[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.

                          ____________________