let us look at the other side of the ledger. What are trial lawyers 
receiving? On average, $1 million. So while our friends may want to 
stand up for the trial lawyers, for their million-dollar paychecks, we 
are going to choose to stand with the American consumer to make sure 
that they are going to be able to receive the justice that they 
deserve, and one way to be able to do that is going to be through 
arbitration.
  When we look at the CFPB's own statistics, the average arbitration 
payout is not your $32. It is almost $5,400, which has been received in 
terms of compensation that is going to be paid.
  This latest rule, Mr. Speaker, joins a growing list of CFPB actions 
that have hurt consumers. Since the Bureau's inception, they have 
rolled out rules and regulations 3\1/2\ times faster than other Federal 
agencies, and according to the research from the American Action Forum, 
just 26 of these regulations have added an additional $2.8 billion in 
regulatory costs.
  The practical effect of the Bureau's actions are measurable, 
especially in rural districts like mine: no mortgage credit for young 
families trying to purchase their first home, community banks that 
spend more time on compliance than serving their community, and small 
businesses that cannot get the capital that they need to grow.
  The Arbitration Agreements rule is nothing more than the latest 
sleight-

[[Page H6273]]

of-hand by the Bureau taking money out of pockets of consumers and 
gifting it to trial lawyers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Valadao). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, the CFPB would lead you to believe that a 
multiyear class action lawsuit--and that is according to the CFPB's own 
estimates, average attorneys' fees of $388 million, and that is a win 
for consumers.
  The judgment is not on the side of consumers. They may want to stand 
for the trial lawyers. We are going to stand for the consumers. Let's 
repeal this and institute the CRA for the arbitration rule.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the 
Financial Services Committee and a strong progressive member.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Let us be honest. There are no legitimate consumer groups who support 
repealing this rule. The consumer groups are actually with the 
consumers, and they want this rule.
  So let us be clear. This rule is being repealed for the biggest 
financial institutions in the country.
  Let us be clear. I do not oppose arbitration as an option. I do 
oppose it as the only alternative allowed. Very simply, you go to a 
bank, they open up a bank account in your name, they steal your money, 
they move it over. If you catch them, you go to the bank, you file 
arbitration, they give you your $100 back and maybe a dollar's worth of 
interest, and it is over.
  They don't tell you there is 2 million, 3 million, 5 million other 
people with the same situation who don't know about it. Because it is 
arbitration, no one talks about it. It is done in private.
  I am not opposed to arbitration as a way to avoid court when 
possible. I am vehemently opposed to taking options away from consumers 
that say you cannot individually stand for your rights. That is what 
this bill does. That is all it does.
  If you care about consumers, you would work with us to try to find a 
simpler way. You don't want to do it. You want to help the big boys. 
Good luck.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice chairman of the Monetary 
Policy and Trade Subcommittee.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau implemented their most recent arbitration rule. While 
this rule claims consumer protection, it does the very opposite. It 
will cost Americans more of their hard-earned money and time.
  The CFPB is arguably the most powerful and yet unaccountable 
government agency in the history of this country. By intentional 
design, the CFPB is not accountable to Congress or the taxpayer.
  According to the D.C. Circuit, the unelected CFPB Director, Richard 
Cordray, ``possesses more unilateral authority than any single 
commissioner or board member in any other independent agency in the 
U.S. Government.''
  What does this mean exactly? Well, it means that no one is checking 
the Director's actions. The CFPB is able to evade all limits and 
restraints proposed by the government. Because of this, Director 
Cordray is only looking out for one person--that is himself.
  The CFPB chose to ignore their own study because the results did not 
fit the narrative they were trying to impose on Americans. This study 
showed that the average consumer receives $5,400--we have heard this 
already--in cash relief when using arbitration, as opposed to an 
inadequate $32 through class action suits.
  In addition, the study concluded that the use of arbitration produced 
a higher recovery rate and shorter timeline for the consumer, and that 
is good. Regardless of this study, Director Cordray has refused to 
acknowledge that taxpayers will feel the immediate damage that comes 
from limiting their options by being forced to pay more for less.

  Bottom line, this is just another example of overregulation by the 
CFPB taking away the option of arbitration that will hurt all 
Americans.
  As a small business owner, I have gone both ways. Arbitration wins 
every single time for those involved. It is called fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Representative Keith Rothfus for leading the 
way on this much-needed CRA. I encourage all my colleagues to join us 
in repealing this harmful rule and ensuring the Bureau is not able to 
issue any similar rule relating to arbitration.
  In God We Trust.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a senior member of the 
Financial Services Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, which is more fraudulent? On the one hand, 
we have Wells Fargo, 3 million phony accounts, and then they use their 
forced arbitration provision to tell people that if you signed up for a 
legitimate account and there was some language in there that created 
arbitration, that it even applies to the phony accounts.
  Well, what is even more fraudulent? The supporters of this bill who 
say that the rule deprives people of the option of arbitration. It 
hardly does that. It simply prohibits forced arbitration.
  But more important are the numbers. Arbitration is typically used by 
someone with a $50,000 claim. Class action lawsuits, it is 50,000 
people with a $32 claim. So then they say: Well, arbitration provides 
more. Of course it provides more. Because the average person in the 
pool has got a $50,000 claim, and class action only produces $32 
because it is designed for a situation where you have a million 
plaintiffs or a half a million plaintiffs each with a $32 claim.
  You cannot compare the two except to say that arbitration is 
unavailable to anyone with a claim of less than $1,000.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), a member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 111.
  Mr. Speaker, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a 
rule forbidding financial service firms from including a mandatory 
arbitration clause in contracts with consumers. The rule is not only 
bad for consumers, it highlights the need for accountability in 
Washington.
  Unelected bureaucrats wield too much power with too little oversight, 
and this rule would force consumer class actions and eliminate 
arbitration options. As an attorney, I know that many class action 
lawsuits are all too often more about cash for plaintiffs' trial 
lawyers than protection for consumers. In fact, the CFPB's own study 
even admitted that arbitration is faster, less expensive, and pays out 
consumers much higher compared to the class action lawsuit.
  Of course, many trial lawyers oppose arbitration because it denies 
them of exorbitant class action lawsuit fees. It is an inexpensive 
alternative to courtroom litigation.
  If consumers are lucky enough to be part of the successful class 
action, the average individual payment is, as my colleague just pointed 
out, only about $32. Remarkably, the trial lawyers raked in $425 
million in class action fees between 2010 and 2013, according to a 
study by Forbes.
  Of the arbitrations reviewed by the CFPB in which consumers were 
victorious, the average individual payout was $5,389. Why would the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau want to take a fair and elective 
alternative for resolving disputes away from consumers when they 
benefit from them?
  The consumers have the option to do as they please, but I believe the 
CFPB's antiarbitration rule would do nothing but harm consumers, line 
the pocket of trial lawyers, and literally take money out of the hands 
of consumers.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. 
Res. 111 to block the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 
arbitration rule.

[[Page H6274]]

  The CFPB is charged with protecting consumers from unfair and abusive 
behaviors by banks and financial firms. To that end, the CFPB's rules 
would prohibit provisions requiring that a bank customer surrender the 
right to participate in class actions.
  This practice undermines a consumer's right to be compensated for 
damages, particularly when they get nickeled and dimed by the fine 
print in financial contracts.
  Class actions often represent the only realistic option for consumers 
who are ripped off to the tune of a few dozen or a few hundred dollars, 
and they reduce the burden on the courts by consolidating claims, 
thereby saving money for both plaintiffs and defendants.
  Opponents of the CFPB's rule hope that, by prohibiting the 
consolidation of claims, they can make potential damages so small that 
the individual claims are not viable.
  Meritorious claims from aggrieved plaintiffs who have suffered actual 
damages would go uncompensated, and equally importantly, wrongdoers 
would go unpunished.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for consumers and ensure that they 
can be fairly compensated by actual damages and wrongdoers punished.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), a member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 111, which 
will block the CFPB's harmful arbitration rule.
  I want to start with a little story. Last year, I opened up the mail, 
and I got a wonderful surprise. I got a check for $3.92. Apparently, I 
was part of some class action lawsuit, didn't know it, dug into the 
facts, didn't feel I had been harmed, didn't know who the attorneys 
were, but I got $3.92, almost enough to buy a latte. I did a little 
digging around and turns out the lawyers representing the plaintiff 
class made millions of dollars.
  Now, we have heard a lot of conflicting stories here today about this 
bill being harmful to consumers. Here are the facts.
  In a class action lawsuit, a typical consumer gets $32; in 
arbitration, a typical consumer gets $5,400; in a class action lawsuit, 
it takes 12 times longer for the consumer to get the money.
  But how can this be? Well, in my prior life, I represented a lot of 
clients who were involved in class action lawsuits. Here is your 
typical class action lawsuit.

  It involves a highly technical violation, not the Wells Fargo 
example, where there is little or no harm to the consumer, goes on for 
years, costs millions of dollars in legal fees, and at the end of the 
day, there is a settlement for $3.92.
  I will make a deal with my friends on the other side of the aisle. I 
will buy anyone a latte who comes clean with the American people and 
tells them why they are opposing this bill.
  The reason why they are opposing this bill is the Trial Lawyers 
Association makes millions of dollars, and that money lines the pockets 
of their campaign coffers. It is not about consumers. It is about 
lawyers protecting lawyers, and it is about protecting the bureaucrats 
in the swamp.
  I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting this joint 
resolution.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of 
my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle talking about this $32.
  Republicans keep discussing that consumers get $32 in class action, 
but they ignore how few consumers win in arbitration. Big banks win 
93.1 percent of the time in arbitration. The deck is stacked against 
consumers, not Wall Street.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson), a leading member on this consumer arbitration issue.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congresswoman, and I 
rise in strong support for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on 
the important topic of forced arbitration.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 111. Forced 
arbitration is a modern twist to an old trick, tricking people out of 
their day in court. Forced arbitration tricks people out of their 
constitutional right to a jury trial on their claim against corporate 
special interests. Forced arbitration prohibits consumers from taking 
their case to court for a jury trial and forces the consumer into the 
back room with a secret arbitrator selected by the corporation who then 
decides the case for the corporation. It doesn't take a genius to know 
what happens when you get behind those closed doors.
  The outcome will be against the consumer. It is not fair; it is not 
right; and it is not justice.

                              {time}  1615

  Corporate special interests trick consumers into giving up their 
rights to a jury trial by hiding forced arbitration clauses in the fine 
print of consumer agreements that they require consumers to accept when 
there is no other choice.
  Consider the latest example from Wells Fargo, which was caught red-
handed engaging in unscrupulous banking practices to the detriment of 
their customers. They were ruining the credit of their customers by 
opening millions of fake accounts in the names of their unsuspecting 
customers.
  When Wells Fargo got caught, their customers were barred from going 
to court because they had unknowingly agreed to the forced arbitration. 
If this is not adding insult to injury, I don't know what is.
  Congress authorized CFPB to consider banning or limiting forced 
arbitration in cases of consumer financial products or services. The 
CFPB found that forced arbitration clauses denied consumers the ability 
to obtain justice. That is why Congress should vote in approval of the 
rule for the CFPB and reject H.J. Res. 111.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 13\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan had a unique gift of communicating in a 
way that reflected the ideas and the thoughts of the American people. 
He also understood that out-of-control government bureaucracy had a 
well-deserved reputation of working in its own best interest, not in 
the best interest of the American people.
  President Reagan best defined this mistrust of government when he 
stated: ``The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm 
from the government and I'm here to help.''
  The skepticism Americans have of their too-big-to-be-useful 
government has only increased since Reagan spoke those words. And it is 
rules and regulations, such as the one we are discussing here today, 
that fosters the distrust Americans have of their government. The 
CFPB's decision to ban arbitration with preference to class action 
lawsuits will cause harm to both consumers and businesses.
  Arbitration has proven to be an effective tool that benefits both 
parties in a dispute, and has shown to be more favorable to consumers 
than traditional litigation in the courts. The average compensation, as 
you have heard, to consumers when using arbitration is $5,400. In 
contrast, the average settlement for consumers in a class action 
lawsuit is $32.
  Not only is arbitration more financially beneficial to consumers, it 
is less costly and less time-consuming than fighting through the 
courts. Disputes which use arbitration are usually settled in 2 to 7 
months; however, lawsuits can take an average of 2 years to settle.
  Even the CFPB has recognized that arbitration is more efficient, less 
costly, and more beneficial to consumers; so it boggles the mind trying 
to figure out why they are pursuing a course that would harm Americans.
  It is the responsibility of Congress to rein in government when it is 
outside the constitutional boundaries of its office or pursues a course 
of action that is harmful to the citizens. In this case, the CFPB is in 
violation of both of these principles.
  I support this legislation that would roll back the CFPB's ban on 
arbitration.

[[Page H6275]]

  Again, I thank the chairman for the time, and I thank the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) for sponsoring this bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the 
opposite side of the aisle hate Mr. Cordray so much because he has been 
so effective, returning $12 billion to consumers, that they would harm 
the American public rather than admit that they are wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.J. Res. 111, which will 
overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule, prohibiting 
forced arbitration for many consumer contracts, including student loan 
contracts.
  Banks and large corporations often take advantage of ordinary 
Americans by burying forced arbitration clauses and boiler plate fine 
print in standard contracts.
  When corporations force consumers to secretly arbitrate with 
handpicked firms, which rely on those same corporations for repeat 
business, the system is rigged.
  Take, for example, Matthew, who enrolled in a for-profit aviation 
school that closed before Matthew could finish his degree. At the 
recommendation of the school, he had taken out $56,000 in private 
student loans.
  With debt and no credential because the school had closed, Matthew 
joined a class action with thousands of other students. But due to a 
class action ban in the loan contract, the court ruled that thousands 
of individual students must individually settle their disputes with the 
bank in arbitration.
  That means each individual student had to hire their own lawyer, take 
time off to present their case, and everything else you have to do to 
present a case. That is why most victims of this kind of fraud will 
never collect what they are owed.
  If each victim only loses a little bit, virtually nobody will bring a 
claim. With the class action, at least you can achieve an injunction so 
the corporation will stop. Each plaintiff might receive a little bit, 
but without the class action, the corporation is free to continue the 
fraud.

  Without this rule, the banks will continue to use forced arbitration 
clauses to advance their special interests at the expense of innocent 
victims who will be ripped off.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why we need to stand with consumers. I urge my 
colleagues to do that: stand with consumers, reject this repeal of the 
important rule, and vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 111.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the ranking member on 
the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 111, which 
would repeal protections for our men and women in uniform and other 
everyday consumers against the use of forced arbitration by megabanks 
and other financial service providers.
  Earlier this month, the CFPB finalized strong rules to protect the 
rights of hardworking Americans to band together in our justice system 
to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable. This protection is 
particularly critical for our Nation's men and women in uniform and 
their loved ones.
  For over a decade, under both Democratic and Republican 
administrations, the Defense Department has warned Congress about the 
effects of forced arbitration in servicemembers' contracts. Often 
buried in the fine print of financial contracts, these clauses waive 
the rights of veterans and servicemembers to a day in court before a 
dispute even arises.
  If these arbitration provisions were so beneficial to consumers and 
to servicemen and -women, why do you have to sneak these mandatory 
provisions into the contract?
  There is overwhelming support for this rule among military service 
organizations who agree that forced arbitration clauses block access to 
the justice system and funnel the claims of servicemembers into 
private, costly arbitration systems.
  Since the Second World War, Congress has continuously expanded and 
strengthened the rights and protections for servicemembers and veterans 
out of a sense of obligation that we must honor and protect our men and 
women in uniform. But this resolution would end vital financial 
protections for those who have sacrificed so much in service to our 
country and the fundamental idea that we are a nation of laws and 
institutions that guarantee the rights and prosperity of every 
American.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, to 
preserve this rule, to stand up for the men and women in uniform, to 
stand up for the American consumer, and to stop being errand boys for 
the megabanks.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), the leader of the Democracy 
Reform Task Force.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are again: the special interests are running the 
show in Washington. Pointblank, this resolution will make it harder for 
Americans to get justice. Specifically, this will unwind critical new 
rules that allow financial consumers to take collective action. You 
heard that right. This is an effort to take away your ability to sue 
big banks when they run you over. Instead, the majority wants to force 
you into unfair, bureaucratic arbitration processes that severely 
disadvantage you in favor of the Wall Street firms.
  I always ask the same question when the Republicans bring these 
measures up here to gut consumer protections: Who back home is asking 
for this? Who is coming to the townhalls and begging to repeal this 
rule? Who is asking you to make it harder to seek damages when someone 
is being harmed by a big bank?
  Nobody is asking for this. In fact, as Keith Ellison said a few 
minutes ago, there are 100,000 people who are beseeching us to support 
this rule to protect them out there. Nobody is asking to repeal this 
rule or shut this rule down.
  I know who wants it here in Washington. It is the big money special 
interests, the so-called swamp. We can't let this happen. The American 
people should be furious.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless, shameful 
effort.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).
  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.J. Res. 111, which uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove 
and nullify the rule issued by the CFPB on July 10, 2017.
  Time and time again, we have seen the CFPB abuse their power and 
authority to unilaterally issue rules without seeking any input from 
Congress.
  Since its establishment, the CFPB has displayed complete disregard 
for due process, as it has issued enforcement actions against companies 
that are unjustly accused of wrongdoing.
  Frankly, the CFPB's recent antiarbitration rule is no different. This 
rule would change the ability for consumers to resolve disputes with 
financial services companies through arbitration, which has 
consistently provided consumers with expedient, efficient, and less 
costly resolutions.
  In short, making consumers pay more for less is the exact opposite of 
consumer protection, and is the reason we need to reject this harmful 
rule.
  I applaud the work of Chairman Hensarling and the other members of 
this committee on this work to hold the CFPB accountable.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the 
Higher Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee.

  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, as representatives of the 
people, our job is to protect working families. So let's be clear, we 
should be protecting

[[Page H6276]]

consumers, including members of our military who sacrifice so much for 
us.
  When a predatory lender forces arbitration, it puts consumers into a 
system where their grievances don't get the fair treatment of a court. 
Instead, a law firm handpicked by the corporation will decide the 
outcome, putting the consumer at an extreme disadvantage from the 
start.
  The CFPB issued a long, overdue role to prohibit this unfair practice 
that benefits wealthy special interests at the expense of the American 
people.
  So why would we take a step back?
  Even worse, these predatory lenders often prey on our military, so we 
should be protecting our military to have transparent and just legal 
options. Forced arbitration is just the opposite.
  Mr. Speaker, we need a process that works for consumers. This 
resolution will only bring us back to a broken system.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in striking down this 
resolution.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the vice ranking member of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose this CRA 
opposition, which rolls back critical protections for American 
consumers.
  Passing this resolution would set a nearly irreversible policy that 
allows Wall Street companies to commit pervasive fraud while avoiding 
the accountability that comes with a class action lawsuit.
  Access to our courts and the transparency and fairness they provide 
is a fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution. It is a sad irony 
that many of those that would be denied their constitutional rights 
through this resolution are the servicemembers and veterans who have 
risked their lives to protect those rights.
  When the American consumer takes on a Wall Street corporation, it is 
already a David versus Goliath situation. Now Republicans want to steal 
David's slingshot. Mr. Speaker, don't let them steal David's slingshot. 
Don't let them steal America's slingshot.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject this 
resolution.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a senior member on the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 111, a 
resolution that will undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
and allow financial institutions to continue taking advantage of 
consumers.
  The CFPB's arbitration rule protects consumers, including students, 
servicemembers, and seniors, by allowing them access to justice in 
court and to participate in class action lawsuits against unscrupulous 
financial institutions.
  I am a former consumer protection lawyer. I have no problem with 
arbitration clauses when they are agreed to by parties with equal 
bargaining power, but we have seen what happens when institutions 
include nonnegotiable forced arbitration clauses in the fine print of 
consumer contracts.
  Private student loan providers, payday lenders, credit card 
companies, and banks have consumers sign away their rights to access 
the court system when they are cheated. The CFPB rule will address that 
inequity and provide consumers with a remedy.
  We must reject this effort to roll back consumer protections and 
allow the CFPB to continue to do their important work. Please vote 
``no.''
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin), a member of the House Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution, which would stack the 
deck against hardworking families, small businesses, and nearly any 
group or individual who needs financial services.
  Mr. Speaker, universal access to fair and impartial courts is a 
principle that is enshrined in both the Sixth and Seventh Amendments of 
our Constitution. It is the cornerstone of our justice system. Without 
that access, we cannot hold bad actors accountable; families and small 
businesses suffer; justice is denied.
  Forced arbitration clauses protect the powerful by denying Americans 
their day in court. Big corporations have enormous leverage. They offer 
essential services and have few competitors.
  For many consumers, having a cell phone or a checking account means 
accepting arbitration. Often there are no other options.
  The CFPB has sought to correct that injustice. The Bureau's 
arbitration rule ensures that those who are wronged by a financial 
institution have meaningful recourse. At Wells Fargo and elsewhere, 
recent events have shown why that recourse is essential.
  When our courts are out of the picture, accountability can slip; 
cutting corners becomes less risky and more attractive.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), a member of the Committee 
on Appropriations and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there is one thing about us Americans that separates us 
from the rest of the world: we have a Bill of Rights in this country, 
and it includes the Seventh Amendment, and my colleague, Mr. McEachin, 
just mentioned it, the Seventh Amendment: the right of trial by jury 
shall be preserved. It is what makes us Americans.
  And watch out. When you hear them attacking legal fees and lawyers 
making money, that means they are attacking your rights. They are 
trying to take them away.
  For too long, big banks have gotten away with taking advantage of 
their customers, from fake accounts to subprime mortgages. American 
consumers have suffered a great deal of harm at the hands of Wall 
Street, and now we have a rule that will help consumers fight back. It 
is a rule from the Consumer Bureau that fixes a flaw in the judicial 
system that keeps victims from accessing justice by banding together 
with class actions.
  Don't let them take your rights away. Let's fight this resolution.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a Member who is outraged by 
the attack on consumers by the opposite side of the aisle.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be outraged on this one.
  About a month ago, the majority party took away the ability of people 
using the internet to keep their information private. You allowed every 
person on the internet, every company, to access everything about 
anybody who uses the internet. The country hated it. During that entire 
debate, you told America: We are out to protect you; we are protecting 
you.
  No one believed it, and here we are again today. You are out to 
protect the consumers, with no consumer groups who agree with you. You 
are basically telling people: Trust us more than you trust yourselves; 
therefore, in order to do that, we will take away your right to protect 
yourself in a court of law.
  No one buys it. No one buys it. Leave us alone. Let me defend myself. 
I don't need you to defend me. America wants to be left alone. Leave 
them alone.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, that is what arbitration is all about, 
to allow the individual to defend himself.

[[Page H6277]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am now prepared to 
close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have heard Democrats speak about the importance 
of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule to stop forced 
arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial products and 
the harm that would result from this joint resolution to repeal the 
rule.
  Forced arbitration clauses severely limit consumers' legal rights and 
prevent groups of consumers from holding financial institutions 
accountable for wrongdoing. The Consumer Bureau's rule helps to ensure 
that financial institutions are held accountable and fully protects the 
legal rights of consumers, including servicemembers and veterans.
  The majority has shamefully moved to nullify the Consumer Bureau's 
good work in a move that ultimately enables financial institutions to 
get off the hook when they commit wrongdoing, with less redress for 
consumers.
  Studies have shown that forced arbitration favors big business and 
results in less compensation for American consumers who have been 
abused or defrauded, if they receive any at all.
  This resolution steamrolls over the Consumer Bureau's sensible rule 
without regard for the harm that will result for American consumers and 
families. This is also despite the broad support for the rule from 
consumer advocacy, civil rights, and faith-based groups, legal 
scholars, and advocates for servicemembers.
  Congress must not curtail the legal rights of consumers, must not 
repeal the Consumer Bureau's forced arbitration rule. Vote to protect 
consumer rights. Vote to fully restore the American principle of right 
to trial by jury. Vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 111.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I keep hearing my 
colleagues talk about how fast consumers are taken care of under the 
arbitration rule. Yes, because they are getting railroaded.
  As I mentioned, they are in the back room without representation. 
These are people who have been forced to sign these arbitration 
agreements, not even knowing that they signed them.
  Most people who go out now to get a credit card or to get a loan of 
some kind, they are forced into these agreements and they don't even 
know it. They are shocked and surprised when they cannot join with 
others who have been ripped off in class action lawsuits.
  So don't pay attention to all of the information that you have 
received from the opposite side. Remember that the banks and big 
businesses win 93.1 percent of the time, not consumers.
  Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of consumers or are you 
protecting big business?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial 
Services Committee, and I think we are going to have some answers to 
those important questions that the ranking member just asked.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Luetkemeyer) for yielding, and I appreciate his leadership on this 
issue, as I do the gentleman from Pennsylvania as well.
  Mr. Speaker, since 1925, this institution, the United States 
Congress, has recognized the right of consumers to engage in 
arbitration, which we know for so many consumers is their avenue for 
redress of grievance. We know that this has been upheld on multiple 
occasions by the Supreme Court. We have almost 100 years of precedence. 
And now this rogue agency, the Orwellian-named CFPB, decides to 
promulgate a rule, and it is not even an agency. Mr. Speaker, it is one 
unelected, unaccountable individual who has decided that Americans no 
longer have the right to contract, they no longer have the right to 
decide that they would prefer to arbitrate instead of go through a 
class action lawsuit.
  Mr. Speaker, let's let people know what this is truly about. What 
this is about is the trial attorneys relief act. Theirs are the voices 
that we are hearing on the other side of the aisle, and we are hearing 
them loud and clear, because what we know is that, in class action 
lawsuits, consumers end up with almost nothing and the trial lawyers 
make out like bandits.
  Even in the CFPB's own study, they figured out that those who go 
through class action are doing well to get $32.35, yet the trial 
lawyers make out with millions. We also know in the CFPB's own study 
that those who went through arbitration ended up with settlements of 
$5,389.
  Mr. Speaker, here are just a couple of different class action 
lawsuits that have happened recently. A Dell Computers class action 
lawsuit: $500,000 for class members, $7 million for the lawyers; Subway 
sandwiches: $50,000 for the class members, $500,000 for the trial 
attorneys.
  Oh, here is a good one, Mr. Speaker, Coca-Cola class action: $0 for 
class members, $1.2 million for the lawyers; L.A. Fitness 
International: $7,000 for class members, $200,000 for lawyers.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are not foolish. It is time to drain 
the swamp and to start off with the bureaucracy that is taking away 
their rights to have dispute resolution through arbitration. They are 
tired of seeing others go and kowtow to the trial lawyers lobby in this 
town to give them what they want. It is time to make sure that 
Americans' consumer rights can be protected, and so it is time that we 
pass this Congressional Review Act for all Americans.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I 
have worked long and hard to preserve the availability of fair, 
affordable arbitration to consumers. Hearings before the Judiciary 
Committee have demonstrated repeatedly that arbitration allows 
consumers to resolve disputes quickly, fairly and at lower costs than 
litigation. It also helps consumers to preserve relationships with 
companies with whom they contract, by avoiding the acrimony of 
litigation.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Arbitration Rule threatens 
to undo all of that, not to benefit consumers, but to benefit one 
special interest--the plaintiffs class-action trial bar.
  By prohibiting consumers and companies from contracting to arbitrate 
individual matters, rather than litigate disputes through class 
actions, it ensures a steady stream of class-action litigation--and 
handsome class-action attorneys' fees--for the trial bar. But for 
consumers, it burdens their freedom of contract, subjects them to long, 
drawn-out class-action litigation, and sets up scenarios in which large 
portions of any recoveries they obtain will go, not to them, but to 
class-action lawyers with whom they are forced to deal.
  For companies, meanwhile, the Rule threatens to force them into 
choosing whether to continue to fund their arbitration programs or, 
instead, to shutter those programs to preserve funds for high-dollar 
class-action defense.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution and against the 
CFPB's special-interest, anti-consumer rule.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. 
Res. 111, which would repeal the Arbitration Rule recently created by 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  The Arbitration Rule is an important victory for consumer protection, 
because it prevents banks and other financial institutions from 
stripping consumers of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to a day 
in court.
  The ``forced arbitration'' clauses that this rule addresses prevents 
a consumer from filing a lawsuit against a company, and always forces 
the consumer into a private and confidential arbitration process that 
operates outside of the legal system.
  Additionally, these clauses, which are often buried in the fine-print 
of agreements and do not allow the consumer any authority to change 
them, frequently prohibit class-action claims.
  This means that even if there are thousands of consumers who have 
been hurt by a bank or financial institution in a similar way, they 
would not be able to join their complaints into one case.
  By forcing each and every consumer to endure arbitration on his or 
her own, outcomes for cases with the exact same complaints will vary 
unjustly, because arbitration does not set legal precedent.
  Mr. Speaker, these forced arbitration clauses essentially amount to a 
rip-off clause.
  It is clear that this rip-off clause is stacked against the consumer 
and is meant to shield predatory banks, payday lenders, credit card 
companies and other financial institutions from accountability when 
they cheat or plunder consumers.
  In April of this year, it was revealed that Wells Fargo opened as 
many as 149,857 fraudulent bank accounts in my home state of Texas, 
including many in Houston.

[[Page H6278]]

  But the rip-off clause prevented consumers from getting justice.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Arbitration Rule 
rightfully aims to protect consumers from being forced to sign away 
their legal rights when doing something as simple as opening a bank 
account, obtaining a credit card, financing a home, or obtaining a 
private student loan.
  The CFPB's Arbitration Rule makes it easier for consumers to file a 
lawsuit if they are harmed by a bank or financial institution, and 
increases transparency in the arbitration process.
  The Arbitration Rule strongly serves the public interest.
  H.J. Res. 111 is only the latest in a long series of attacks that 
Republicans have leveled against the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau since its very creation in 2011.
  The Bureau is a tremendous ally in the fight for consumer protection, 
and it is imperative that its work be allowed to continue.
  It is unconscionable that Republicans are working so hard to repeal a 
rule that only serves to protect consumers from harmful and predatory 
practices by the financial services industry.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in rejecting this harmful 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 468, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of H.J. Res. 111 will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3364.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 190, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 412]

                               AYES--231

     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 (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     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
     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
     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--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     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, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     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

     Buchanan
     Costello (PA)
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     Graves (MO)
     Lawson (FL)
     Meadows
     Napolitano
     Palmer
     Renacci
     Scalise

                              {time}  1706

  Ms. BASS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ADERHOLT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, On rollcall vote No. 412 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________