[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1136-H1146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 620, ADA EDUCATION AND REFORM ACT
OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3299, PROTECTING
CONSUMERS' ACCESS TO CREDIT ACT OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 3978, TRID IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2017; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS
DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 16, 2018, THROUGH FEBRUARY 23, 2018
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 736 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 736
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, 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. 620) to amend the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 to promote compliance through education, to
clarify the requirements for demand letters, to provide for a
notice and cure period before the commencement of a private
civil action, 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 the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No
amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed
in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments 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.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3299) to amend
the Revised Statutes, the Home Owners' Loan Act, the Federal
Credit Union Act, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to
require the rate of interest on certain loans remain
unchanged after transfer of the loan, and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 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.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3978) to amend
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 to modify
requirements related to mortgage disclosures, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-59,
modified by the amendment printed in part B of the report of
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further 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; (2) the
further amendment printed in part C of the report of the
Committee on Rules, if offered by the Member designated in
the report, which shall be in order without intervention of
any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be
separately debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from
February 16, 2018, through February 23, 2018--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on House Resolution 736, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward
this rule today on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for
consideration of H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act; H.R. 3978,
the TRID Improvement Act; and H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers'
Access to Credit Act of 2017.
The rule provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 620, equally divided
between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The
rule also provides for a motion to recommit and makes in order multiple
amendments from colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
It also provides for one hour of debate on the two Financial Services
bills, with time equally divided between the chairman and ranking
member of that committee.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from my
fellow Judiciary Committee members: Mr. Nadler, Mr. Poe, as well as Mr.
Langevin. We also heard from Mr. Hill and Ms. Waters on the Financial
Services bill.
H.R. 620 received consideration by the Judiciary Committee and
enjoyed a rigorous markup process. H.R. 3299 and H.R. 3978 were
considered and reported by the Financial Services Committee.
The bills before us today address different topics on different
segments of our economy and our Nation, but they have something in
common. They are all pro-growth bills aimed at righting wrongs,
increasing common sense, and improving the way that the current system
works.
I am a cosponsor of H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act and,
as a member of the Judiciary Committee, have had multiple occasions to
talk and listen about this bill. It is sponsored by my good friend from
Texas (Mr. Poe), and several of my friends from both sides of the aisle
have cosponsored this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have cosponsored this bill because I believe the
Americans with Disabilities Act is critical legislation. No individual
should ever suffer discrimination for any reason, and disabled
individuals should have access to businesses and other sites that
provide public accommodation. I am a former small-business owner, so I
speak from experience running businesses.
Even more importantly, however, one of the main reasons I stand
before you on this issue and behind this bill is I am the father of a
strong, intelligent, capable, and a little sassy daughter named Jordan.
Jordan is 26 years old and has spina bifida. Jordan has been in a
wheelchair her entire life. Her first walk and first steps came in a
little, pink wheelchair.
Jordan makes this issue personal for me. Discrimination is
unacceptable, and it is also unacceptable for opportunists to build a
cottage industry of serial litigation on the backs of the disabled,
especially when these drive-by lawsuits offer little to no discernible
benefit to disabled individuals.
Mr. Speaker, my daughter Jordan helps me understand the importance of
[[Page H1137]]
access to public space and the danger posed by lawsuits that exploit
the disabled community instead of serving its members. I believe that
there are good actors genuinely seeking to increase access and call to
task those who block access to disabled individuals. Unfortunately,
what we are seeing too often is bad actors intentionally exploiting the
law for their own financial gain.
When these bad actors, these serial litigants, clog up the courts by
drive-by lawsuits geared not at solutions but at profits, they take up
time the courts could be using to address issues that truly need
remediation. They also undermine the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The intent and purpose of the ADA is not to drum up lawsuits; it is to
prevent discrimination, increase access, and to protect those with
disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, the disability community, my daughter included,
represents some of the strongest people I know. They have a voice, and
they are powerful. Today, we are here making sure the law works better
for them and that it isn't being exploited by those who seek to
undermine that law.
Today, small businesses face legal fees and complex technical jargon
when presented with an impediment to access. Most businesses want to
fix such issues and would, but instead of being able to make this issue
right, they are forced into court before they have the chance to do so.
In some examples of these serial lawsuits, the issues have not even
been perceptible to the human eye; in others, building codes have
changed--and yes, even the ADA--yet business owners have been hauled
into court before they have a chance to respond or to fix the problem.
H.R. 620 ensures businesses have the opportunity to fix any access
issues once they have been made aware of them. It provides notice and a
cure period and clarifies the requirements for demand letters. It also
provides training for business owners and State and local governments
so that they can better understand proper ADA compliance.
The number of ADA title III lawsuits has skyrocketed in recent years.
Since 2013, there has been a 132 percent increase in the number of
lawsuits in Federal courts. H.R. 620 addresses this problem in a smart
way that maintains the integrity, purpose, and key provisions of the
Americans with Disabilities Act while ensuring there is a chance to fix
access issues.
This bill does not take away an individual's right to sue for access.
This bill does not overturn the ADA. It does give business owners a
chance to fix ADA problems quickly. Some owners may not even actually
realize they are not in compliance. Codes have changed, and there are
literally hundreds of pages of compliance.
{time} 1230
That, however, is not an excuse for willful noncompliance. Far from
it. But it is a reason that good actors who may need to update their
accommodations should have a chance to do so.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this bill has bipartisan
support and that the Rules Committee made in order several amendments
from Members on both sides of the aisle so that we can consider ideas
to even further strengthen this legislation. I would ask that all
Members listen to that amendment debate because these amendments do
have an impact on this bill, and I would encourage them to be a part of
that.
H.R. 620 makes sense and focuses on fixing issues rather than
spending money on trials or, better yet, extorting money from
businesses with no thought of helping those with disabilities.
We also have a chance to consider some other commonsense measures
today with the two important Financial Services bills also provided for
by this rule.
H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act, was
introduced by Mr. McHenry and Mr. Meeks, and reported by the Financial
Services Committee with bipartisan support. Similar language was
included in the House-passed CHOICE Act last year.
This legislation codifies the ``valid-when-made'' doctrine, a
longstanding legal principle that, if a loan is valid when it is made
with respect to its interest rate, then it does not become invalid or
unenforceable when assigned to another party. This bill is a response
to the 2015 decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Madden
v. Midland, which appears to have ignored the longstanding legal
principle.
The decision in the Madden case created instability and uncertainty
in the secondary credit market, and restricts the availability of loans
to borrowers, particularly those with less access to traditional
lending sources. It has also led to regulatory uncertainty and fallout
for fintech lenders. My home State of Georgia has an increasing
presence in fintech, and H.R. 3299 provides a legislative fix that
increases certainty and supports economic opportunity.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss 3978, the TRID
Improvement Act, which incorporates numerous important provisions from
several smart Financial Services bills. It was introduced by
Congressman Hill from Arkansas, and takes steps to provide important
regulatory relief and make capital markets more competitive and
efficient.
Dodd-Frank led to an explosion of regulations and requirements that
ultimately have squeezed access to capital, created hurdles to smaller
market entrants, and imposed burdens on small businesses, startups, and
investors.
One especially critical provision is H.R. 3978, the language authored
by Mr. Duffy from Wisconsin. This provision prohibits the SEC from
compelling the production of source code or similar intellectual
property without a subpoena. The SEC has had a data breach, and the GAO
has been critical of its cybersecurity.
I think Mr. Duffy and Mr. Hill, along with my colleague David Scott
from Georgia, are right to recognize that we shouldn't be forcing SEC
registered entities to hand over their highly sensitive source code
without due process protections. This legislation ensures normal
processes can be followed to access this information is needed, but
prevents unnecessary disclosures of this intellectual property.
Mr. Speaker, source code for security and other financial entities is
similar to what the Coke recipe is to Coca-Cola, or the doughnut recipe
is to Krispy Kreme. It is critical intellectual property that
represents the backbone of a company. This bill makes clear that this
sensitive and highly valuable information doesn't have to be simply
handed over to the SEC with the hope that the information remains
secure.
H.R. 3978 includes numerous other key provisions, including
recognizing unique needs of emerging growth companies and tailoring
regulatory burdens accordingly, and requiring the CFPB--the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau--to allow for more accurate and clear
calculations to be provided to consumers when they purchase lenders and
owners title insurance policies.
Mr. Speaker, today, you are seeing a theme. You are seeing a rule
that provides for numerous bills that make commonsense changes to the
current system to spur growth and simply increases fairness. And you
are seeing bipartisan bills, including bipartisan amendments, that will
be coming forward on this in support of these bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, today, sadly, we find ourselves considering legislation
that would actually make it easier for unscrupulous payday lenders to
actually skirt State interest rate caps and another bill that guts
enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act that puts an unfair
burden on people with disabilities.
These bills hurt the American people. Instead of spending our time
here debating a very important immigration bill, like the Senate is
doing across the way, we are considering bills that will only harm our
most vulnerable populations.
Over on the other side of the Capitol, the Senate is having an open
debate about immigration in our country. This House owes the American
people no less. The Senate is trying to find solutions to help the
hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients, to improve border security,
or to address family reunification. The Senate is debating different
proposals from both sides of
[[Page H1138]]
the aisle. We will see what they come up with.
Again, this House is simply not doing its job. This House is doing
nothing to improve border security, nothing to address the DACA
recipients or family reunification. Over here, there is not even a plan
to bring any immigration bill or amendment to the floor. In fact, there
is no commitment at all to actually address the issues that the
American people care about. We have bipartisan bills today that Speaker
Ryan could bring to the floor. They would pass with probably 70 or 60
percent of the vote.
Mr. Speaker, the March 5 deadline for DACA protections is rapidly
approaching. There is no plan in place to protect Dreamers like
Anareli, Marcos, and Javier in my district. Instead, over 800,000 young
adults are trying to see what happens next, hoping that the court
system intervenes, hoping that somebody somewhere does something so
they can continue to live and work legally in the only country that
they know, the country that they call home, the United States of
America.
I have offered the Dream Act as an amendment to every spending bill
that has come through the Rules Committee. I will continue to do so
until we finally get it done.
But, again, instead of bringing up a bill to help protect Dreamers
before the self-Trump-imposed March 5 deadline, the House will consider
legislation that undermines the civil rights of disabled Americans, and
it also makes it easier for predatory lenders to evade consumer
protection laws. And people wonder why the House of Representatives is
as unpopular as it is.
H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act is a bill
that hurts consumers. It is one that makes it easier for payday lenders
to evade well-thought-out State-level protection laws.
That is why over 200 national and State organizations have written in
opposition to this bill, which they fear would open the floodgates for
predatory lending with interest rates as high as 300 percent.
Additionally, 20 State attorneys general have also written in
opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these two letters.
November 29, 2017.
Re Oppose H.R. 3299 (McHenry) and S. 1642 (Warner),
Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017.
Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned 202 national and
state organizations write in strong opposition to H.R. 3299
(McHenry) and S. 1642 (Warner), the Protecting Consumers'
Access to Credit Act of 2017. The primary impact of this bill
will be enabling nonbank lenders to make high-cost loans that
exceed state interest rate limits by using a bank to
originate the loan. The bill poses a serious risk of enabling
predatory lending and unsafe lending practices. Unaffordable
loans have devastating consequences for borrowers--trapping
them in a cycle of unaffordable payments and leading to harms
such as greater delinquency on other bills.
Specifically, the bill makes it easier for payday lenders
and other nonbanks to use rent-a-bank arrangements to ignore
state interest rate caps and make high-rate loans. The bill
overrides the Second Circuit's Madden v. Midland decision,
which held that a debt buyer purchasing debts originated by a
national bank could not benefit from the National Bank Act's
preemption of state interest rate caps. The Madden decision
did not limit the interest rates that banks may charge on
credit cards and other forms of credit, but it does limit
nonbanks from evading state interest rate caps. Reversing the
Second Circuit's decision, as this bill seeks to do, would
make it easier for payday lenders, debt buyers, online
lenders, fintech companies, and other companies to use
``rent-a-bank'' arrangements to charge high rates on loans.
The bill provides that ``a loan that is valid when made as
to its maximum rate of interest . . . shall remain valid with
respect to such rate regardless of whether the loan is
subsequently sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred to a
third party, and may be enforced by such third party
notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.'' In other
words, if a bank originates a loan that exceeds state
interest rate caps, and then sells or assigns the loan to a
nonbank, that nonbank can continue to charge a usurious rate.
This bill could open the floodgates to a wide range of
predatory actors to make loans at 300% annual interest or
higher. The bill could bless arrangements such as the
partnership between the payday lender Elevate and Republic
Bank, through which Elevate is making high-cost loans that
exceed state interest rate caps. Through its Elastic brand,
Elevate offers purportedly open-end loans in 39 states and
the District of Columbia.
Elevate does not disclose an APR, but a $380 advance repaid
with monthly minimum payments would cost $480 to repay over
five months. Including all fees, the annual rate for this
extension of credit is about 100%, which is nearly three
times the 36% legal interest rate approved by voters in
Montana, one of the states where the lines of credit are
offered. Through its Rise brand, Elevate also makes closed-
end loans at rates up to 365% in states where those rates are
permitted, and it could attempt to expand to other states.
Enova, dba NetCredit, also offers high-cost installment
loans in a number of states through a rent-a-bank
partnership. Enova, like Elevate, relies on Republic Bank and
Trust to facilitate this scheme.
Other payday lenders have regularly attempted to avoid
state usury caps through rent-a-bank arrangements. For
example, CashCall has attempted to partner with banks to make
usurious loans in several states. Courts have struck down
those arrangements, finding that CashCall had to comply with
state interest rate caps. The bill could undermine these
decisions, by stating that a loan's interest rate remains
valid even if a loan is transferred or assigned to a third
party and ``may be enforced by such third party
notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.'' This could
allow high-rate lenders to use banks to originate and then
immediately transfer usurious loans.
This bill is a massive attack on state consumer protection
laws. In a letter by 20 State Attorneys General opposing
provisions in another bill that would have overturned the
Madden decision, the state law enforcement officers warned
that the bill ``would restrict states' abilities to enforce
interest rate caps. It is essential to preserve the ability
of individual states to enforce their existing usury caps and
oppose any measures to enact a federal law that would preempt
state usury caps.'' ' In fact, the Colorado Attorney General
is in the midst of challenging online lenders' use of a rent-
a-bank scheme to make loans in violation of the state's usury
limits. This bill aims to thwart actions like these that seek
to enforce state laws.
The potential costs and damage to consumers are
significant. In about 34 states, a $2,000 loan, 2-year
installment loan at an APR exceeding 36% would be illegal.
This bill risks making high-cost loans permissible across the
country. The bill also could potentially expand short-term
payday lending to the 15 states plus the District of Colombia
whose state interest rate limits currently save borrowers
over $2.2 billion annually in payday loan fees.
Fintech lenders also should not be allowed to make loans
that exceed state interest rate caps. State interest rate
caps have not impacted responsible marketplace loans. The
leading marketplace lenders do not make loans above 36% and
the vast majority of their loans are well below that rate,
comfortably within state interest rate caps. But the mere
fact that a lender uses the label ``fintech'' or
``martketplace lender'' does not ensure that it is a safe or
affordable loan. For example, OnDeck, a lender focused on
small business lending, offers term loans up to 99%.
Moreover, many marketplace lenders make very large loans of
$30,000 to $50,000 or higher, and even 36% is a very high
rate for such loans. Many states have tiered rate structures
in recognition that interest becomes more unaffordable the
larger the loan. Iowa, for example, caps interest at 21% for
loans over $10,000.
There are also signs that some online lenders may not be
appropriately underwriting their loans to ensure that the
loans are affordable, and that many borrowers may not have
the ability to repay, especially, if the economy sours.
Recent news reports and SEC filings show that delinquency and
charge-off rates at these marketplace lenders are rising. One
online lender apparently failed to verify a borrower's income
for a full two-thirds of its loans in 2016. Another lender
has had so many of its loans fail, that it has had to repay
investors for their losses in the last three securitizations
of the loans it bundled up and sold to Wall Street.
This bill would weaken lenders' incentive to underwrite
properly by making it easier to make high-rate loans. High
interest rates result in misaligned incentives that can lead
to lender profits but borrower catastrophe. Skewed incentives
are already a problem in the marketplace loan industry.
Moody's credit-rating firms liken this industry to mortgage
lending in the years leading up to the 2008 financial
crisis--``because the companies that market the loans and
approve them quickly sell them off to investors,'' relieving
themselves of the risk of the loan later going bad. This bill
could make that problem worse.
The bill is not necessary to ensure access to affordable
credit. Proponents of this bill claim that the Madden
decision has had an adverse impact on access to credit. They
point to a study that showed a drop in marketplace lending by
three lenders in the Second Circuit after the Madden decision
for subprime borrowers, especially for those with FICO scores
below 644. However, the study showed that these lenders
offered only miniscule amounts of credit in the low FICO
range even before the Madden decision. Thus, the impact on
access to credit was trivial. Moreover, it is likely that the
credit extended before the decision at the lower end of the
FICO spectrum was made to borrowers who had trouble repaying,
and that lenders were relying on high interest rates on large
loans to compensate for high default rates.
[[Page H1139]]
The bill wipes away the strongest available tool against
predatory lending practices. Strong state rate caps, coupled
with effective enforcement by states, remain the simplest and
most effective method to protect consumers from the predatory
lending debt trap. Contrary to what lenders often claim,
robust state loan laws do not drive people to find loans
online. In fact, illegal online lending is more prevalent in
states that do not effectively regulate predatory lending
than it is in states that enforce state interest rate caps.
Accordingly, we urge you to reject this bill. For more
information, contact Lauren Saunders at [email protected] or
Scott Astrada at Scott.A[email protected].
Action NC; Albany Center for Economic Success, Inc.; Allied
Progress; Americans for Financial Reform; Arbor Farm Press;
Arizona Community Action Association; Arizona PIRG; Arkansans
Against Abusive Payday Lending; Ashe County Habitat for
Humanity; Asheville Area Habitat for Humanity; Baker
Organizing School South.; Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc;
Billings First Congregational Church; Brazos Valley
Affordable Housing Corp.; Bucks County Women's Advocacy
Coalition; Business Outreach Center Network, Inc.; California
Reinvestment Coalition; CALPIRG; Capital Good Fund; CARECEN-
Central American Resource Center.
Carolina Behavioral Health Alliance; Carolina Jews for
Justice; CASH Campaign of Maryland; Catalyst Miami; Catholic
Charities of Southern New Mexico; CCCS of WNC, Inc. DBA
OnTrack Financial Education & Counseling; Cedar Grove
Institute for Sustainable Communities; Center for Economic
Integrity; Center for Economic Integrity--New Mexico Office;
Center for Financial Social Work; Center for Global Policy
Solutions; Center for Responsible Lending; CEO Pipe Organs/
Golden Ponds Farm; Children First/Communities In Schools of
Buncombe County; Church Women United in North Carolina;
Clarifi; CO PIRG; Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in
Ohio; College Park: An American Baptist Church; Colorado
Center on Law & Policy; Communications Workers of America
(CWA).
Community Capital New York; Community Council of
Metropolitan Atlanta; Community Economic Development
Association of MI (CEDAM); Community Loan Fund of the Capital
Region Inc.; Connecticut Association for Human Services;
Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.; ConnPIRG; Consumer Action;
Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; Covenant
House of WV; Credit and Homeownership Empowerment Services
Inc (CHES, Inc.); Credit Counseling Agencies of NC; Creighton
College Democrats; Davidson Housing Coalition; Demos;
Disability Rights North Carolina; Durham Regional Financial
Center; East LA Community Corporation; Ecumenical Poverty
Initiative; Empire Justice Center.
Faith in Action Alabama; Faith in Texas; Fayetteville Area
Habitat for Humanity; Federation of Democratic Women DAC;
Financial Pathways of the Piedmont; Florida Alliance for
Consumer Protection; Florida Alliance for Retired Americans;
Florida Consumer Action Network; Florida PIRG; Fons Law
Office, representing consumers; Georgia PIRG; Georgia Watch;
Gowen Consulting; Greater Ward's Corner Area Business
Association (Virginia); Habitat for Humanity of Catawba
Valley, Inc.; Habitat for Humanity of Davie County; Habitat
for Humanity of Greater Greensboro; Habitat for Humanity of
North Carolina; Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human
Rights; Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas; Hispanic
Federation; HomesteadCS; Housing Consultants Group.
IDA and Asset Building Collaborative of NC; Illinois
People's Action; Illinois PIRG; Indiana Assets & Opportunity
Network; Indiana Institute for Working Families; Indiana
PIRG; Innovative Systems Group; Iowa PIRG; Jesuit Social
Research Institute at Loyola University New Orleans; Just
Harvest; Kentucky Equal Justice Center; La Casa de Don Pedro;
Legal Aid Justice Center (Virginia); Legal Aid Society of
Milwaukee; Legal Services of Southern Piedmont; Long Island
Housing Services, Inc.; Louisiana Budget Project; Lutheran
Episcopal Advocacy Ministry NJ; Lutheran Advocacy Ministry--
New Mexico; Maine Center for Economic Policy; Maryland
Consumer Rights Coalition; Maryland PIRG; MASSPIRG;
Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council.
MICAH; Mobilization for Justice, Inc.; Montana Organizing
Project; Montebello Housing Development Corporation; MoPIRG;
Mountain State Justice; NAACP; NAOMI; National Association of
Consumer Advocates; National Association of Social Workers
West Virginia Chapter; National Consumer Law Center (on
behalf of its low-income clients); National Rural Social Work
Caucus; Native Community Finance; NCPIRG; New Economics for
Women; New Economy Project; New Jersey Appleseed Public
Interest Law Center; New Jersey Citizen Action; New Jersey
Tenants Organization; New Mexico Fair Lending Coalition;
NHPIRG; NJPIRG; North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute,
Inc.
North Carolina Assets Alliance; North Carolina Council of
Churches; North Carolina Housing Coalition; North Carolina
Institute of Minority Economic Development; North Carolina
Justice Center; North Carolina PIRG; North Carolina Rural
Center; North Carolina State AFL-CIO; North Carolina United
Methodist Conference; North Dakota Economic Security and
Prosperity Alliance; OhioPIRG; Oklahoma Policy Institute;
Oregon PIRG; PennPIRG; Pennsylvania Council of Churches;
Pennsylvania Military Officers Association of America;
Pennsylvania War Veterans Council; People's Action Institute;
Philadelphia Unemployment Project; Piedmont Housing Alliance
(Virginia); PIRG in Michigan; Power New Mexico.
Prince George's CASH Campaign; Prosperity Indiana;
Prosperity Works; Public Justice; Public Justice Center;
Public Law Center; Reinvestment Partners; Rural Dynamics,
Inc.; Safety MD LLC; Samaritan Ministries; Sisters of Charity
of Nazareth Congregational Leadership; Sisters of Charity of
Nazareth Western Province Leadership; Sisters of Mercy South
Central Community; Southern Poverty Law Center; Statewide
Poverty Action Network; Step Up Savannah; Tabor Community
Services; Tennessee Citizen Action; Texas Appleseed; TexPIRG;
The AMOS Project; The Bell Policy Center; The Episcopal
Diocese of North Carolina; The Midas Collaborative; The One
Less Foundation.
Tuscaloosa Citizens Against Predatory Practices; Tzedek DC;
U.S. PIRG; Unitarian Universalist Pennsylvania Legislative
Advocacy Network; UNITE HERE; United for a Fair Economy;
University of Wisconsin Law School, Consumer Law Clinic;
Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Virginia Interfaith
Center for Public Policy; Virginia Organizing; Virginia
Poverty Law Center; Virginians Against Payday Lending; VOICE
Oklahoma City; WASHPIRG; Watauga County Habitat for Humanity;
WESST; West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy; West
Virginia Citizen Action Group; WISDOM; WISPIRG; Women
AdvaNCe; Woodstock Institute; WV Citizen Action Group.
State of New York,
Office of the Attorney General,
June 7, 2017.
Re The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10).
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny Hoyer,
Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McCarthy, Minority
Leader Pelosi, and Minority Whip Hoyer: On behalf of the
undersigned State Attorneys General and the Executive
Director of the Office of Consumer Protection for the State
of Hawaii (the ``States''), we write to express our strong
opposition to H.R. 10 (the ``Act''), which we understand the
full House of Representatives intends to vote on this week.
The proposed Act will eliminate many of the critical consumer
protections implemented as a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank'') in
the wake of, and in response to, the financial crisis. As the
chief consumer protection officers in each of our respective
States, we write to call your particular attention to those
portions of the Act that would effectively eviscerate the
role of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (``CFPB''),
the only independent federal agency exclusively focused on
consumer financial protection. While the Act purports to
protect consumers from over-regulation by federal agencies,
its far-reaching consequences would make consumers more
vulnerable to fraud and abuse in the marketplace. The
undersigned States support the work of the CFPB and oppose
any effort to curtail its authority. While we find numerous
provisions of the Act to be objectionable, we write to
highlight certain provisions that would significantly impact
consumer protection -- a core function of our States.
I. Background
Our States' work to protect consumers from unscrupulous
marketplace actors and practices is greatly enhanced when the
federal government serves as an effective partner. In the
years leading up to the global financial crisis, residents of
our States suffered the consequences of a federal government
that failed to fulfill its basic obligations to U.S.
consumers to prevent fraud and misconduct by mortgage
providers, servicers, and other financial firms. Families
nationwide suffered dire financial consequences as a result
of lax federal oversight and inaction.
Since its inception, the CFPB has emerged as the
independent federal consumer watchdog the nation has long
needed, and as a key partner in critically important consumer
protection work undertaken by our States and by State
Attorneys General across the country. The exceptional record
of the CFPB speaks for itself. As of January 1, 2017, the
CFPB has handled over one million consumer complaints, and
obtained $11.8 billion in relief for 29 million consumers.
The CFPB has taken enforcement actions to stem abuses by
student loan originators and servicers, for-profit schools,
debt collectors, credit reporting agencies, payday lenders,
and foreclosure ``rescue'' companies, among others. Among its
more recent, significant enforcement actions have been cases
against
[[Page H1140]]
mortgage servicer Ocwen Financial Corporation for widespread
mortgage servicing failures, including improperly calculating
balances, misapplying payments, and failing to investigate
consumer complaints, student loan servicer Navient for
student loan servicing abuses, including failing to notify
struggling borrowers of their eligibility for income-based
repayment plans and steering such borrowers into more costly
forbearance plans--and Wells Fargo bank for its widespread
practice of opening unauthorized bank and credit card
accounts for consumers. In addition, as part of its statutory
mandate, the CFPB has conducted thorough and nuanced studies
of complex financial issues that impact consumers and has
issued rules intended to protect consumers in a thoughtful,
consensus-driven manner.
II. The Devastating Effects of the Act on Consumer Protection
The Act would effectively cripple the CFPB from doing the
job it has been doing so effectively since its inception.
A. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Rulemaking and Enforcement
Authority Over Unfair, Deceptive, and Abusive Acts and Practices
Section 736 of the Act would eliminate the CFPB's authority
to prohibit unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices
(``UDAAP''). The CFPB's authority to prohibit entities it
supervises from engaging in UDAAP violations has been the
basis for many of the CFPB's most significant enforcement
actions, including the Ocwen, Navient, and Wells Fargo
matters discussed above. In addition, several of the
undersigned States have jointly filed cases with the CFPB
against businesses and individuals engaged in unfair,
deceptive, or abusive practices. UDAAP authority gives the
CFPB the flexibility to respond swiftly to new technologies
and practices that harm consumers, without the need to wait
for legislation expressly addressing a given practice.
B. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Supervision and Enforcement
Authority Over Large Banks
Section 727 of the Act would similarly eliminate the CFPB's
supervision and enforcement authority over large banks and
permit financial institutions that meet certain criteria to
elect to be exempted from the CFPB's supervisory authority.
This provision is concerning in a number of ways, not the
least of which is that it is through the supervision process
that the CFPB often learns of systemic issues in the
companies and industries it regulates. The CFPB is the only
federal agency that has been conducting consumer protection
reviews as the focus of their supervisory authority (rather
than safety and soundness), which is important for the
reasons previously discussed. In addition, many of the CFPB's
enforcement actions have been against the large banks.
C. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB's Authority to Regulate Payday and
Vehicle Title Loans
Section 733 of the Act expressly prohibits the CFPB from
engaging in any rulemaking or enforcement with respect to
payday and vehicle title loans. Payday lending, as the CFPB's
own extensive research has documented, has adversely affected
the lives of millions of financially vulnerable consumers
across the country. The CFPB has been at the forefront of
curbing abuses in the payday lending industry and has
supplemented state enforcement by taking enforcement actions
against payday and other lenders that are attempting to
collect on loans that are void under state law. The CFPB has
been similarly aggressive in uncovering and confronting
abuses in the vehicle title loan industry, where consumers,
risk the loss of their vehicle (with the corresponding loss
in mobility) if they find themselves unable to repay their
loans. The Act will strip the CFPB of all authority in these
areas, including its enforcement authority and the ability to
adopt sensible and common sense rules to prevent consumers
from falling into debt traps that are often the result of
payday and vehicle title loans.
D. The Act Would Permit Third Party Debt Collectors to Charge Usurious
Interest Rates
Section 581 of the Act would restrict states' abilities to
enforce interest rate caps. Currently, there are no federal
interest rate caps that cover financial products and services
offered by national banks. Rather, national banks are
permitted to export the interest rate of their home state and
disregard the more stringent interest rates of other states
in which they do business. Section 581 of the Act would add
language to four federal statutes to provide that, when a
national bank sells or assigns debt covered by the National
Bank Act, the buyer or assignee has the right to collect that
same interest rate, regardless of the law of the state where
the buyer or assignee is located. This would make it more
difficult to ensure that debt buyers, online lenders, fintech
companies, and rent-a-bank schemes comply with state interest
rate caps. It is essential to preserve the ability of
individual states to enforce their existing usury caps and
oppose any measures to enact a federal law that would preempt
state usury caps.
E. The Act Would Eliminate the CFPB Rulemaking Authority Regarding
Mandatory Arbitration
Section 738 of the Act would repeal the provision of Dodd-
Frank that granted the CFPB authority to study and issue
rules regarding arbitration in financial services contracts.
Dodd-Frank expressly authorized the CFPB to study arbitration
provisions in financial services contracts, and to issue
regulations prohibiting or restricting such provisions if the
CFPB concluded that doing so would be ``in the public
interest and for the protection of consumers.'' After a
thorough review, the CFPB concluded that tens of millions of
Americans use financial products or services subject to
mandatory arbitration clauses that prohibit proceeding on a
class basis and that the effect of such provisions is to
prevent consumers from seeking redress, particularly for
small dollar claims. Elimination of the CFPB's authority in
this area can only operate to the detriment of consumers.
F. The Act Would Reduce Transparency and Deprive Consumers of a
Valuable Source of Information
Finally, the Act would end the CFPB's current practice of
publicly posting information concerning individual consumer
complaints in a searchable database. This information helps
consumers make informed decisions about the companies with
which they choose to do business, and increases transparency
in the marketplace. Eliminating the release of this
information provides no benefit to consumers, but only to
companies whose practices generate repeated complaints.
III. Conclusion
For these and other reasons, the undersigned States urge
you to support robust and engaged consumer protection in the
financial services industry by voting against the Act. A
rollback of these significant post-financial crisis rules and
regulations would substantially harm consumers and the public
in general. If we can provide any further information or
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric T. Schneiderman, New York Attorney General;
Xavier Becerra, California Attorney General;
George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General;
Matthew Denn, Delaware Attorney General;
Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of
Columbia;
Douglas S. Chin, Hawaii Attorney General;
Stephen H. Levins, Executive Director, Hawaii Office of
Consumer Protection;
Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General;
Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General;
Janet T. Mills, Maine Attorney General;
Brian E. Frosh, Maryland Attorney General;
Maura Healey Massachusetts Attorney General;
Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General;
Jim Hood, Mississippi Attorney General;
Josh Stein, North Carolina Attorney General;
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General;
Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania Attorney General;
Peter F. Kilmartin, Rhode Island Attorney General;
T.J. Donovan, Vermont Attorney General;
Mark R. Herring, Virginia Attorney General;
Bob Ferguson, Washington State Attorney General.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, States can, and do, like my own State of
Colorado, put limitations on the interest rates of installment loans
issued by nonbanks. Banks, on the other hand, have the preemption of
State interest rate caps through the National Bank Act.
So in order to get around State interest rate caps, payday lenders
often use a bank to originate a loan at a higher interest rate, but the
nonbank designs the loan, provides the funding for the loan, services
the loan, and guarantees any losses the bank incurs. In all but in
name, it is the nonbank entity that is the loaning entity. Essentially,
the payday lender is the de facto lender and the bank is simply a
nominal participant to evade regulations. These are referred to as
``rent-a-charter'' schemes, and they are not new.
In the early 2000s, Federal banking regulators shut down several of
these arrangements between national banks and nonbank lenders. In 2014,
the OCC made it clear that banks may not rent out their charters to
third parties. Right now, our Federal banking regulations are able to
contain these schemes, but this legislation would undermine our ability
to stop abusive and predatory practices.
States are leading the effort to stop abusive lending practices. In
my home State of Colorado, there is actually a lawsuit challenging this
very scheme.
And now that the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau has delayed a final rule that would have helped protect
borrowers, it is actually up to the States to help protect
[[Page H1141]]
consumers, and this bill would make it harder. This bill would cripple
States', like Colorado's, efforts to stop predatory lending from
preying on their citizens.
The Republican assault on States' rights has gone from bad to worse.
This is yet another part of the big government Republican war on
consumers across the country preempting States' rights for Washington,
D.C., control.
It seems the Republicans want to control everything from Washington.
That is why we need to make sure that our States are empowered to have
the ability they need to protect consumers and protect our law.
Lately, there has been an increased focus on fintech companies and
how they can help serve the unbanked or underbanked. And I agree. I am
a big supporter of financial innovation and promote financial
inclusion, but we can't do that at the expense of consumers or at the
very high cost of putting consumers into cycles of debt, which ends
badly.
Why are we considering legislation that would put all of the power in
Washington, D.C., and take away State-level protections for consumers?
Instead, we should be finding ways to increase access to affordable
credit, make it easier for consumers to access the financial services
that meet their needs, rather than trying to force a Republican
Washington solution on all of the States across our country.
We are considering this bill under a closed rule. There is only one
amendment filed to this bill, and it is not even allowed to be debated
about, no less voted on.
Now, I want to talk about the other bill under this rule. H.R. 3978,
the TRID Improvement Act, is actually a package of several bills that
came out of the House Financial Services Committee, some which are more
controversial than others. Title I of the package, the TRID Improvement
Act, was reported out by a 53-5 vote, and all the Republicans and
Democrats supported Title V of the package, Eliminating Barriers to
Jobs for Loan Originators.
I support Title II, the Protection of Source Code Act, that is being
included in this package. I also support Representative Foster's
amendment to that title, which would provide additional clarification
to the subpoena requirement and would only apply to the source for
algorithmic trading.
The problem is that it takes several bills that have broad bipartisan
support and combines them with other bills that should be considered
separately, which is forcing Democrats and Republicans to weigh the
package as a whole. We simply can't know the ramifications of
considering all these bills at the same time, especially when they
haven't had hearings on the individual components.
Finally, H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act, is, in many
ways, the most damaging bill that is discussed under this rule.
We are celebrating the Americans with Disabilities Act that was
signed into law 28 years ago to really allow Americans with
disabilities to have every kind of opportunity that everybody else
does, free from discrimination in the workplace, schools, and
transportation. It was a landmark bipartisan effort.
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits places of
public accommodation from discriminating against individuals with
disabilities and sets a minimum reasonable standard for accessibility,
which has been the law of our land for three decades.
H.R. 620 would make it more difficult for people with disabilities to
have their rights guaranteed under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Under this bill, instead of requiring the public establishment to
comply with the ADA, the burden should shift to the victim of the
discrimination to prove a violation has occurred. You are forcing
disabled Americans to go around with clipboards and inspector goggles,
rather than forcing businesses to comply. It is simply not fair.
It has been nearly three decades since the Americans with
Disabilities Act was signed into law. All title III of the ADA requires
is that businesses make their facilities accessible to the extent that
it is readily achievable--a very reasonable burden under the law.
Businesses have flourished over the last three decades and we have had
continued economic growth.
I have heard from so many of my constituents about this bill,
including Cari Brown, a systems advocacy specialist with the Arc of
Larimer County, serving disabled residents. She said: ``The standards
set forth in the ADA are designed to ensure that people with
disabilities can access basic public accommodations. Requiring people
with disabilities to file a complaint to enforce compliance of a 28-
year-old law is a step backwards.''
I think this is a Republican plan to turn everybody with disabilities
into an attorney, because that is what they are going to need to be to
be able to assert the rights that they already have under the law.
There is significant, if not universal, opposition to H.R. 620 from
health and disabilities advocacy groups, including, but not limited to:
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Epilepsy Foundation, The
Bazelon Center, the National Council on Disabilities, the American
Association of People with Disabilities, and the Consortium for
Citizens with Disabilities.
We knew, Mr. Speaker, that this President has mocked and taken on
Americans with disabilities, but I frankly thought it was above the
Republicans in Congress to join President Trump in assaulting the
rights of those with disabilities.
H.R. 620 will not allow people with disabilities to immediately file
ADA violations, essentially denying access to buildings due to a
lengthy legal process.
Who has time to wait several years to access a building that you need
to be in because of your job?
It simply doesn't make sense. That means that people with
disabilities will wait weeks, months, or years just to gain the access
that is required under law.
For businesses, there is simply no incentive to adhere to ADA
guidelines. All of this combined harms disabled Americans and weakens
the legal protections that, for decades, Republicans and Democrats have
been proud of in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). Members are
reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the
President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that
we can agree or disagree on here, but one of the things, from my
position, especially with a daughter who has a handicap--this is not an
insult to disabilities. It is actually keeping them from being abused
and used by folks who don't even have a disability suing and asking for
money and not really caring if the issue gets fixed or not.
At the end of the day, which would somebody rather have: a person in
a wheelchair have something fixed, or have someone pay an attorney off
so that they can make some money?
Let's at least put this in context of what it truly is.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
{time} 1245
Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I am rising in strong support
of the rule on the underlying bill.
Included in this package of bills before us today is the National
Securities Exchange Regulatory Parity Act. This is a bipartisan bill,
and it is to ensure that future regulation can keep pace with--and not
stifle--innovation in our equity markets.
The SEC's interpretation of the current law has created a two-tiered
playing field by giving unintended preferential treatment to three
named exchanges. Now, one of those three no longer exists.
Enactment of the National Securities Exchange Parity Act would strike
references to particular stock exchanges in the 1933 Securities Act,
and the bill would make it clear that the blue sky exemption from
State-by-State registration is extended to all national securities
exchanges registered with the SEC.
So why is that particular exemption important? If you were to ask
anyone from Massachusetts, for example, who tried to invest in Apple
during its IPO, State regulators banned the stock for being ``too
risky'' under rules ``aimed at weeding out highfliers that didn't have
solid earnings foundations.''
[[Page H1142]]
Today, Apple is up 43,000 percent and is flirting with a $1 trillion
market cap.
The bill before us today increases the number of securities that will
not be forced to register on a State-by-State basis, while maintaining
important investor protections.
The SEC is and will remain the primary enforcement agency of
securities fraud. This bill in no way impacts the SEC's oversight or
enforcement authority. The SEC must also still approve individual
exchange listing standards; they simply won't be allowed to preset the
standards.
State-by-State securities registration not only potentially locks out
investors from promising opportunities like Apple, but it can have
significant negative economic consequences by chilling public offerings
and, obviously, innovation.
The National Securities Exchange Parity Act encourages new exchanges
to become listing venues and a source of capital for companies looking
to go public, to expand, and to hire more workers.
The bill is identical to language included in the larger regulatory
reform package already passed by the Senate Banking Committee, and I
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
commonsense, technical fix. It is good for market competition. It is
good for capital formation. I urge passage of the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as the first quadriplegic elected to
Congress, I am here today not just as a Member of Congress, but as
someone here with a disability--and, I hope, providing a voice for so
many in our country who also have disabilities--to give my perspective
on H.R. 620, the misnamed ADA Education and Reform Act.
Mr. Speaker, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed nearly 30
years ago as an enduring promise to an entire population of Americans
that discrimination on the basis of disability, including access to
public accommodations, will not be tolerated.
Now there have been decades for people and organizations to
understand and implement provisions of the ADA. And for those who are
just learning about the ADA or who need a refresher on the law, there
are many free resources that provide information and technical
assistance.
The ADA provides a lifeline to so many who need access to classrooms,
restrooms, businesses, restaurants, transit, and so much more. I
recognize that there are some individuals who are unfairly targeted in
States that have failed to protect against things like these ``drive-by
lawsuits.''
But the root of the problem is not the ADA; it is the unscrupulous
lawyers who take advantage of State laws that go beyond the Federal law
to permit monetary damages. Now, the ADA does not allow people to sue
for compensatory or punitive damages, only injunctive relief, meaning
that they solve the problem.
H.R. 620 does nothing to address the problem happening at the State
level, nor does it target immoral lawyers. Instead, it sacrifices the
rights of millions by reducing the impact and protections of the ADA
which so many have come to depend on. It does so by creating a ``notice
and cure'' regime, as it is called, that will create an obvious
disincentive for ADA compliance.
The idea that addressing architectural barriers with a written notice
that gives 60 days to acknowledge receipt of a complaint and then 120
days to demonstrate ``substantial progress'' in the removal of an
obstruction ignores the tenets of the ADA that support an indisputable
right to inclusion and respect; and it tells people with disabilities
that we are not worthy of inclusion until someone is caught, and even
then, a remedy is not guaranteed.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the Rules Committee chose to make in
order the bipartisan amendment that I will offer with my colleague and
co-chair of the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus, Representative Gregg
Harper; but, to be frank, this bill should never have been reported out
of the Judiciary Committee in the first place, much less to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 620 is a blunt tool that wrongfully impedes the
right of people with disabilities. If H.R. 620 passes with any kind of
notice and cure period, we will return to the days when discrimination
was commonplace, and it will be because elected officials voted to
remove civil rights instead of protecting them.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come before
the House during this rules debate on this package of bipartisan bills
that have been worked on for two Congresses now and that address a
number of issues that I think Members on both sides of the aisle and
our committee recognize would improve the capital market system,
improve access to capital for business and consumers, and, also, reduce
the red tape, the bureaucracy associated with trying to run a community
bank and provide services to our consumers, both businesses and
families, that has been made so challenging since the passage of the
Dodd-Frank Act almost 8 years ago.
You know, I was coming to Washington yesterday, and I was reading the
weekend business section. There was a story there about Richard Griffin
from Crossett, Arkansas, who has owned a community bank there for
decades. It is about a $30 million, $35 million bank.
He just said that, with his 13 employees, he just couldn't comply
with the level of regulatory burden following Dodd-Frank that was so
geared to our biggest financial institutions, our most complex
financial institutions, companies like those headquartered up in New
York. He just felt compelled to exit the business and leave that town,
leave the local board of directors, the local management team, and turn
it over to an out-of-State company.
Crossett, Arkansas, is a fine town, and it deserves a good banking
presence by a number of competitors, home to Georgia-Pacific and all of
their activities there.
Mr. Speaker, these bills are, as I say, bipartisan, and they are
needed across this country. Let me just touch on a few of them.
The ones that I think provide the most benefit to community bankers
and businesses and customers of those local banks are, first of all,
Mr. Stivers' bill, which eliminates a barrier, a well-intended
licensing provision if you wanted to make mortgage loans after the '08
crisis.
Congress thought it was a good idea to make sure that mortgage
lenders were qualified, so they made them get a license. We can debate
whether that was too much work or not or whether it was worthwhile or
not. They made bankers get it and nonbanks.
But in this bill, Mr. Stivers simply says, if you are going to try to
change jobs and you hold a mortgage license, that you just have a
transition period where you don't have to go requalify for that if you
are going to work for a nonbank or you are going to work for somebody
in another State. It only passed our committee 60-0, so it doesn't get
much more bipartisan than that. That will help banks reduce red tape,
recruit loan officers, and get them to work faster serving customers.
Likewise, the TRID Improvement Act of 2017 is something that I worked
on in a variety of ways, and it is included in this package. It allows
States where you can buy both a personal policy for your title
insurance as well as the title coverage for a closing to show you the
real discount.
Mr. Speaker, the real irony here is that, when Elizabeth Warren was a
staffer and a college professor, one of her goals for the CFPB was
simplification, that we take all these complicated forms and we would
make them easier to use.
Well, here is an example of the exact opposite. The new Truth in
Lending forms for real estate settlements were made more complicated.
After 8 years of dealing with it, this was a classic example of trying
to make it simpler.
Let's actually show the consumer what the real closing costs are for
their title insurance. This will speed mortgage closings. This will
reduce errors in mortgage closings. This will reduce consumer confusion
about the so-called Know Before You Owe rule. I would argue this rule
has made it much more difficult to know what you owe before you borrow
it, and this is a small step in improving that.
Mr. Speaker, these things help our community banks.
[[Page H1143]]
There is one other in this package we are considering today, Mr.
McHenry's bill, which allows community banks that originate loans,
consumer loans, commercial loans, that are selling those loans to a
nonbank, a nonbank servicer or a nonbank packager, to be able to pass
through the rate that they originated the loan for. There was a Supreme
Court case that has made that more complicated, that said you can't
pass through the rate and that State banking laws don't preempt our
State usury laws for this kind of work.
So I commend Mr. McHenry for this, because this improves liquidity to
our community banking system and, again, lowers rates for consumers,
makes products more accessible, and makes our small community banks
more competitive.
I will close by just touching on a couple of other measures that I
think help businesses, help capital markets, help capital flow.
One, you just heard my friend from California (Mr. Royce) talk about
his bill. That will help capital markets flow. That will create parity
among our exchanges, lowering costs for companies that want to go
public and have their action there, raise capital on the public
markets.
Mr. Duffy has a bill that requires the SEC to actually get a subpoena
if they want to get source code from a capital markets provider,
someone who is managing money, someone who is offering to manage
portfolios or offer a mutual fund company, and this is very, very
helpful. I think, when you want to get your secret sauce for your
business and the government wants it, they ought to have a subpoena.
That is all that this bill does. It doesn't change the rules about
that. It doesn't change anything other than saying, if you want this
information, you ought to go and get a subpoena, and I believe that
will improve capital formation.
So, Mr. Speaker, these are good bills. These are bipartisan bills.
These are bills that we have worked on for two Congresses that will
help consumers, increase access to credit, lower the cost of that
credit, and increase capital flows to the business sector to support
the growth that the American people want.
I appreciate the Rules Committee allowing me to speak on these bills.
I appreciate Chairman Hensarling putting them together.
And to my friends on the other side, these are bills that went
through regular order.
{time} 1300
These are bills that are bipartisan. These are bills that have the
support of the opposition. We have put them together in a bipartisan
package today under this rule because our friends down the hall in the
United States Senate are rapidly moving a bipartisan package of
improvements for our capital markets and our banks, something that we
want, something that we have waited some 8 years for. So this allows us
to work better with our colleagues over in the Senate, where 14
Democrats have partnered with Senator Crapo on the Banking Committee to
move bipartisan legislation that will help us grow our economy.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
President Trump continues to, frankly, offend our sensibilities and
values by insisting that somehow Democrats don't care about fixing
DACA. Well, I would beg to differ. This is the 22nd time we have tried
to bring the bipartisan bill, H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, to the House
floor for a vote.
We have made our position clear. We want immigration policies that
reflect our values, that make America safer, while realizing, of
course, that we are a nation both of laws and of immigrants.
Yesterday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce again urged Congress to pass
legislation that provides permanent relief for Dreamers. Even the
conservative Cato Institute estimates that deporting Dreamers would
result in a $280 billion reduction in economic growth over the next
decade.
Mr. Speaker, if we don't care about the families, about the young
people affected, surely you care about $280 billion that will be lost
if Republicans fail to act. Protecting these aspiring Americans is not
only the right thing to do morally, it is the right thing to do for our
country and for our economy.
If we defeat the previous question today, for the 23rd time, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act.
This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would finally help hundreds of
thousands of young people who are American in every way except for on
paper.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, again, I stand on this floor to speak about
the Dreamers, and this time I ask a simple question: What happened?
For months here in Washington, we couldn't pass a budget; we refused
to pass a budget. Numerous continuing resolutions were brought up. We
even shut down government, and the press talked about the Dreamers. It
was all about the Dreamers.
Yet, last week, after the budget spending caps were raised for both
military and nonmilitary expenditures, we got a budget, and that was a
budget that was voted on by both Democrats and Republicans. So, I
guess, ladies and gentlemen, this was not about the Dreamers because we
still don't have a fix for the Dreamers.
Yet 80 percent of our public supports a fix for the Dreamers; 80
percent of our public supports a pathway to citizenship for our
Dreamers; and even our President wants a fix for the Dreamers.
Why? Because all of us recognize that Dreamers are soldiers,
teachers, police officers. They are, effectively, our friends and our
neighbors. Yet here we are again today, not sure of the future for
Dreamers in this country.
Folks, it is time to stop using Dreamers as political pawns in a
bigger political chess game.
Last week, at the State of the Union, my guest was a Dreamer from my
district. She is a college student majoring in chemistry, and I say to
all of you, she is going to make a tremendous scientist. We need
scientists in this country.
As you know, America is a land of immigrants, and all of us here are
immigrants, and, as you know, 75 of our Fortune 500 companies are led
by immigrants. We need more hardworking immigrants.
That is what Dreamers are. They are hardworking. They study hard, pay
their taxes, follow the law, and, yes, ladies and gentlemen, Dreamers
have been vetted. Let me repeat: Dreamers are immigrants who have been
vetted. And yet today we still ask: What is going to happen to
Dreamers?
Mr. Speaker, let's not live with any regrets. Let's not look back
tomorrow, next year, 10, 20 years from now and say what we could have,
should have, would have. Let's do the right thing, Mr. Speaker. Now is
the time to act. Let's vote for our Dreamers. Let's vote on H.R. 3440,
and let's do the right thing.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what is worse, the fact that we are taking
up legislation that would make it more difficult for Americans to gain
access to buildings in their community, including buildings that they
work in, or that we are considering legislation that makes it easier
for payday lenders to prey on vulnerable consumers by forcing in
Washington, D.C., Big Government Republican values on our States'
rights; or is it worse that we are not taking up legislation to protect
the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers at risk of deportation in the
beginning of March unless we act?
My Republican colleagues are working hard to put Washington, D.C.,
Big Government ahead of people, to force people with disabilities to
get law degrees and wander around with notepads to document when they
are unable to get into a building, and putting payday lenders ahead of
hardworking Americans.
Instead, we should be focused on finding bipartisan solutions to
protect aspiring Americans from being forcibly deported from the only
country that they know as home.
[[Page H1144]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and
``no'' on H.R. 3299 and H.R. 620, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think the interesting thing is, as has been expressed
by a couple of our speakers, especially on the Financial Services
bills, these are bipartisan pieces of legislation that have come back.
They have been vetted. They came before not only this body, many of
them through the CHOICE Act, previously, but also have been coming
back. And something that is really interesting is the bicameral,
bipartisan process of making sure that capital and these Financial
Services bills are actually something that we can move and can improve.
But I do, again, take a little bit of exception. And look, rhetoric
is rhetoric, but deceit is also deceit in the sense that we don't talk
about, especially in this ADA--I am not sure how opposing a bill that
is designed to make improvements for folks and in protecting trial
lawyers who can get people who do not even have disabilities to sue or
to send a demand letter to get money without ever requiring that the
business actually solve the problem. That is what has been missing in
this debate today.
They can actually send a letter, say: Here is where our problem is.
We are going to sue you, but if you send us X amount of dollars, that
will do away with it--never concerned at all if the decision is
actually making a difference in the business or the location. They
don't care.
And, in fact, if you want to oppose this, then you are just actually,
frankly, saying: That is a good idea. I like that. Let's just pick on
businesses, and at the end of the day, you know those folks with
disabilities, they are just our key to making more money.
That is wrong. My daughter is not a money-making proposition. That
has got to cease.
We can disagree on ways about this. My friend from Rhode Island and I
have talked about this a great deal. We are of the same mind and same
agreement. We may disagree on somehow this is it and how to get there,
but at the end of the day, the ADA is still there. The ADA is not going
away. The ADA is not being gutted, and nobody is asking folks with
disabilities to get law degrees. A lot of them have, and they are
making a difference.
But one of the greatest emphases to a business that may have an
impediment, they may have put something in the way, is for somebody
with a disability to say: By the way, I can't get in here.
And most every business on Earth does not want to stand at the door
and say: I don't want disability folks in my business.
No. They want to fix it because they want to do business. To say
anything else is simply, unfortunately at times, tending to scare
people for the wrong reasons.
If you want to defend trial lawyers and others who are willing to sue
with nondisabled people, to sue businesses taking Google photographs of
Google Maps and saying, ``This is a business that we are going to
extort something from,'' then vote against this bill, but then explain
to somebody in a wheelchair why you are using them and allowing these
folks to use them for their profit motive. That is wrong.
We can find a lot of ways to find agreement here, but let's at least
look at the situation on how it is.
So, with these Financial Services bills, they provide regulatory
relief. They reduce unnecessary burdens. They are bipartisan. I am
urging my friends and colleagues to take a look at the amendments
because there are a lot of amendments that are going to come forward on
these, especially the ADA bill and others.
Look at that. Listen to it. Talk about it. But at the end of the day,
never forget what is actually happening here, and what we are actually
seeing is something that we can make a difference in and we are looking
to make a difference in.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this rule and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 736 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. 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.
3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment
of status of certain individuals who are long-term United
States residents and who entered the United States as
children 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 the Judiciary. 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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3440.
____
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 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
[[Page H1145]]
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. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on:
Adopting the resolution, if ordered, and
Motions to suspend the rules with regard to H.R. 3542 and H. Res.
129.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 187, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 72]
YEAS--228
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
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
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
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
NAYS--187
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
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
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
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
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
Napolitano
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
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Barr
Bass
Boyle, Brendan F.
Byrne
Costa
Cummings
Denham
Duncan (SC)
Gutierrez
Pearce
Perry
Posey
Rogers (KY)
Stivers
Watson Coleman
{time} 1338
Messrs. PALLONE and DeSAULNIER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 72.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). 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. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227,
noes 187, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 73]
AYES--227
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)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
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)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
[[Page H1146]]
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--187
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
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
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
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
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
Napolitano
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
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Bass
Boyle, Brendan F.
Byrne
Carter (TX)
Costa
Cummings
Denham
Duncan (SC)
Gutierrez
LoBiondo
Pearce
Posey
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Stivers
Watson Coleman
{time} 1350
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.
____________________