[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 74 (Tuesday, May 8, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3815-H3823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY BUREAU
OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 872, I call
up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 57) 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
``Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 872, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
S.J. Res. 57
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 ``Indirect Auto Lending and
Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act'' (CFPB
Bulletin 2013-02 (March 21, 2013), and printed in the
Congressional Record on December 6, 2017, on pages S7888-
S7889, along with a letter of opinion from the Government
Accountability Office dated December 5, 2017, that the
Bulletin is a rule under the Congressional Review Act), and
such rule shall have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services.
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 resolution 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, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which many of
us know as perhaps the single, most powerful, unaccountable agency in
the history of our Republic, a few years ago, issued guidance that
essentially outlawed the practice of auto dealers in America being able
to take wholesale finances from third parties and charge retail rates.
They did this because the Bureau claimed that the practice potentially
violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, known as ECOA.
Mr. Speaker, there were several different problems with this
approach, not the least of which is at section 1029 of Dodd-Frank,
which forbids the Bureau from regulating auto dealers. It is in the
law, and so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle come to
this very floor to jealously, religiously, and unrelentlessly, defend
the Dodd-Frank Act.
I am anxious to hear their voices today, because to defend the Dodd-
Frank Act, you must vote to overturn the Bureau's guidance because this
was absolutely trampling upon the sacred ground of Dodd-Frank.
Now, I didn't support Dodd-Frank, but it is the law of the land, Mr.
Speaker. And if there is anything, shouldn't lawgivers in this Chamber
be committed to the rule of law, the laws that have been passed by the
United States Congress and signed into law by the President of the
United States? So no less of an authority than Dodd-Frank says: Bureau,
thou shalt not regulate auto dealers. But they attempted to do it. So
that was sin number one.
Sin number two: they didn't engage in rulemaking. This was guidance.
Now, guidance is supposed to tell a market participant: Okay, we
understand what you are trying to do, and what you are trying to do is
permissible. But, instead, the Bureau flipped it on its head and said:
No, you are not allowed to do X, Y, and Z, which is essentially
rulemaking, Mr. Speaker.
And so what the Bureau did was they violated the Administrative
Procedure Act, which is there to assure that market participants
receive due process; that they are allowed notice; that they are
allowed to comment; that they are allowed to participate in the
democratic process by which rules are promulgated.
So, again, what the Bureau did was, as opposed to engaging in formal
rulemaking as demanded by the Administrative Procedure Act--by the way,
which was essentially defined by the Clinton administration--but they
violated that. They just threw it out.
{time} 1515
The third problem here, Mr. Speaker, is the Bureau claimed under its
former Director, Mr. Cordray, now gubernatorial candidate Mr. Cordray,
that they were a data-driven bureau. Well, guess what? They couldn't
come up with any data of this purported violation of the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act.
They claimed that somehow there was unconscious discrimination on
racial basis, known as disparate impact. But where was the data? Auto
dealers, by law, cannot keep records on the racial characteristics of
their customers.
So what did the very enterprising Bureau do, Mr. Speaker? They
guessed. Now, they came up with a great academic name for it: Bayesian
Improved Surname Geocoding system. Do you know what that means, Mr.
Speaker? They guessed. They looked at somebody's last name. They looked
at a ZIP Code. They scratched their heads.
Oh, that person must be of Asian heritage.
Oh, that person must be of European heritage.
Oh, that person must be of African heritage.
They made it up. They had no data; so they made it up.
Now, because of all this, in the previous Congress, Mr. Speaker, this
body voted overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly--to overturn the guidance.
The vote was 332-96. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act then.
Fortunately, today the Senate has now acted; so this body has the
opportunity to overturn these many wrongs.
And let me end with this wrong: consumers are being hurt. An analysis
by The Wall Street Journal showed that
[[Page H3816]]
many creditworthy borrowers, because of what the Bureau has done, will
have to pay up to $586 more--$586 more--for their auto loans because of
what the Bureau has done. Because of that, under the Congressional
Review Act, it is time for Congress to say: We said what we mean. We
are going to protect consumers. We are going to overturn the Bureau's
guidance, and we are going to do it today.
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, I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 57, a
Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal a very important guidance
on indirect auto finance lending that was issued by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau all the way back in 2013, in order to
prevent discriminatory lending.
Indirect auto lenders are lenders such as banks that work with car
dealers to finance car loans for consumers. Mr. Speaker, first let me
say that this is an inappropriate and misguided use of the
Congressional Review Act that sets a dangerous precedent. While
congressional Republicans so far have been very active in using the
Congressional Review Act to tear down important regulations that
protect Americans, today they are expanding their harmful efforts even
further to now go after regulatory guidance issued by the Consumer
Bureau years ago. This is a clear overreach that goes way beyond how
the Congressional Review Act was intended to be used.
This resolution is one part of a widespread Republican effort to make
it more difficult to hold financial institutions accountable. The
Consumer Bureau's 2013 guidance on indirect auto lending was issued to
provide clarity to indirect auto lenders and protect auto loan
borrowers from discrimination. This is a market where discriminatory
practices have well been documented. Since its establishment, the
Consumer Bureau has levied more than $140 million in fines and
penalties against lenders for engaging in discriminatory auto lending
practices.
Just this January, an investigation by the National Fair Housing
Alliance found that, 62 percent of the time, highly qualified minority
borrowers seeking purchase and financing options for a car receive more
costly pricing options than less qualified White borrowers receive for
the same vehicle. According to the same report, less qualified White
borrowers were presented with more financing options 75 percent of the
time.
The guidance issued by the Consumer Bureau simply clarified that
indirect auto lenders would be held accountable for violations of the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act, or ECOA, if they took part in
discriminatory practices in the pricing of auto loans. Under ECOA, it
is illegal for a creditor or a lender to discriminate against a person
because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status,
age, or receipt of income from any public assistance program.
So the issuance of this guidance, which also provided a number of
steps to indirect auto lenders that they could use to ensure that they
were in compliance with the law, was a commonsense action that has both
protected borrowers from unfair practices and helped lenders stay on
the right side of the law.
Proponents of this resolution say to the Consumer Bureau: Oh, you had
no authority to regulate auto dealers. But that is not what is at issue
here today. Let's be clear. The Consumer Bureau's guidance applies to
indirect auto lenders, not automobile dealers.
This resolution would set back efforts to prevent discriminatory auto
lending, make it harder for responsible businesses to follow the law,
and harm consumers. It would not only repeal the Consumer Bureau's
regulatory guidance on auto lending but could also prevent the Consumer
Bureau from ever again issuing ``substantially similar'' guidance on
the matter.
Furthermore, by setting this terrible precedent of repealing
regulatory guidance, the majority is opening up a Pandora's box that
could have deeply harmful consequences for the public and badly impede
the important work of regulators, not just of the financial services
industry but of all industries.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the resolution and urge Members to
vote ``no.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Zeldin), an outstanding advocate for all the working
people of New York, a member of the Financial Services Committee, and
the author of the House companion bill.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise
in strong support of this important resolution, S.J. Res. 57.
I am the House sponsor of the companion legislation to this
Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal ill-founded guidance
issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau relating to the
dealer-directed auto lending market. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
Chairman Jeb Hensarling for all of his amazing leadership on this very
important issue. I also want to commend my Senate counterparts on this
legislation: Senators Jerry Moran and Pat Toomey.
Mr. Speaker, for so many of my constituents, access to transportation
is key to their economic prosperity. And access to affordable credit is
what helps them get behind the wheel to get their kids to school, get
themselves to work, or to get sick loved ones to medical appointments.
That is why the 2013 assault by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau on the dealer-directed auto finance market is so damaging to the
very people this rogue agency is claiming to help.
Indirect auto financing, also known as dealer-directed auto
financing, are the loans offered to consumers in the dealerships where
they are purchasing a vehicle. Dealer-directed financing is an
important option for consumers and provides them and the dealerships
they are purchasing the vehicle from with the flexibility to meet a
consumer's needs based on their budget and credit score.
The CFPB, under the leadership of Richard Cordray, in their classic
government-knows-best approach, decided in 2013, without consulting
Congress or following the law, that they had a problem with this well-
known form of auto financing. They launched an unconstitutional and
illegal assault on honest car dealerships and the financial
institutions they work with, falsely claiming discrimination and unfair
lending practices.
The data to back up these egregious claims, through the Bureau's own
admission, was deeply flawed and had an error rate as high as 41
percent. That was according to an independent audit. Let me be
absolutely clear that any form of lending discrimination--whether based
on race, religion, gender, orientation, or creed--is absolutely
unacceptable and also totally illegal under various Federal and State
laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, or ECOA.
What is also illegal and wrong is how the CFPB went about issuing
this flawed mandate, labeling it as benign guidance, yet enforcing it
as if it was a true Federal regulation, all in violation of the
transparency and public comment requirements of the Administrative
Procedures Act.
Through passage of today's joint resolution, we will permanently
strike down this flawed CFPB mandate that attempted to virtually outlaw
indirect auto lending in the United States. Today's fight over this
important resolution may sound like a wonky policy debate, but to my
constituents, permanently repealing this flawed CFPB ruling may make
the difference between being denied or approved for an auto loan they
desperately need.
This CFPB decree is estimated to raise the cost of auto lending by as
much as $600 per consumer. That is not crumbs. And through passage of
S.J. Res. 57, we can also ensure that no future CFPB Director or
administration can revive it without the express permission of
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Director Mulvaney for working so hard to
repair the serious damage done by his rogue predecessor at the CFPB.
But at the end of the day, Congress must do its job by changing the
law. This has been a bipartisan priority in the past, and I hope that
all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of S.J. Res. 57.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, this is about
discrimination. This is not about false accusations. It is documented
that these car
[[Page H3817]]
lenders have discriminated against people of color.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms.
Moore).
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California. I
rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 57. This is a resolution to disapprove
of the CFPB auto lending rules. I oppose this, Mr. Speaker, because I
believe U.S. markets should be free from fraud and from schemes like
the auto lending scheme to which we have been subjected as Americans. I
oppose because I don't think Americans should be discriminated against;
and then, when they are discriminated against, the guilty parties have
no consequences. I think they need to be caught, punished, and the
victims made whole.
The gentleman from Texas talked about the research that went into
cross-matching ZIP Codes and surnames as if these technologies don't
benefit all of us. We know down to the block where our voters are, who
they are, what race they are, what gender they are, and who they are
likely to vote for. So it is no great technological feat that these
auto dealers could figure out who to discriminate against.
I oppose this because I, too, was one of those Black people who lived
in one of those ZIP Codes, and I was discriminated against in my car
loan. The CFPB thankfully pursued justice and got my money back, which
I needed.
This resolution is everything wrong with the GOP agenda: rewarding
fraudsters, hooksters, charlatans, and donors while ignoring the needs
and the will of Americans.
We are seeing a buildup of subprime auto loans. Haven't we learned
our lesson? Why would an entrepreneur go into inventing something or
innovating something when they can just make their money with these
predatory lending practices. Why invest in infrastructure and
transportation when you can use opaque financial markets and dirty
practices to turn people's desperation into misery-fueled profits.
They say history rhymes, Mr. Speaker. And it will be like the housing
crisis but with cars. Voting for this resolution is a vote against good
financial market practices, fairness, and against Americans.
{time} 1530
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say
that the study that my friends on the other side of the aisle allude to
from the NFHA wasn't even in existence when the Bureau promulgated
their guidance, number one.
Number two, it is based on 2 people, 2 people out of 325 million.
This is beyond junk science. It is a mockery, an absolute mockery of
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act when we are here today to ensure that
working Americans of all colors and races and creeds get credit.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer),
the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial
Institutions and Consumer Credit.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his patience
on this issue.
I want to start by thanking the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Moran, and,
more specifically, also thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin)
for his hard work on the House companion legislation to S.J. Res. 57.
Let me give my colleagues a brief history of the situation we are
discussing today.
Dodd-Frank, specifically, barred the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau from regulating all dealers. The Bureau did it anyway. In doing
so, the CFPB didn't adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act,
choosing instead to push this rule forward. They pushed it through
based not on sound evidence or thoughtful methodology; rather, Bureau
staff seem to have conducted the research backwards. They came up with
the answer they wanted, and then they wrote the questions.
The simple truth of the matter is that the Bureau seized an
opportunity to test congressional intent and expand its jurisdiction.
Today, we are exercising not just our right, but our constitutional
duty, to rescind the indirect auto guidance that is blatantly
unprofessional and illegal.
And again, the CFPB--let me just reinforce this. CFPB does not have
oversight of automobile transactions because Dodd-Frank specifically
prohibited it, and they did it anyway.
My colleagues and I have stood on this floor time after time and
warned of the dangers of this most powerful and completely
unaccountable agency. Allowing the Bureau to move forward on such a
rule would have been negligence on our part.
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time we have seen this play out,
and it won't be the last. Across the financial regulatory spectrum,
agencies have abused their authority, dodging congressional oversight
by promulgating guidance that, in reality, acts as a rule. This has to
end, Mr. Speaker.
I want to again extend my thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Zeldin) for his constant efforts in holding this government accountable
and commend the Senate for their action on this and ask my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to join us in advocating for a more
responsible approach to guidance and rulemaking.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, the chairman just said
that junk science was used; however, Republicans put out a report
called, `` `Disparate Impact' Claims Against Vehicle Financing
Businesses.'' Here it is. And guess what. The Center for Responsible
Lending said that was junk science.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ellison), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and a
tireless advocate dedicated to combating discrimination.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress today is going to be voting on whether or
not to make it easier for dealers making car loans to offer better
prices to borrowers based on the color of their skin. The majority
wants you to vote, yeah, they can. We say they shouldn't. We say all
Americans should be treated equally, and we think that the CFPB should
be allowed to make sure that that is true.
You know, it is clear, minority buyers pay more. This has been found
in any number of statistical ways. In a recent settlement with a large
auto dealer, the Department of Justice and the CFPB found that 235,000
minority borrowers were paying higher rates. African-American, Asian,
and Latino borrowers were paying between $200 and $300 more per loan
compared to White borrowers.
Now, some of us believe in liberty and justice for all. Some of us
believe in equal protection under the law. I believe that it is
absolutely the wrong policy for us to second-guess the CFPB today, and
I urge a ``no'' vote.
This is a fact that this disparate treatment in borrowing and rates
and prices is even true when minority borrowers had the same or better
credit than White borrowers. So the CFPB cracked down, and they issued
guidance, which is what we would expect them to do. In fact, in total,
they made sure that over--almost $12 billion has gone back to
consumers, a fact which I think, for my Republican friends, really
upsets them.
But guidance was set to ensure that lenders were complying with the
law, which makes discrimination in auto lending illegal. They also
brought cases and recovered millions for borrowers: Ally Financial paid
back $80 million in recovery for victims of discrimination; American
Honda Finance Corporation, $24 million; Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation, $21.9 million; Fifth Third Bank, $18 million.
Now, are we to believe that these institutions, run by some of the
most sophisticated businesspeople and lawyers in America, are just
handing out checks for nothing? They are paying settlements because why
not? They have probably got more lawyers in one of these places than
they do in the CFPB.
Now, the bottom line is these folks paid out because they needed to
settle. They had exposure. This move today by the majority in the
Financial Services Committee is to say: Go ahead. Don't worry about
discrimination. We have got your back.
We are not going to stand here and let Americans get treated like
second-class citizens, though.
The new system is working well, so, naturally, some folks want to
change it. So, Republicans, I ask you guys to vote ``no'' on this
thing. I want you to
[[Page H3818]]
join us in telling Americans that everybody should be treated equally.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce), a senior member of the Financial Services
Committee and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, I was here during the debates
that we had on Dodd-Frank and involved in much of the discussion. On
the Democratic side and on the Republican side, there were a number of
things we debated, but through all of that debate, there was a
bipartisan belief that auto dealers and lenders were certainly not at
the heart of the crisis and should not be the focus of new regulation.
With that in mind, as the chairman has noted, section 1029 of Dodd-
Frank explicitly exempted auto dealers from CFPB supervision and
regulation. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, why are we here today?
We are here because the auto dealers are the focus of a CFPB action
that ends the consumers' ability to receive discounted car loans.
Why are consumers facing higher, not lower, costs when going to buy a
car? The answer is regulatory overreach.
CFPB ignored the will of Congress, ignored the law as written. As The
Wall Street Journal noted, Congress' explicit exemption ``didn't stop
former CFPB chief Richard Cordray, who used the back door of auto
financing to regulate dealers.''
And while Mr. Cordray may have been able to suspend this belief, we
do not have the same luxury here. We are not here by choice, frankly.
We must act to pass this resolution today.
And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share the bipartisan call for
enforcement of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and make this point:
let's work together to tackle discrimination where it exists--where it
exists--not where regulators ignore the law and employ algorithms to
guess that it might exist.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law on
the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I would like to begin by reminding everyone that the Financial
Protection Bureau, under the leadership of Director Cordray, returned
$12 billion to American consumers, including $140 million in
enforcement and consumer savings related to auto loans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 57, a direct
attack on people of color, vulnerable persons, and any other person of
a protected class who is subject to financial discrimination by auto
lenders.
This resolution is an unambiguous stamp of approval for Office of
Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney's agenda to shutter the
CFPB by removing its ability to protect consumers and police
discriminatory lending policies.
But aside from my deep, substantive concerns with this resolution, I
am fundamentally opposed to this reckless and unprecedented use of the
Congressional Review Act. The legislative history and plain reading of
the statute make it clear that the CRA was designed to provide Congress
with an opportunity to review new rules, not long-established agency
guidance.
But because this archaic law was poorly designed--it actually
requires agencies to physically submit thousands of rules every year in
triplicate by courier--it is inevitable that some guidance will not be
physically received by Congress for purposes of the CRA.
Today's resolution to disapprove guidance issued 5 years ago on
procedural grounds makes it painfully obvious that the CRA has not only
been horribly misused by Republicans, but it is irredeemably broken as
well. In this Congress alone, Republicans have repealed more than a
dozen critical protections for hardworking Americans with little notice
or debate.
And how many jobs will this reckless agenda create, Mr. Speaker?
None. We know this because President Trump's director of legislative
affairs was asked whether these rollbacks would spur employment growth,
and he conceded they would not.
So, if not to create jobs, stimulate the economy, or help working
families, why vacate these commonsense rules? Corporate money, Mr.
Speaker.
According to a report by Public Citizen, special interest groups
spent more than $1 billion in lobbying and campaign expenditures in
opposition to the 14 rules already repealed by this Congress. And last
month, OMB Director Mulvaney told a room full of bank lobbyists that
campaign contributions were a determining factor for who he met with
while serving as a Member of Congress, a disgraceful signal to
corporations that this is a pay-to-play administration that is for
sale.
That is why I have introduced the Sunset the CRA and Restore American
Protections Act, or the SCRAP Act, to address this blatant abuse of
process and to immediately restore the rules previously repealed by
this Congress to the detriment of the American people.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), chairwoman of the Financial Services
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a bill that, frankly,
is long overdue. While former CFPB Director Richard Cordray indicated
in testimony before the House Committee on Financial Services that the
Bureau's guidance was ``nonbinding,'' the damage was already done.
The Bureau's attempt to regulate an industry that the Dodd-Frank Act
specifically told them they could not regulate is the very reason our
committee has worked tirelessly to bring accountability to an agency
that has none. Sadly, this guidance has become symbolic for everything
that is wrong with the CFPB.
So why are we here today? Why does this Congress care about guidance
put out in 2013?
Let me read section 1029 from the Dodd-Frank Act: ``the Bureau may
not exercise any rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement or any other
authority, including any authority to order assessments, over a motor
vehicle dealer that is predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing
of motor vehicles. . . . ''
Unfortunately, we have seen, time and time again, an agency that is
willing to issue regulation by enforcement. Since the 2013 guidance
came out, the Bureau has issued over $200 million in out-of-court
settlements to auto lenders based on guidance that was flawed from the
very start.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, our
staff has issued multiple reports detailing the Bureau's baseless
enforcement agenda. Because of their work, the CFPB can no longer hide
behind, as one report noted, junk science.
I thank the chairman, and I urge all my colleagues to support this
bipartisan effort.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the
gentlewoman to continue reading so that she can see, under the CFPB
rule, that they have the ability to oversee the lending; and what she
is talking about is the exemption of the automobile dealers,
themselves, but not the lenders.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Takano), the vice ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
{time} 1545
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Waters for her
leadership on the floor on this issue.
I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 57 because it erases measures
established a half-decade ago to prevent auto dealers from using
discriminatory data tactics.
I also rise because it signals the majority's intention to contort
the Congressional Review Act to allow it to be used on a dramatically
increased scale in ways never intended.
Let me start with the policy.
When auto dealers provide financing through a third-party lender,
they can increase the rate offered to the consumer and pocket the
difference. Evidence suggests these dealer markups are frequently
higher for minority borrowers than for similarly qualified White
borrowers.
[[Page H3819]]
In 2013, the CFPB sought to address this problem. The agency produced
guidance that clarified the fair lending requirements of the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act applied to auto loans. The CFPB's action simply
spelled out that dealer markups were indeed illegal if they led to
discriminatory outcomes, intentional or otherwise.
It also listed some useful steps that auto dealers could take to
ensure fair lending compliance. In recent years, the CFPB has fined
auto dealers more than $150 million for discriminating against minority
borrowers.
A resolution of disapproval is not the way to change policy in this
area. Instead, we should be going through regular order with public
hearings, committee consideration, and amendments to achieve a
bipartisan compromise, not just throwing out words like ``junk
science.'' We can settle that in regular order through a process.
In bringing this resolution to the floor, the majority is setting a
dangerous new standard for the use of the Congressional Review Act,
which only grants Congress the power to rescind regulations within a
60-legislative-day window. The CFPB guidance on auto lending was
established in 2013, well outside the CRA's window.
Make no mistake: Using the CRA to repeal guidance from more than 5
years ago is an unprecedented expansion of the law's scope, and it will
imperil thousands of Federal decisions going back decades. Let's not
make it easier for minority car buyers to be exploited and
discriminated against. Let's not open the door to an even more extreme
and unprecedented use of the CRA.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against S.J. Res. 57.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the majority whip of the House
Financial Services Committee.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing S.J. Res. 57
to the floor today, a joint resolution to disapprove the 2013 Bureau
guidance on auto finance. It has been well discussed today, why that
is.
This is a very tailored, commonsense approach. It does not open up a
precedent towards guidance being used for a CRA. It is a very narrow
joint resolution. It is designed particularly with the GAO's ruling
from last December, so I don't think that hyperbole is necessary.
We are here today to make sure that all of our constituents have
access to affordable auto credit. Black, White, female, male, they need
affordable auto credit. How do we get a job if we don't have an
affordable car with which to go to work? So that is why we are here.
Secondly, we are here because our constituents demand that we demand
accountability in our oversight function, we demand transparency. When
you have a process that was not transparent and did not follow the
Administrative Procedures Act and did not follow the statute, we don't
have accountability and we don't have transparency. Our constituents
argue for that.
Many argue laws should be based on sound data; our rules should be
carefully debated in public. That was not done in this instance. So we
have this surreptitious, specious display of sophistry known as the
indirect auto guidance from the Bureau.
So we are correcting that today, and the beneficiaries will be our
constituents. The beneficiaries will be Article I power in this House
as we oversee the executive.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this bill to the
floor, and I thank Mr. Zeldin for his leadership.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a Member who has shown true
leadership in speaking out against this harmful resolution.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 57, which provides for
congressional disapproval of CFPB guidance on discrimination in the
indirect auto lending industry.
As the only Ph.D. scientist in Congress, when I come to the floor, it
is usually to debate science or important technical details of
financial service regulations. But I am also the son of a civil rights
lawyer, a scientist who stepped away from his career in science and
became a civil rights lawyer. My father actually wrote much of the
enforcement language behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The issue of minorities being systematically overcharged when
purchasing automobiles is not a small issue, and, unfortunately, it is
not going away.
This issue was first documented academically in the Chicago
metropolitan region in the early 1990s when it was found that if you
were a non-White person you were, on average, charged over $500 more,
in today's dollars, than a White person was.
In a recent study in the D.C. suburbs, it was found that non-Whites
were charged an average of $2,500 more than White people.
I understand this is a subject for some debate. I urge my colleagues
to actually read the report that some are calling junk science here. It
is a report that, frankly, as a scientist, may not have the statistics
that I would like in terms of a large number of test cases, but the
effect is so large that it cannot be a statistical fluctuation.
It was undertaken by the National Fair Housing Alliance, and it was
done with a number of important scientific controls in its process.
This number by which non-Whites are being overcharged is not a small
number. If you are overcharged by thousands of dollars on every one of
the 5 to 10 cars that you buy during your lifetime, it is a big
impediment to building up household wealth for minorities or any
family. Every dollar that goes out to pay an overpriced loan is $1 that
cannot be spent for retirement savings or for your child's college
education.
A big part of this discrepancy is that non-Whites were far too often
discriminated against not only in whether the loan application is
approved but also in the rate charged for the loan.
Because of the financial arrangement between banks, when a non-White
person is overcharged for a loan, the extra profits from that are split
between the dealership and the bank. So I believe there is a
responsibility for both parties to make sure that this financial
incentive does not lead to the sort of discriminatory behavior that we
unfortunately continue to see in this country.
During the debate over the Dodd-Frank bill, we decided to exempt car
dealerships from direct oversight from the CFPB. I believe we did that
because we felt, correctly, that car dealerships were the victims,
rather than the cause, of the financial collapse. But we retained CFPB
oversight over financial products, like the loans that are sold on
financial markets.
This left an important line to be drawn because both banks and
dealerships need guidance. While the banks, I believe, have a duty to
make sure that the dealerships that are acting as, effectively, loan
brokers on their behalf are not engaging in discriminatory behavior,
they cannot be expected to put one of their agents in the room where
every car deal is negotiated.
So guidance is needed. Into the breach strode the CFPB, which I
believe was appropriate. This guidance is important to protecting
American consumers.
In the past, critics of the CFPB guidance have argued that it relies
on data that is inaccurate or misunderstood. I think that it relies on
an incorrect understanding of the statistical uncertainties that are
always present in any scientific measurement. The effect here is real,
and it is large.
In the past, there have been bipartisan efforts to put some clarity
on how the CFPB could offer this guidance, and this bill walks away
from that bipartisan effort.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1
minute to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FOSTER. The bill that the majority is bringing to the floor this
week will preclude the reissuance of that necessary guidance
instructive of how to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of
1974, which will remain in place.
Lenders will still be, rightly, required to comply with the law, but
they will not have any guidance on how to do so, leading at least one
analyst to call S.J. Res. 57 a ``long-term negative for lenders,''
which, as a businessman, I agree with. S.J. Res. 57 is bad for both
consumers and for lenders.
[[Page H3820]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose S.J. Res. 57 and preserve
the opportunity to promulgate guidance intended to curtail
discrimination.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Financial
Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise today in support of the Congressional Review Act resolution to
disapprove the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 2013 auto finance
guidance.
The Dodd-Frank financial control law explicitly exempted auto dealers
from the Bureau's supervision and regulation. However, this did not
deter former Director of the Bureau Richard Cordray from trying to
regulate this industry, circumventing the legislative intent of
Congress through a backdoor guidance.
Not only did the Bureau lack the legal authority to issue such
regulation, it also based its justification for the guidance on a
flawed statistical methodology.
That methodology, which supposedly provided evidence of widespread
discrimination of auto lenders against minorities, determined the
probability of an individual's race and ethnicity merely based upon
last names and ZIP Codes. According to a 2014 study, only 50 percent of
Asians and 24 percent of African Americans were correctly identified by
the Bureau's flawed methodology.
My friend and colleague from Illinois, a gentleman who self-
identifies as a scientist, says that statistical uncertainties are
always present. But the truth is that the Bureau's own records show
that the Bureau designed a remuneration process that ensured that
235,000 consumers would receive remuneration checks, even though the
Bureau knew that White consumers were not discriminated against on
account of race. They would receive remuneration checks under that
process.
Now, to me, Mr. Speaker, that is not statistical uncertainties that
are always present; that is a totally flawed process. I think the
American taxpayer would be totally offended to know that their tax
dollars are going to people who were never harmed. That is not flawed
statistical analysis that is always present; that is outright just a
totally flawed process that rips off American taxpayers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. BARR. If the lack of legal authority and deeply flawed
methodology were not enough, the real-world consequences of the
guidance could have been far worse if auto dealers didn't do everything
they could to fight against the guidance. That is because auto dealers
help customers, especially those customers with less than pristine
credit scores.
Let me give you an example from Kentucky. A female buyer, having gone
through a recent divorce, had credit challenges. She was offered a 7.99
percent rate by a competing bank that put her payment at $506 a month.
But thanks to Ford Credit's Certified Pre-Owned Program, which is only
available through a franchised Ford dealer, the same customer was able
to receive a 2.9 percent rate, for a payment of $441 a month. This
scenario saved her almost $70 a month and a whopping $4,200 in interest
charges over the life of the loan.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that in
2018 we are on the floor of Congress seeing the denial of some of my
colleagues about discrimination in the auto lending business and
defending the automobile lenders despite the fact there has been a
study that shows that there has been discrimination.
The study should have included women, because they discriminate
against women also. They think women are stupid and don't know how to
negotiate a loan. Women have been taken advantage of too.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital
Markets of the Financial Services Committee.
{time} 1600
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking
member for yielding and for her leadership on the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly, strongly oppose this resolution, which will
actually encourage discrimination against people of color who want to
buy cars.
I know my Republican colleagues claim that this is about a rulemaking
process, but let's be clear: This is not about process. This is about
discrimination.
This issue is very simple. Financial institutions that make auto
loans have an obligation not to discriminate against borrowers based on
the color of their skin. This has been the law since Congress passed
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act over 43 years ago.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found compelling evidence
that, when financial institutions allow auto dealers to increase the
interest rates on auto loans for specific borrowers that come into
their dealership, minority borrowers were systematically charged a
higher rate. In other words, this particular practice resulted in
illegal lending discrimination.
So the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau did what it was supposed
to do. It told financial institutions to stop this illegal and
discriminatory practice or risk being sued by the Bureau for lending
discrimination.
But the Consumer Bureau did not stop there. It also told the lenders
exactly how they needed to change their practices to avoid being sued
for lending discrimination.
This kind of transparency is a good thing. It allows the Consumer
Bureau to root out discrimination in the auto lending market while also
providing guidance and certainty to all the lenders that want to do the
right thing.
Yet this guidance is exactly what the resolution before us today
would repeal. Why? This would have the effect of encouraging
discrimination against minority borrowers in the auto lending market
and discouraging the Consumer Bureau from cracking down on this
horrible practice.
I believe we need to stand strong against discrimination in all
forms, including lending discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for their constituents, to
vote for consumers, and to oppose this resolution.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), a very hardworking member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
S.J. Res. 57, which will roll back a rule issued by the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection related to indirect auto lending.
We know that in 2013 the Bureau issued guidance to financial
institutions that would eliminate an auto dealer's ability to discount
interest rates offered to consumers who finance vehicle purchases.
As many of us know, the CFPB has a longstanding history of imposing
burdensome rules and regulations on a wide range of financial products.
The CFPB has often issued rules without understanding of the full scope
of the problem and without regard to the costs of compliance it imposes
on an industry. This rule is no exception.
As clearly stated in section 1029 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau
is explicitly prohibited from regulating auto dealers. This attempt by
the Bureau to provide guidance to auto lending is a clear violation of
the statute and is yet another example of how the Bureau continued to
abuse its statutory power under then-Director Richard Cordray.
I am pleased to join my colleagues here today to ensure that the
Bureau does not issue any substantially similar rules as it relates to
indirect auto lending.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and other members of the House
Financial Services Committee for bringing this important legislation to
the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure to
help rein in the CFPB's regulatory overreach.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
[[Page H3821]]
from New York (Ms. Tenney), an outstanding member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling for yielding,
and a special thank you to my colleague from New York, Lee Zeldin, for
his support of S.J. Res. 57.
Mr. Speaker, it has been 5 years since the Consumer Financial
Protection Board circumvented the formal rulemaking process by unfairly
denying consumers and small businesses the right to comment on guidance
that will directly affect them.
By executing this wrongful end run around the proper rulemaking
process, the CFPB created much uncertainty in the $1.1 trillion auto
lending market. In fact, in testimony before our committee, the former
Director, Mr. Richard Cordray, admitted to me in testimony that he had
to circumvent the rules to target auto lenders.
More than half of car buyers finance their purchases when acquiring
an automobile. These consumers have the ability to obtain great auto
rates through their dealer-assisted finance, otherwise known as
indirect lending.
I have personally met many highly credible auto dealers in my
district who are strongly committed to their communities and the
consumers who they serve. In fact, one auto dealer that I met with
specifically does not even take any form of picture ID when determining
lending just to avoid any kind of scrutiny that would actually suggest
that they were doing any kind of discrimination.
These auto dealers--and they are mostly small businesses--comply with
fair lending policies and practices while meeting the needs of their
consumers who desperately need to buy a car and often finance through
their auto dealer.
However, this flawed, unstudied guidance, through the statistics we
have heard from the other side, threatens to eliminate the flexibility
these small businesses, these small auto dealers need to
offer discounted interest rates to consumers who need to purchase a car
on credit with a very limited budget, especially in my community.
Last Congress, multiple bipartisan letters and bills called for the
CFPB to correct and reissue their guidance, which would bring clarity
to the market, and study the impact this digression would have on lower
income consumers. However, the CFPB refused to provide help on multiple
occasions.
It is indeed ironic that the very agency which is supposed to protect
consumers is, in fact, harming them with its flawed guidance rules.
Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Board to protect
consumers, not hurt them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize that these small
businesses should be protected by the Consumer Financial Protection
Board, not targeted by them.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues and everyone join us in
supporting S.J. Res. 57 and finally rescind this flawed guidance by the
CFPB.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am sitting here
appalled at what I am hearing from the opposite side of the aisle, the
fact that they would use the Congressional Review Act to attack
guidance and then have the audacity to say in the resolution that they
can never, ever again in perpetuity ever have anything like this again.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means
Committee and chair of the Congressional Auto Caucus.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding and giving me some time.
Mr. Speaker, I just heard the phrase that ``I am appalled'' by what
is taking place on the floor today. I will tell you, I join in those
comments, and I really do believe that.
For a person whose family has been in the automobile business since
1953 and sold thousands and thousands of cars to people of any color,
it doesn't matter the color of the person buying the car. Do we match
them up with the transportation need that they were looking for, and
were we able to arrange financing that was affordable to them? You
cannot be in business for 65 years doing it the wrong way.
To impugn the integrity of the automobile people is absolutely beyond
reproach. If you run out of facts, I guess the next thing you have to
go to is discrimination. When we talk this way, it is so divisive, but
that is the platform: Let's divide them, let's try to separate them--
the color of the skin, the shape of their eye, their gender. Let's make
sure that we can make every statement possible to show that there are
bad people out there doing things to other folks and it is only by
discrimination that these things get done.
I will tell you, I am greatly offended as a member of the automobile
industry and as someone who has served thousands of people.
If you think the dealers are that bad, please go to your hometown and
look at the Little League fence and find out whose name is out there.
Look at your high school programs and see who it is that is funding all
these things. Go to any charity and see who is on the list of who takes
care of people.
To sit here today and have to listen to that somehow this is
discriminatory just adds to the fact that when you are out of facts,
when you don't know what you are talking about and what you have never
done--not one of your people have ever been on the floor and--not this
floor. I am talking about the automobile floor. You know an awful lot
about laptops, but you know nothing about blacktop. You get on that
floor, you get on that lot, and you work with people to make sure they
can have affordable transportation--affordable transportation.
Rather than this person trying to arrange financing by himself or
herself, we rely on a dealer, who has great, great heft within the
financial community and to talk to lenders and say, ``We have a great
customer here who is looking to buy a car. We need you to work with us
to get them in this transportation.'' How in the world can you reduce
this down to discrimination?
We are doing the same thing every day that you are doing. We are
trying to make sure that we are making America great every day in every
way. The best way to do that is to stop talking about discrimination
and start talking about the Nation. We are coming together as a people
in spite of what you say.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) to please not
leave, because I want you to know that I am more offended as an
African-American woman than you will ever be.
And this business about making America great again, it is your
President that is dividing this country.
And don't talk to me about the fact that we don't understand. That is
the attitude that has been given toward women time and time again.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend.
The Chair wishes to remind all Members to address their remarks to
the Chair.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I respect the Chair, but don't stop
me in the middle when you didn't stop him in the middle. So I shall
continue.
Don't you dare talk to me like that and think that somehow women
don't understand what goes on on the floor of automobile dealers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is reminded to direct her
remarks to the Chair.
The gentlewoman will continue in order.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. And I am saying that I will continue
to do that. However, I don't appreciate that you did not interrupt him
when he was making those outrageous remarks about him knowing more
about discrimination than I know about discrimination. I resent that.
And I resent the remark about making America great again. He is down
here making a speech for this dishonorable President of the United
States of America.
Having said that, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H3822]]
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, there are times on the
floor of this Congress that we hear some of the most outrageous
comments in defense of some of the most outrageous practices.
This resolution is yet another harmful piece of legislation from the
majority that should be rejected. Week after week, instead of working
to benefit hardworking Americans and protect the public from abusive
financial institutions, Republicans have advanced legislation to
undermine and remove consumer and investor protections, threaten the
stability of our economy and financial system, and benefit bad actors
in the financial services industry. They are taking our system of
financial regulation in precisely the wrong direction.
Today, as we have discussed, the majority is putting forth a
Congressional Review Act resolution that would repeal important
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau guidance to prevent discrimination
by indirect auto lenders.
This resolution would set back efforts to prevent discriminatory auto
lending, harm consumers, and make it harder for responsible businesses
to follow the law. It is senseless and misguided.
{time} 1615
The resolution would also set a dangerous precedent by repealing
years-old regulatory guidance, which is not how the Congressional
Review Act was intended to be used. Opening the door to inappropriate
uses of the Congressional Review Act like this one threatens the
important work of regulators, not just of the financial services
industry, but of all industries.
So I call upon my colleagues across the aisle to work with the
Democrats on policies that strengthen consumer protections, rather than
the harmful rollbacks like the one before us today. I urge Members to
oppose the resolution.
And I want my friends on the opposite side of the aisle to know that
we don't easily get up and talk about discrimination against minorities
and people of color. We don't like to have to do this. We wish that we
had come to a time in the history of this country where it did not
happen.
But I am appalled when the opposite side of the aisle stands up in
strong defense of discrimination. If they were really interested in
working with the Democrats they would say we have a better methodology
of determining whether or not there is discrimination. We want to work
with you. We want to do whatever is necessary to ensure that no one is
discriminated against, yet I hear from Members like Mr. Kelly who come
to the floor talking about we don't know what we are talking about, we
don't understand it, we have never been on the floor of a dealership.
Oh, yes I have. My husband was in the car business. I know a lot
about it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It is rare, but I have found common ground with the ranking member;
and the common ground is I have never heard such outrageous comments on
the House floor as other Members of the other side of the aisle come
and accuse us of defending discrimination?
Number one, almost half of her caucus supported S.J. Res. 57 to get
rid of this in the last Congress.
And I hope every single car dealer in America is listening to my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have come down here on
the House floor to accuse them of racism. With what? The proof of a
report that has a universe of two?
Again, it makes a mockery of the Equal Opportunity Credit Act.
And for those to come to the House floor and say they are appalled by
discrimination? Well, where were they when the Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection was accused of having a pervasive culture of
retaliation and intimidation? They were found to engage in
discrimination, but what did we hear from the other side of the aisle?
We heard crickets. We heard crickets, Mr. Speaker.
Now, what is next? What are we going to hear from our friends on the
other side of the aisle next? Are we going to hear that every
pharmacist in America is a Fascist? Are we going to hear that every
single doctor in America is engaged in spousal abuse? Where is the
proof?
People are trying to sell cars and help them get into transportation.
And, oh, by the way, Mr. Speaker, almost every American now has one
of these. Go to your smartphone and Google ``auto finance.'' And guess
what? At least on mine, it comes up State Farm, Lending Tree, Bank of
America, Chase, RoadLoans. Nobody forces you to take the financing
package of the dealer, even though often it is a better choice than
other lenders.
It is so easy, Mr. Speaker, to come to the floor and say, My Lord,
the charge is serious; therefore, you must be guilty until proven
innocent.
This is an embarrassing day for the House, Mr. Speaker, absolutely
embarrassing, and we ought to stand for the rule of law.
When my friends on the other side of the aisle so jealously guard the
sanctity of Dodd-Frank, why haven't we heard their voice today? Why
aren't they defending Dodd-Frank today? Because Dodd-Frank, itself, as
coming down from Mount Sinai said, Thou shall not regulate auto
dealers.
And so now we are throwing Dodd-Frank overboard. We are calling auto
dealers racists. It is, indeed, outrageous comments. And to come here
to the House floor and so recklessly make that accusation is an
outrage, and it is why we need to ensure that S.J. Res. 57 is voted on
affirmatively today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 872, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be 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.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 175, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 171]
YEAS--234
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
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
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
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)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
[[Page H3823]]
Rohrabacher
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
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--175
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
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
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
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Buchanan
NOT VOTING--18
Adams
Carson (IN)
Cummings
Gutierrez
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kuster (NH)
Labrador
Lipinski
McCollum
Messer
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Renacci
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Scalise
{time} 1648
Mses. BASS, MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico, SANCHEZ, Mr.
HIGGINS of New York, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, and Ms.
HANABUSA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GONZALEZ of Texas and FORTENBERRY changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
____________________