[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4075-H4110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CONSUMERS FIRST ACT


                             General Leave

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
H.R. 1500 and to insert extraneous material thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 389 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1500.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1217


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1500) to require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to meet 
its statutory purpose, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bera in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
Services.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1500, the Consumers First 
Act, which restores the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, so it can 
carry out its mission of protecting consumers from unfair, deceptive, 
or abusive acts or practices by financial institutions.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created by Congress 
following the financial crisis in order to ensure that there is an 
agency in place with the sole, dedicated purpose of protecting every 
consumer of financial products and services and holding bad actors 
fully accountable when consumers are harmed.
  Under the leadership of its first Director, Richard Cordray, the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a resounding success. During 
that time, the agency put nearly $12 billion back in the pockets of 
over 30 million consumers who were harmed by financial institutions. 
The agency put in place important new protections so that consumers no 
longer had to worry about exploding mortgages, hidden prepaid card 
fees, or unnecessary foreclosures due to weak servicing standards.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also helped to take the 
confusing jargon out of various financial

[[Page H4076]]

products, such as student loans, by creating tools students can use to 
compare financial aid and costs when deciding where to go to college.
  But Donald Trump and his appointees have made it their mission to 
destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from within. Mick 
Mulvaney, who was Trump's Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget before Trump inappropriately installed him as Acting Director of 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, made it his mission to 
dismantle the agency from the inside. In fact, enforcement actions have 
fallen by 75 percent under Trump's appointees, there have been zero 
public fair lending enforcement actions, Mulvaney originally requested 
zero dollars from the Fed to fund the CFPB, and the number of employees 
at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has declined by 10 percent.
  I introduced the Consumers First Act to fix the damage that Mulvaney 
caused at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. For example, 
Mulvaney stripped the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity of 
its supervisory enforcement powers. The Consumers First Act restores 
those powers.
  Mulvaney fired the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's consumer 
advisory board. The Consumers First Act restores and strengthens the 
advisory panel to ensure consumers are heard by the agency's 
leadership.
  Mulvaney stacked the senior leadership of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau with ideological political appointees. The Consumers 
First Act limits the number of political appointees at the agency.
  Mulvaney stopped the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from 
supervising its regulated entities for compliance with the Military 
Lending Act, which is in place to prevent servicemembers from being 
ripped off. The Consumers First Act directs the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau to promptly resume Military Lending Act exams.
  Mulvaney worked to hide the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 
consumer complaint database from the public. The Consumers First Act 
requires that the consumer complaint database remain publicly 
accessible so that there is transparency about the complaints consumers 
are making about financial institutions.
  H.R. 1500 puts consumers first by reversing the harmful actions 
Mulvaney took that we are aware of one by one. Over 50 consumer, civil 
rights, and labor organizations support the Consumers First Act.
  The harm at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is continuing 
under Director Kathy Kraninger, who appears to be following Mulvaney's 
lead by rolling back payday lending protections and reducing the 
collection of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, or HMDA data, which is 
used to identify discrimination in lending. And she is just getting 
started. Following general debate on the bill, the House will debate 
several amendments to undo the harmful actions taken by Director 
Kraninger.
  Congress will not tolerate the Trump administration's anticonsumer 
actions, and H.R. 1500 will ensure that the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau is able to fulfill its statutory mission to put 
consumers first.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

         Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
           Representatives,
                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 2019.
     Hon. Maxine Waters,
     Chairwoman, House Committee on Financial Services, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Waters: I write concerning H.R. 1500, the 
     ``Consumers First Act.'' This bill was primarily referred to 
     the Committee on Financial Services, and secondarily to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor. As a result of your having 
     consulted with me concerning this bill generally, I agree to 
     forgo consideration of the bill, so the bill may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House floor.
       The Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1500, 
     we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter 
     contained in this or similar legislation, and we will be 
     appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar 
     legislation moves forward so we may address any remaining 
     issue within our Rule X jurisdiction.
       In agreeing to forgo consideration, I respectfully request 
     your support for the appointment of outside conferees from 
     the Committee on Education and Labor should this bill or 
     similar language be considered in a conference with the 
     Senate.
       Finally, I would appreciate a response confirming this 
     understanding and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters 
     on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during 
     floor consideration thereof.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 Rep. Bobby Scott,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 2019.
     Hon. Bobby Scott,
     Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I writing to acknowledge your letter 
     dated May 17, 2019, responding to our request to your 
     Committee that it waive any jurisdictional claims over the 
     matters contained in H.R. 1500, ``the Consumer First Act,'' 
     that fall within your Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. The 
     Committee on Financial Services confirms our mutual 
     understanding that your Committee does not waive any 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or 
     similar legislation, and your Committee will be appropriately 
     consulted and involved as this bill or similar legislation 
     moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues 
     within your jurisdiction.
       The Committee on Financial Services further recognizes your 
     interest in appointment of outside conferees from the 
     Committee on Education and Labor should this bill or similar 
     language be considered in a conference with the Senate.
       Pursuant to your request, I will ensure that this exchange 
     of letters is included in the Congressional Record during 
     Floor consideration of the bill. I appreciate your 
     cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward to 
     continuing to work with you as this measure moves through the 
     legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Maxine Waters,
                                                       Chairwomen.

  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Since its inception, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has 
disregarded congressional intent in a number of alarming ways. Under 
the previous Director, Richard Cordray, the agency took it upon itself 
to essentially write law through guidance and regulate through 
enforcement. Bureaucrats at the CFPB worked diligently to eliminate 
options for Americans, arrogantly believing they were better equipped 
to make financial decisions than consumers themselves.
  Thankfully, under Acting Director Mulvaney and Director Kraninger, 
the CFPB is striving to foster an environment that promotes 
transparency, legitimacy, and great consumer choice. The American 
people deserve a Bureau that enforces law rather than creates it, while 
placing power and choice back in the hands of consumers themselves.
  Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today accomplishes 
the exact opposite.
  I appreciate the chairwoman's attempt to reform the Bureau and share 
the belief that it needs significant reform. However, instead of 
solving underlying issues that make the CFPB an unaccountable 
bureaucracy with little oversight, this legislation cherry-picks 
specific actions of former Acting Director Mulvaney and attempts to 
reverse his decisions.
  Ignoring the underlying structural issues of the Bureau, Democrats 
are attempting to codify their CFPB agenda with respect to staffing by 
limiting political appointees, directing political initiatives through 
the creation of the Office of Students and Young Consumers, and 
emphasizing the powers and duties of the Office of Fair Lending and 
Equal Opportunity.
  Yet again, my friends across the aisle are more focused on who is 
leading the agency than on real reforms that would increase oversight 
and accountability at the CFPB and could shed light on some of the 
issues this legislation seeks to address. For example, if the CFPB were 
subject to an Office of Inspector General, we would have reports on 
whether or not staffing levels are sufficient to fulfill the Bureau's 
statutory goals. If the Bureau was subject to the appropriations 
process, Congress would have a voice in choosing the number of 
political appointees at the Bureau. Some of these issues, Mr. Chairman, 
are not even partisan, they're near bipartisan, and yet we can't get 
these things done.
  Instead of working with Republicans to reform the Bureau, create 
transparency, and avoid partisan policy shifts from Director to 
Director, the

[[Page H4077]]

majority is choosing to advance legislation that mandates the 
advancement of political priorities.
  The bottom line here is the legislation before us is wholly partisan 
and does nothing to ensure the CFPB can carry out its mission to 
protect consumers. I oppose this legislation and I urge my colleagues 
to do so, as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) the chair of the Subcommittee on 
Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets.
  (Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission 
to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I thank the chair for 
her strong support and leadership on the Consumers First Act, H.R. 
1500. I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this if they care about 
protecting consumers from abuse.
  Putting Mick Mulvaney in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau was the epitome of a fox guarding the henhouse. We have to undo 
all of the damage he did while he was Acting Director of the CFPB.
  The CFPB was supposed to, and did, protect consumers and returned a 
great deal of money to consumers. All of these protections, or many of 
them, he deleted. What this bill does is restore these protections to 
consumers.
  Let me remind my colleagues of why the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau was created. It was after the worst financial crisis in our 
history, where our people lost over $15 trillion in household wealth. 
They lost their homes, or they lost their jobs. It was completely 
preventable because those were abuses to the financial system.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a Bureau that was 
directed to protect consumers. Consumers were an afterthought, a 
secondary thought, a third thought, or not thought about at all in 
financial regulation. The whole system exists for consumers, and they 
certainly are entitled to be protected from unfair, abusive practices.
  To give an example, I was particularly concerned about his hostility 
to data. Decisions should be based on data. Under Director Cordray, the 
Bureau published a report on the effects of the Credit CARD Act, which 
I authored. They would publish it every 2 years.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an incredibly important bill, and I urge a 
``yes'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record an article I wrote for The Hill 
about the CARD Act.

                     [From The Hill, May 22, 2019]

    CARD Act Turns 10: Changes Have Kept Money in Consumers' Pockets

                 (By Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.))

       Ten years ago, on May 22, 2009, credit card customers got 
     some needed relief when the Credit Card Accountability 
     Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act became law. Since 
     then, the law has saved consumers an estimated $12 billion a 
     year, which translates into well over $100 billion in total 
     savings over the past decade. As The New York Times reported, 
     the CARD Act proved so effective that it led economists 
     studying the law to a single conclusion: ``The regulation 
     worked.''
       Before the CARD Act, some credit card companies took 
     advantage of their customers by raising interest rates or 
     changing the terms of their contracts without notice. Hidden 
     terms and fees were lucrative for credit card companies but 
     they were extremely costly to consumers. However, the new law 
     was revolutionary, establishing strict rules for how credit 
     card companies must treat their customers, barring many 
     unfair practices. On the 10th anniversary of the CARD Act, it 
     is important to remember how far we have come and also to 
     look ahead to changes we still need to make.
       So what did the CARD Act do? For starters, it protected 
     consumers from arbitrary interest-rate increases by 
     prohibiting retroactive rate hikes. Companies now are 
     required to provide 45 days' notice of a rate increase and 
     cannot raise rates on existing balances. In the past, 
     companies regularly increased your interest rate if your risk 
     profile worsened--now they are required to decrease rates if 
     your credit picture brightens. That is only fair.
       But consumers were also getting socked by a host of fees, 
     so the CARD Act introduced some commonsense changes that made 
     it much less likely that consumers would be hit by these 
     fees. The law requires companies to mail credit card bills at 
     least 21 days before the due date; it prohibits companies 
     from charging extra fees for paying online or by phone; and 
     it requires companies to apply payments to balances with the 
     highest interest rate first. All of these changes save 
     consumers money.
       The law protects young people from aggressive marketing 
     tactics. Companies no longer can sell cards to individuals 
     under the age of 21 without an adult co-signer.
       The law also protects consumers when they cancel their 
     credit card. In the past, a company could demand immediate 
     payment of your balance. Now, a customer has five years to 
     pay off the balance.
       These important changes have kept money in consumers' 
     pockets. The next battle is to institute fair, common-sense 
     regulation of the overdraft fees on bank accounts. Some 
     financial institutions use ``overdraft protection'' to slap 
     their customers with exorbitant fees. With the growing use of 
     debit cards, it's easier than ever to overdraw a checking 
     account, with fees that can run as high as a 17,000 percent 
     annual percentage rate, according to the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau. That's not a financial service--it's a 
     robbery.
       That is why, since 2005, I have been introducing 
     legislation that would ban abusive overdraft practices like 
     reordering transactions in order to maximize the number of 
     fees banks can charge, and to require overdraft fees to be 
     proportional to the size of the overdraft--no more $35 
     overdraft fees for a $2 cup of coffee. My bill would also 
     require banks to notify consumers that a purchase or an ATM 
     withdrawal is about to trigger an overdraft, and provide 
     consumers with a choice of whether to accept the overdraft 
     service and fee. That, like the CARD Act, would prevent 
     millions of Americans from unwittingly losing money to their 
     banks.
       Opponents of the CARD Act said that trying to limit the 
     fees credit card companies charged would prove unsuccessful 
     and that companies would just create new fees, But that has 
     not happened.
       So when people tell me that regulation does not work and is 
     costly, I remind them that well-crafted consumer protections 
     will not only work, but can save Americans tens of billions 
     of dollars. The CARD Act is proof.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), ranking member of the full 
committee.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Oversight and Investigations of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member McHenry for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, this legislation, H.R. 1500, the so-called Consumers First 
Act, neither puts consumers first nor puts in place the reforms that 
are needed to make the CFPB a stronger and more accountable regulatory 
agency. In reality, this bill is an attempt to politicize consumer 
protection.
  It represents my Democratic colleagues' genuine expression of 
frustration with the current CFPB leadership, but that frustration is 
misdirected, Mr. Chair. That frustration really is more about their 
inability to provide meaningful oversight over this Bureau, a Bureau 
that they themselves created in the Dodd-Frank law.
  I would submit that my Democratic friends' frustration should not be 
directed at former Acting Director Mick Mulvaney or current Director 
Kathy Kraninger. Their frustration is, in fact, a product of the very 
structure, the very flawed structure, that they themselves created and 
now stubbornly defend.
  Today's legislation does absolutely nothing to address the 
fundamental structural flaws of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, which could be remedied on a bipartisan basis with simple 
reforms that my Republican colleagues and I have supported since the 
Bureau's creation.
  I think, now that the leadership has shifted and there is a new 
administration with new appointees in the leadership, many of my 
Democratic friends are having regrets about the structure that they 
originally created.
  What would be the reforms that we should together as a body on a 
bipartisan basis support? A bipartisan commission; subjecting the 
Bureau to congressional appropriations with my legislation, the Taking 
Account of Bureaucrats' Spending Act, which would restore the power of 
the purse over this agency; an independent inspector general, which 
would hold leadership of either party accountable.
  Mr. Chair, this is just a messaging bill. It is not a true attempt to 
legislate. This bill does nothing to get at the lack of accountability 
of this Bureau.
  To further make this point, my friend, the chairwoman, talks about 
the need to add supervisory authority to the Bureau over enforcement 
and

[[Page H4078]]

compliance with the Military Lending Act, but the bill doesn't do that. 
I have a bill that does that. In fact, I offered the bill as an 
amendment, but Monday night, in the Rules Committee, they made this 
amendment out of order.
  This is not about actually giving the Bureau supervision over the 
Military Lending Act. If they really wanted that, they would have 
approved my amendment. We would be voting on my amendment to give the 
Bureau supervisory authority over enforcement of the Military Lending 
Act.
  But, no. This is just about making a political point. Sure, they have 
findings that there should be supervisory authority over Military 
Lending Act compliance. Well, then why not make this Republican 
amendment in order to make it a bipartisan bill?
  They don't want a bipartisan bill. They want a political message.
  This reaffirms our point that this legislation is not about consumer 
protection. It is not about putting consumers first. It is about 
politics. It is about giving lip service to protecting our 
servicemembers while excluding the necessary action to actually do it.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage a ``no'' vote on this bill. Let's roll up our 
sleeves. Let's defend this institution. Let's work together in a 
bipartisan way to truly enact the reforms, the structural reforms that 
will strengthen consumer protection that will make this Bureau 
accountable to the American people through their elected 
representatives.
  Let's make this a bipartisan commission. Let's give this institution, 
both Republicans and Democrats, the power of the purse over this agency 
so that when a Director from the Trump administration is in place, this 
body will have the ability to provide meaningful oversight, and when 
there is a Democratic appointee heading this agency, this body will 
also be able to exercise meaningful oversight.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote. Let's do real reforms. Let's not 
just make political points.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, we have no regrets about how we organized the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the supervisory authority is 
already in law. All they have to do is implement it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay), the chair of the Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development 
and Insurance on the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for yielding, and I rise 
today to enthusiastically support the Consumers First Act, a bill that 
returns the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to its intended role 
as a nonpartisan consumer watchdog that elevates the interests of 
American taxpayers above those of special interests.
  The Bureau was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act following the financial crisis to ensure that 
Americans have a regulator working solely on their behalf in order to 
protect them from predatory and abusive actors. Under Director Richard 
Cordray's leadership, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau helped 
over 30 million consumers who were harmed and addressed over 1.2 
million complaints about financial institutions.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development 
and Insurance, I am pleased to see that this critical legislation 
restores the supervisory and enforcement powers of the Bureau's office 
tasked wit combating discriminatory lending practices, which have been 
responsible for causing the racial wealth gap to continue to grow, 
especially after the financial crisis of 2008.

  This is a commonsense bill that, again, puts the American consumer 
first and ensures that, in the regular course of business and commerce, 
people are not forgotten.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
great State of North Carolina (Mr. Budd).
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
McHenry), the ranking member, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1500. It is 
deceptively, and yet cleverly, named the Consumer First Act.
  Let's talk some facts.
  House Financial Services Committee Republicans have been trying for 
years to increase transparency and accountability at the CFPB. We have 
tried to create an Office of the Inspector General for that purpose. We 
have also tried to bring accountability by subjecting the CFPB to the 
appropriations process. Yet, despite our attempts, we have been met 
with opposition every single time to what used to be a bipartisan goal.
  Now, today, we see a bill that my friends on the other side of the 
aisle are pushing that would undermine our previous efforts to shine 
some daylight on this agency. Rather than working with us to reform the 
agency and its authorities, and rather than working with us to avoid 
constant partisan policy shifts from Director to Director, rather than 
working with us in a bipartisan manner, the majority is choosing to 
move legislation today that simply advances their own political agenda.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose this bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, it is absolutely unbelievable that the 
Republicans on the opposite side of the aisle now talk about wanting to 
work with us after they have done everything possible to undermine the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  We move ahead with restoring it from all the harm that has been done 
to it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.   
David Scott), a leading senior member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, this is singularly the most significant part of the Dodd-
Frank legislation. It is the heart and the soul of it because it goes 
to protecting the American people against the abuses that have been 
predicated upon it.
  This bill is singularly important. Let me tell Members some of the 
things it does.
  Mr. Chair, right now, we have 44 million students, 44 million student 
loan borrowers, who are suffering, trying to figure out how to pay back 
these loans. There are predatory lenders that are out to abuse these 
students.
  What does Ms. Waters' bill do? It establishes a dedicated student 
loan office within the CFPB to protect the Nation's 44 million student 
loan borrowers. That is what this bill does.
  Also, it emphasizes the need for a transparent and accessible 
consumer complaint database. We get it all the time. Consumers 
presently make complaints at the way they are handling the CFPB now 
under the Trump administration. No attention is paid to that. No 
transparency is there. Ms. Waters' effort here will correct that.
  Mr. Chair, this financial dynamic that we have suffered still looms 
large, and we need to restore the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
to its rightful stature as the one premier agency that does the 
singular, most important thing today: protect the financial 
transactions of our American people.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. John W. Rose), a new member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. JOHN W. ROSE of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to 
H.R. 1500.
  Mr. Chair, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have 
Members believe that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 
structure is settled law. In fact, I am certain they will continue 
repeating that view. However, no matter how many times they repeat the 
sentiment, repeating it will never make it true.
  This is not settled law. The American people deserve to be 
represented in government entities on every level, especially those as 
integral to their lives as the CFPB.
  I can assure you, the people of the Sixth District of Tennessee are 
unhappy with the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
and its utter lack of accountability. My constituents have expressed 
the same frustration time and again. The level of independence given to 
the CFPB is counter to the very freedoms we expect in this country.

  It is our job to ensure that the American people have a voice in the 
business of their government. Right now, the structure of the CFPB does 
not provide a voice to the people of Tennessee or to the people of this 
country.

[[Page H4079]]

  This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to me, and it should be 
unacceptable to each of us in this Chamber.
  Over 240 years ago, our forbearers fought a Revolutionary War, a War 
of Independence with a battle cry of, ``No taxation without 
representation.'' Perhaps that battle cry today should be, ``No 
regulation without representation.''
  Do we trust a fully independent bureaucrat with unlimited government 
funding to act in the best interests of honest, hardworking Americans, 
or do we trust their elected representatives?
  Overwhelmingly, I trust those of us in this body to oversee the CFPB 
far more than we can ever rely on an independent bureaucrat to do so. 
We are held accountable every 2 years in this Chamber. If voters do not 
like the way we are doing our job, they can send us home. This matters 
to the American people, and it should matter to us.
  H.R. 1500 does not address the real issues here: a lack of 
accountability, an abuse of power, and an ever-expanding footprint of 
the Federal Government.
  Instead, H.R. 1500 attempts to micromanage the Bureau now that my 
friends on the other side of the aisle see what it is like when the 
shoe is on the other foot.
  The esteemed ranking member from North Carolina and I urge our fellow 
Members to join us in voting against this legislation, the latest 
rendition of irresponsible Big Government.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, this is a consumer bill. My friends on the 
opposite side of the aisle who would try to kill this bill evidently do 
not understand that the day is over when predatory lending will go 
forth in this body.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. 
Beatty), the chair of the Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion on 
the Financial Services Committee.

                              {time}  1245

  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairwoman Waters for her 
leadership and commitment to putting the consumer back in the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau without regrets.
  Mr. Chair, I am proud to be an original sponsor of this bill because 
it does exactly what the title of this bill says it does. It puts 
consumers first. One, by restoring supervisory and enforcement 
authority to the Office of Fair Lending. It also establishes the 
student loan office--continuing--and resumes military lending 
examinations, all without regret.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't know what my colleagues are talking about. 
Those are things that we need, and maybe that is why some of the people 
did send them back home. I do agree with my colleague on that.
  This bill ensures that no matter who is running the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, there are protections that guard against a 
rogue Director from dismantling it and halting its important work, as 
this administration has attempted to do time and time again.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this because I support the workers. I support 
what they do for consumers. I support this legislation, and I will 
proudly debate anyone who thinks this chairwoman has not established 
legislation and policies that put consumers first.
  I urge all of my colleagues, even those on the other side: Let's talk 
about bipartisanship. Let's get on board and vote ``yes'' for this.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Garcia), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of the Consumers First Act and thank Chairwoman Waters and Speaker 
Pelosi for their leadership.
  I remember the housing market collapse in 2009 very clearly. I 
remember the foreclosure signs going up all over Chicago and in my own 
neighborhood of Little Village, a working-class community. Families 
lost homes. They skipped meals. They took second and third jobs just to 
scrape by. Too many families never recovered.
  President Obama and the Democratic majority swore to never allow a 
Great Recession to happen again. Never again would we allow Wall Street 
to go unchecked and allow consumers to be ripped off wholesale by the 
big banks.
  We passed sweeping legislation, Dodd-Frank, and we created the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB. In short, CFPB was 
going to be the consumer watchdog for everyday hardworking Americans.
  Since Trump's election, every day has been an assault against these 
protections: payday lending protections, reversed; student loan 
protections, reversed; predatory auto and home loan protections, 
reversed. Instead of protecting consumers, Trump and Mick Mulvaney have 
made their priorities clear: banks over people, business over the 
consumer.
  Systematically, Mulvaney and Trump have been busy dismantling the 
CFPB, the same agency that recently helped a man in New York who had 
lost $1,200 wrongly taken from his account. He was able to recover it 
thanks to the CFPB. That man is one of thousands that have been helped 
by the agency. That is the power of government when it is empowered to 
fight for every American.
  Meanwhile, Mulvaney has called the CFPB's public complaint database 
nothing but a ``yelp for financial services.''
  At a time when this administration is working at the behest of Wall 
Street, the 1 percent, and the big banks, this Democratic majority is 
moving forward to protect consumers.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would commend to the House that, when someone gets 
into fundamental issues of a 5-year term that the only way the Director 
can be fired is for cause. The Democrats have created an unaccountable 
bureau of government.
  Now, I think what we have today is a bit of buyer's remorse by my 
Democratic colleagues who created the CFPB in order to be this 
unaccountable bureau, but headed by a Democrat or a Democratic 
Presidential appointee. Now that we have a Republican appointee in the 
CFPB, they want to reorder how the Director has her staff report to 
her.
  That is what a big chunk of this bill does. They want to micromanage 
the Bureau because they don't like what the current Director is doing.
  If we seek to actually have long-term consumer protection within our 
financial regulators, I think we need a bipartisan board to oversee an 
agency like this. I think it is a fundamentally different agency when 
you have a bipartisan board and it looks and acts more like the 
Securities and Exchange Commission that has long-term, lasting buy-in 
by both parties and by the American public for the enforcement actions 
that they take and gives investors confidence in that area.
  On this side of the ledger, what we said on the Republican side 
during the Dodd-Frank debate and we have said consistently since then 
is, if you want a lasting Bureau, you need to have a bipartisan board. 
And funny enough, I think that was originally a bipartisan idea, and it 
has now become mostly a Republican idea.
  What I would commend is, if we want to get into issues of reforming 
the Bureau, we need to get into the structural reforms about 
appropriations and a bipartisan board and inspector general to oversee 
an agency such as this rather than tinkering around the edges about 
reporting structures within the Bureau or the naming of the Bureau.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a member of the Ways and Means Committee and 
always a strong leader on consumer protection issues.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairwoman Waters so much for 
yielding to me, and I want to than Chairwoman Waters and my former 
colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee for getting this 
important legislation, the Consumers First Act, to the floor.

  The CFPB, as Members have heard, has been a great equalizer in our 
financial markets for regular Americans. It makes sure that financial 
institutions follow the law and that regular people are treated fairly.
  Every business claims that they put their customers first, but what 
happens when they don't? For far too long, the answer was nothing.

[[Page H4080]]

  We have seen the car loans at higher interest rates for people of 
color and mortgage products that almost brought our economy down and 
created and pushed us into the Great Recession.
  Then along came Dodd-Frank and the CFPB, which set the table for the 
economic expansion that we have seen since 2010. The dedicated men and 
women of the CFPB have literally put $12 billion back into the pockets 
of victims of fraud, harmful financial schemes, and other abuses.
  Let me say to my colleagues on the other side: Speaker after speaker 
has gotten up and talked about subjecting the CFPB to the 
appropriations process. They have claimed that they are against the 
independence of the agencies, calling them independent bureaucrats. 
That is exactly what their comments lean toward is taking away the 
independence of this agency to determine fraud and abuse and subjecting 
it to the whims of whoever is the President or whoever is the 
administration.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation 
because it is good for consumers, good for businesses, good for our 
financial markets, and good for the American people.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Takano), a strong defender of consumers.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1500, a 
bill that will ensure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has the 
necessary tools to defend American consumers.
  The CFPB was created in the wake of the financial crisis as consumers 
fell victim to unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices.
  My Republican colleagues have tried to undermine it for nearly a 
decade since its arrival. The Trump administration has worked to 
kneecap the CFPB, using a strategy that prioritizes big businesses over 
individual consumers. As can be seen, enforcement has decreased by 75 
percent at the CFPB.
  H.R. 1500 will fortify the CFPB's core mission to protect consumers 
and remedy the Trump administration's harmful anticonsumer tactics.
  My home district lies in California's Inland Empire, and the 
constituents I serve understand the importance of CFPB's mission all 
too well. At the height of the housing crisis, one in five local 
households were behind on their mortgages. In 2008 alone, over 30,000 
families from Riverside County lost their homes to foreclosure.
  This was, however, by Wall Street's design. In no other area of the 
country did subprime loans aggressively pushed by lenders claim a 
bigger proportion of the overall mortgage market. This bill ensures the 
CFPB is equipped and empowered to fight this type of predatory lending 
and much more.
  Simply put, the Consumers First Act ensures that CFPB maintains the 
authority and resources to do its job and proactively protect consumers 
from unfair, misleading, and abusive practices.
  Let's pass this bill to make crystal clear that the CFPB truly does 
have the back of every single American consumer. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1500.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for her leadership 
because today's bill is about restoring effective law enforcement for 
consumers and protecting them from predatory Wall Street practices.
  Republicans want to shield Wall Street, granting it free rein to 
plunder. Instead of draining the swamp, this lawless President has 
drained the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of its strength. 
Public enforcement actions are down 75 percent. That is how they feel 
about law enforcement.
  The President is refusing to protect our active-duty military from 
predatory lending; halting payments to consumers who have been wronged; 
eliminating the office that is designed to prevent discrimination in 
credit against Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans; and 
eliminating the office dedicated to addressing student loan abuses.
  Enough is enough. Instead of handcuffing those who do wrong, this 
administration is handcuffing the agency designed to ensure law 
enforcement.
  And while this President profited himself from scams like Trump 
University, it is time to restore important consumer protections: law 
enforcement to protect students, active military, and the retirement 
savings of our seniors.
  In just five years, $12 billion was returned to over 30 million 
American citizens. Wells Fargo would never have been penalized a penny 
for its multimillion-dollar fraud without a cop on the beat.
  Mr. Trump and Mr. Mulvaney have been about pulling that cop back so 
that there is no protection for those this agency was designed to 
serve. Let's approve this bill to protect Americans from financial 
piranhas who would strip their savings to the bone.
  Mr. Chair, I salute the leadership of the chairwoman of the Financial 
Services Committee, for standing up for Americans who have been 
abandoned by this administration. It is essential we do our work in 
Congress to say it is consumers who come first, not those who would 
prefer to take advantage of them.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Norton). Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I would like to inquire as to how much time 
is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 9 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from North Carolina has 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, so I reserve the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I am so proud of this legislation, I am so proud of the 
members of the Financial Services Committee, and I am so proud of our 
Democratic Caucus. We have strong support for this legislation. I am so 
proud of the over 50 consumer, labor, and civil rights organizations 
who strongly support H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act.
  It has been said more than once today that we went through a 
recession here in this country--almost a depression--in 2008 when 
predatory lending from the major financial institutions in America 
caused this recession and caused us to have communities that were 
devastated--boarded up homes--we had communities, not only where the 
homes were boarded up, but the weeds were growing up, in many instances 
animals had taken over the property, and many consumers and homeowners 
who lost these homes really did not know what had happened to them.
  It was predatory lending. It was the tricks that were fostered on 
innocent people who simply wanted to live the American Dream and own a 
home. They signed on the dotted line for products and mortgages they 
didn't understand and could not afford. And they were led into signing 
on the bottom line because we had predatory lenders who wanted to get 
them into a situation where they could get some money, perhaps up 
front, and sell off the products that they were getting signed on up to 
Wall Street, et cetera, et cetera.
  Of course, we worked for 2 years, and it was in 2010 that we were 
able to put the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau together, which is 
indeed the centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank reforms. So we had Mr. Cordray 
who was our first Director who did a magnificent job, and it has been 
cited here time and time again.
  My friends on the opposite side of the aisle have done everything 
that they could do to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, and, Madam Chair, none of them are going to vote for this bill 
today. None of them will criticize the big banks on Wall Street and 
others who took advantage of our consumers.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I inquire from Chairwoman Waters if she is 
prepared to close.

[[Page H4081]]

  

  Ms. WATERS. No, I am not prepared to close.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigations on the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the chair of the full 
committee. I am honored to have this opportunity to speak in support of 
this bill.
  This bill addresses a concern that many of us on the Financial 
Services Committee have had to deal with for some time now, and it is 
the question of whether the committee is going to allow the CFPB to 
protect consumers from unscrupulous behavior or to protect Big 
Business. I am a person who believes that we should protect the 
consumer.
  This legislation will allow the persons who receive student loans to 
avoid being placed into costly repayment plans that will cause them to 
pay more money and possibly default. It will cause consumers looking to 
open a new checking account to have the opportunity to do so with a 
bank that has the least amount of overdraft fees. It will allow persons 
who are seeking credit cards to have the right to seek relief through 
the courts, not through some boilerplate language that they might find 
in a contract that will not benefit them.
  This is the opportunity that we must take advantage of to protect 
consumers. It is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not the 
financial institutions protection bureau.
  So with this said, I wholeheartedly endorse what the chairperson has 
brought to the attention of this Congress. These are remedies that are 
absolutely necessary, and I plan to vote and encourage my colleagues to 
vote in support of this legislation.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to just say that we send a message from this House today, and 
our message that we are sending out across this Nation is that we are 
now in a position to undo what has been done and the wreckage that has 
been caused with our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  We send a message that the day for predatory lending is over.
  We send the message despite the fact that we have Members of this 
House who would dare not stand up for students and servicemembers and 
not criticize what has happened to consumers in the way that it has 
happened in this country. And so I want that message to be loud and 
clear.
  I want those on Wall Street and the major banks who had the predatory 
products and who had the exotic loans, I want all those who mismanaged 
the way that they deal with our students when our students had 
complaints and they looked for someone to help them, I want all of them 
to know, well, I suppose, there is a new sheriff in town.
  We are going to make sure that the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau is strong, that it is not simply made up of political 
appointees, and that they do not have to worry in the way that they are 
worrying now. We have personnel who have quit the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau because it was not carrying out the mission that was 
intended.
  Again, I have said earlier how proud I am to have this bill on the 
floor and to have the support of the Democratic Caucus.
  I would just ask my friends on the opposite side of the aisle to 
think about what is going on and to think about ways that they can 
begin to take into consideration their constituents who need 
protection, and prior to our legislation there was no protection for 
consumers.

  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What I would say, Madam Chair, is that this bill does nothing to 
protect consumers. This is all about the reporting structure, the 
organization chart within the CFPB. In fact, in 21 pages of findings in 
this bill, the next 21 pages of legislative text does nothing to answer 
the fundamental questions raised in the first 21 pages.
  Moreover, the reforms that are necessary weren't even considered by 
the Democrat majority. So we want to protect consumers. I think we all 
want to protect consumers. Where there is malfeasance and where there 
is wrongdoing, we will seek it out and we will have bipartisan 
cooperation for that proper oversight by this branch of government.
  One area where we can have bipartisan work is the Military Lending 
Act. We want to make sure that those who are serving in the Armed 
Forces are protected by those who seek to do financial wrongdoing and 
perpetrate financial wrongdoing. This is an area where Congressman Andy 
Barr of Kentucky has authored a bill. He offered it as an amendment--
and it was rejected by the Rules Committee--that would have made this 
otherwise subpar bill much better in effect, and it would have actually 
had a positive impact on the people whom we all seek to protect.
  I think it is important that our colleagues understand part of the 
reason why we should oppose this bill. I am prepared to close, but I 
will wait for the majority to finish with their speakers before I will 
do so, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Waters for her 
great work on this bill. She has been a true champion on behalf of 
consumers during her time in Congress.
  This chart shows the decrease in enforcement actions which have 
plummeted by 75 percent under the Office of Management and Budget 
Director Mulvaney. Bear in mind that corruption and abuse of consumers 
has not gone away. This is a time period when Wells Fargo--a perfect 
example--robbed their customers, opened up fake accounts to basically 
take the proceeds, used their--this is when customers went to Wells 
Fargo, gave them all their information, Wells Fargo used their Social 
Security numbers and data to open up fake accounts, so they could 
charge their own customers--flat-out theft--and they had to fire 5,300 
employees. That doesn't happen by accident. That is a business model 
that is built on abusing the consumer.
  That is why the CFPB is necessary, and that is why we need to pass 
this bill today. I support the chairwoman's efforts in this regard.
  A dramatic decline is evident, from 54 cases in the Obama 
administration to 11 this year. The sheriff has basically left the 
street. There is no more cop on the beat now with respect to protecting 
the consumer.
  Madam Chair, I thank the chairwoman for giving me this time to point 
out the need for the Consumers First Act, a great bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 30 seconds 
remaining. The gentleman from North Carolina has 15\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, let me close by saying what I said briefly in debate. 
This bill is about buyer's remorse.
  I would say to my colleague from Massachusetts who raised the issue 
about Wells Fargo, there was a bipartisan hearing. Chairwoman Waters 
called the hearing. We had bipartisan questioning of the Wells Fargo 
CEO. We have taken bipartisan work on the oversight of regulators and 
the regulated when it came to malfeasance by Wells Fargo and some of 
the employees who were within that firm. There was a bipartisan level 
of cooperation there.
  I would also highlight, to my colleague from Massachusetts, that it 
was not the regulators who found the malfeasance of Wells Fargo, it was 
the good and wise reporting of the Los Angeles Times. Through 
investigative journalism, they found the malfeasance, the bad actors, 
and the bad policies within Wells Fargo--not the regulators. That is a 
failure of the regulators. It is a failure of the CFPB. We have yet to 
have a hearing about those failures.
  Let me say from the outset about this bill; it proves what 
Republicans have said since the passage of Dodd-Frank: the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau is unaccountable.

[[Page H4082]]

  We hear my Democrat colleagues complain about the actions of a legal 
overseer of the Bureau, Mick Mulvaney, and now the complaints about the 
Republican-appointed Director, Kathy Kraninger. We are here today 
because Democrats regret that during Dodd-Frank they didn't go far 
enough by mandating outcomes by this Bureau, because they didn't 
consider that a Republican could actually be a leader of that Bureau 
and they may not like the action of that unaccountable Director.
  They have buyer's remorse, and, unfortunately, they have decided to 
advance legislation that does nothing to create a more responsible CFPB 
over the long term. Instead of taking this opportunity to work 
together, to bring transparency and accountability to the CFPB, the 
majority is moving a bill that does little more than advance their 
political agenda and micromanage the Bureau.
  H.R. 1500 codifies and recreates offices inside the CFPB, some of 
which are given more authority and some of which, like the Office of 
Cost Benefit Analysis, are given less.
  H.R. 1500 actually directs what Bureau staff can refer to the Bureau 
as in public. Now, let me explain: if it is called the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau under this bill, it is okay. If it is 
called the CFPB, that is okay. If it is referred to as the Bureau, a 
law has actually been broken under this bill.

                              {time}  1315

  That is one of the more substantive changes in the bill, actually. I 
don't think it is wise legislating by Congress.
  That represents the policy side of the legislation. One look at this 
bill's findings is enough to tell Members what H.R. 1500 is really 
about.
  There are more pages of findings than there are of actual legislative 
text. The issues they raise in the findings sections, however, are not 
remedied in the legislative text part of the bill.
  In a series of disparaging statements, former Acting Director Mick 
Mulvaney, a former colleague of ours here in the House and member of 
the Financial Services Committee, and Director Kathy Kraninger are 
vilified as irresponsible zealots.
  Specifically, the text describes former Acting Director Mulvaney as 
``anticonsumer,'' ``destructive,'' and ``inane,'' only working ``to 
hamstring the good work, passion, and the capacity of dedicated 
staff.''
  The findings also opine that ``the appointment of Mr. Mulvaney aimed 
to diminish and undermine the mission of the Consumer Bureau.''
  This is a highly suspect section of legislation before this House. I 
don't think it is becoming of this House to opine in this way.
  While Mick Mulvaney may be many things, he is not inane nor is he 
anticonsumer. Now, I may say, jokingly, that I find him destructive, 
probably destructive with his humor, but not destructive in the work 
that he achieves in public policy. I think he is a good public servant, 
serving our country admirably; and, with the work that he did at the 
Bureau, he was trying to achieve the best results possible for 
consumers, for institutions, for financial safety and soundness, and 
for the economy at large. He did good work.
  With that context in mind, we know that this bill is not about 
helping consumers. This bill is about constraining Republican Directors 
from making decisions they believe are in the best interest of the 
agency.
  In the Financial Services Committee markup, Republicans offered 
amendments that would have made responsible changes to the Bureau. Had 
those amendments been adopted, the majority would have a much better 
bill.
  An inspector general would have provided oversight of the Director, 
ensuring the mission of the agency is not undermined. That is important 
for all branches of government.
  Subjecting the Bureau to annual appropriations would have also 
ensured congressional oversight of the CFPB, or the Bureau, and a voice 
in the prioritization of Bureau functions.
  A GAO study examining the efficacy in which the Bureau meets its 
statutory obligations would have actually yielded insight into the 
workings of the otherwise opaque Bureau.
  But those amendments were not adopted. The choice was made to move 
forward with a partisan declaration instead of meaningful bipartisan 
legislation. That is unfortunate.
  Thankfully, there will be a Senate, and the Senate has a different 
view on this. It is my hope that this bill does not become law.
  Unfortunately, we can't improve this legislation through a meaningful 
amendment process because of the nature of the rule passed by the Rules 
Committee.
  We are merely adding more political fodder for press releases as a 
result of this bill. H.R. 1500 will pass the House and will go nowhere 
in the Senate.
  The Financial Services Committee will then turn to the next issue. 
Hopefully, it is bipartisan legislating, where Chairwoman Waters and I 
have had success in the past, and I hope we have success in the future.
  But, to the American people, I say that the Financial Services 
Committee Republicans remain committed to bettering this organization 
of the CFPB. We will protect consumers, while maximizing financial 
choice. We will work to advance solutions, not sound bites. It is my 
sincere hope that we can do that with cooperation from the majority.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1500, legislation 
that puts politics first, not consumers.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I am so proud that, today, we are going to 
stand up for consumers on this side of the aisle. It is unfortunate 
that our friends on the opposite side of the aisle have not seen fit to 
support consumers. They will all vote against this bill. We will vote 
for this bill on this side of the aisle.
  Madam Chair, again, I urge my colleagues to come to the floor quickly 
and vote for consumer financial protection, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Financial Services, printed in the bill, an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
Print 116-15, shall be considered as adopted and shall be considered as 
an original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 5-
minute rule. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1500

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Consumers 
     First Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings; sense of Congress.
Sec. 3. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Sec. 4. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 5. Executive and administration powers.
Sec. 6. Offices of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Sec. 7. Consumer Advisory Board reforms.
Sec. 8. Discretionary surplus funds.
Sec. 9. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act (Public Law 111-203) (``Dodd-Frank''), was 
     signed into law on July 21, 2010, in order to, among other 
     things, advance the goals of protecting consumers from 
     predatory financial services practices and products that led 
     to the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
       (2) Title X of Dodd-Frank established a new Federal 
     independent watchdog, known as the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau (``Consumer Bureau''), with broad authority 
     to ensure that all hardworking consumers are given clear, 
     accurate information that they need to shop for mortgages, 
     credit cards, and other consumer financial products or 
     services and to protect consumers from hidden fees, abusive 
     terms, and other unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or 
     practices through strong implementation and enforcement of 
     Federal consumer financial laws.
       (3) Before the Consumer Bureau was established, Federal 
     financial regulators were tasked with the dual 
     responsibilities of supervising institutions for safety and 
     soundness and compliance with consumer protections under 
     Federal consumer financial laws. These agencies often 
     prioritized the profitability of their regulated entities 
     over the protection of consumers, even when institutions were 
     found to have engaged in practices detrimental to their own 
     customers' financial well-being.
       (4) Congress purposefully created the independent Consumer 
     Bureau within the Federal

[[Page H4083]]

     Reserve System to address past regulatory gaps in our 
     country's financial regulatory regime--gaps that resulted in 
     the most severe global financial crisis since the Great 
     Depression. Among other things, Federal financial regulators 
     were too reluctant to exercise their rulemaking, supervisory, 
     and enforcement authorities to protect consumers from the 
     misdeeds of the Consumer Bureau's regulated entities. In 
     creating the Consumer Bureau, Congress explicitly laid out in 
     statute the Consumer Bureau's purpose, five objectives, and 
     six primary functions. Specifically:
       (A) Section 1021(a) of Dodd-Frank states that the Consumer 
     Bureau, ``shall seek to implement and, where applicable, 
     enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the 
     purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets 
     for consumer financial products and services and that markets 
     for consumer financial products and services are fair, 
     transparent, and competitive''.
       (B) Section 1021(b) of Dodd-Frank authorizes the Consumer 
     Bureau, ``to exercise its authorities under Federal consumer 
     financial law for the purposes of ensuring that, with respect 
     to consumer financial products and services--(1) consumers 
     are provided with timely and understandable information to 
     make responsible decisions about financial transactions; (2) 
     consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive 
     acts and practices and from discrimination; (3) outdated, 
     unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly 
     identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted 
     regulatory burdens; (4) Federal consumer financial law is 
     enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a 
     person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair 
     competition; and (5) markets for consumer financial products 
     and services operate transparently and efficiently to 
     facilitate access and innovation.''.
       (C) Section 1021(c) of Dodd-Frank establishes the primary 
     functions of the Consumer Bureau to be, ``(1) conducting 
     financial education programs; (2) collecting, investigating, 
     and responding to consumer complaints; (3) collecting, 
     researching, monitoring, and publishing information relevant 
     to the functioning of markets for consumer financial products 
     and services to identify risks to consumers and the proper 
     functioning of such markets; (4) subject to sections 1024 
     through 1026, supervising covered persons for compliance with 
     Federal consumer financial law, and taking appropriate 
     enforcement action to address violations of Federal consumer 
     financial law; (5) issuing rules, orders, and guidance 
     implementing Federal consumer financial law; and (6) 
     performing such support activities as may be necessary or 
     useful to facilitate the other functions of the Bureau.''.
       (5) In doing so, Congress explicitly laid out these 
     consumer-focused purpose, objectives, and primary functions 
     for the Consumer Bureau to ensure that all consumers and all 
     communities are protected. This is of extreme importance to 
     communities of color who have been disproportionately 
     impacted by the inequities of the financial system, resulting 
     in an extreme racial wealth divide. Decades of segregation 
     and discrimination have prevented consumers of colors from 
     amassing wealth equal to their white counterparts, while 
     predatory financial practices of have stripped consumers of 
     color of their nominal existing wealth. For example, over the 
     past 30 years, the average wealth of White families has grown 
     by 84 percent--1.2 times the rate of growth for the Latino 
     population and three times the rate of growth for the Black 
     population. In light of historical practices and current-day 
     disparities in banking and lending practices, the Consumer 
     Bureau plays a key role in protecting communities of color 
     from wealth-stripping financial products and ensuring their 
     right to wealth building opportunities. The agency's 
     enforcement actions in auto lending, mortgages, and credit 
     cards, and its rulemaking efforts have sought to address the 
     predatory financial products such as payday loans and prepaid 
     cards that are prolific in communities of color. The Consumer 
     Bureau is essential in protecting vulnerable communities from 
     discriminatory financial practices that has both perpetuated 
     and exacerbated the racial wealth gap.
       (6) Under Dodd-Frank, the Deputy Director of the Consumer 
     Bureau shall serve as the Acting Director in the absence or 
     unavailability of the Director, until the President appoints 
     and the Senate confirms a new Director. Despite the plain 
     letter of the law establishing a succession order to fill a 
     vacancy in the Director's position and the clear legislative 
     history underscoring the importance of having an independent 
     Federal consumer-focused agency, when the Consumer Bureau 
     Director Richard Cordray resigned in November 2017, President 
     Trump refused to recognize the Deputy Director as the 
     rightful head of the agency and instead installed Mr. Mick 
     Mulvaney, the Director of the White House Office of 
     Management and Budget, to serve as the Consumer Bureau's 
     Acting Director. This appointment of a White House cabinet 
     official to run the Consumer Bureau raises profound conflict 
     of interest questions and undermines the vital independent 
     nature of the agency.
       (7) Additionally, the position of Acting Director is, by 
     its nature, intended to be a temporary assignment to maintain 
     the status quo at an agency and to ensure the agency is 
     fulfilling its statutory purpose and mandates, until the 
     President appoints, and the Senate confirms a permanent 
     Director. Nevertheless, during his tenure, Mr. Mulvaney 
     instituted drastic and severe changes to the Consumer 
     Bureau's daily operations and priorities contrary to the 
     agency's statutory purpose and mandates.
       (8) The daily operations of a Federal agency are guided by 
     its official mission contained in its long-term strategic 
     plan. The Consumer Bureau's mission should embrace both the 
     spirit and plain letter of the law by fully recognizing the 
     agency's statutory purpose, objectives, and functions. It is 
     troubling that the Consumer Bureau, under Mr. Mulvaney, 
     issued a Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year (``FY'') 2018-FY 2022 
     that appears to deemphasize the Consumer Bureau's core 
     mandate under section 1021(a) of Dodd-Frank to, ``enforce 
     Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose 
     of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for 
     consumer financial products and services'', by not 
     referencing the importance of enforcement in its mission. 
     Instead, it emphasizes financial education by stating that 
     the agency's new mission is, ``[t]o regulate the offering and 
     provision of consumer financial products or services under 
     the Federal consumer financial laws and to educate and 
     empower consumers to make better informed financial 
     decisions''. This is in stark contrast from the Consumer 
     Bureau's Strategic Plan for FY 2013-FY 2017, which stated 
     that the agency's mission is helping, ``consumer finance 
     markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently 
     and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers 
     to take more control over their economic lives'' (emphasis 
     added).
       (9) Mr. Mulvaney has been praised by the White House for 
     his efforts to undermine the Consumer Bureau, with one 
     anonymous advisor acknowledging in a July 24, 2018, Politico 
     article that, ``His mission was to blow that up, which he 
     has. He is very well-suited to the chaos.''. Mr. Mulvaney's 
     misguided actions have included, among other things--
       (A) stopping payments from the Civil Penalty Fund to harmed 
     consumers;
       (B) trying to reduce the Consumer Bureau's funding and 
     staffing by initially requesting $0 be transferred from the 
     Federal Reserve Board of Governors to carry out the agency's 
     work, imposing a freeze on hiring professional career staff, 
     and by arbitrarily directing staff to cut the agency's budget 
     by \1/5\;
       (C) politicizing the work of the Consumer Bureau by making 
     unusual efforts to fill the independent agency with political 
     appointees;
       (D) reducing the Consumer Bureau's enforcement work, 
     including taking only six enforcement actions in the first 
     three quarters of 2018 (compared with 54 enforcement actions 
     taken by the agency in 2015, 42 enforcement actions in 2016 
     and 36 enforcement actions in 2017), and dropping existing 
     lawsuits and investigations into predatory payday lenders;
       (E) taking steps that would undermine efforts to promote 
     fair lending and combat discriminatory practices, including 
     by hiring, and later refusing to remove, a political 
     appointee with a history of racist written commentary to 
     oversee the Office of Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair 
     Lending, stripping away the enforcement powers of the Office 
     of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity, seeking to curb the 
     Consumer Bureau's data collection under the Home Mortgage 
     Disclosure Act, and indicating the Consumer Bureau would 
     reconsider its approach toward enforcing the Equal Credit 
     Opportunity Act;
       (F) changing the role of the Office of Students and Young 
     Consumers and, according to an August 27, 2018, resignation 
     letter from Seth Frotman, the Consumer Bureau's former 
     Assistant Director and Student Loan Ombudsman, ``when new 
     evidence came to light showing that the nation's largest 
     banks were ripping off students on campuses across the 
     country by saddling them with legally dubious account fees, 
     Bureau leadership suppressed the publication of a report 
     prepared by Bureau staff'';
       (G) abandoning the accepted and efficient practice of 
     having its examiners review, as part of their routine 
     examinations, creditors' compliance with the Military Lending 
     Act in order to ensure the detection and assessment of risky 
     activities that could jeopardize vital protections provided 
     to active-duty servicemembers and their families;
       (H) creating an Office of Cost Benefit Analysis that 
     prioritizes businesses' expenses over harm caused to 
     consumers, and unduly constrains oversight of the Consumer 
     Bureau's regulated entities;
       (I) freezing data collection to the detriment of 
     supervision and enforcement;
       (J) seeking to block the publication of the nature of 
     consumers' complaints and how entities resolved them in the 
     publicly available and transparent Consumer Complaint 
     Database;
       (K) restricting key input and feedback from a wide range of 
     external stakeholders by effectively terminating members' 
     positions on three advisory boards, including the statutorily 
     mandated Consumer Advisory Board;
       (L) proposing policies, including those regarding no-action 
     letters, model disclosure pilot projects, and product 
     sandboxes, that could put many kinds of financial 
     institutions in an enforcement-free zone, letting bad actors 
     that harm consumers off the hook entirely from enforcement, 
     and allowing them to ignore the law; and
       (M) neglecting to impose promptly any civil money penalty 
     on a bank when it was found to be, among other things, 
     improperly obtaining consumer reports and furnishing to 
     consumer reporting agencies inaccurate information about 
     consumers' credit.
       (10) The repeated efforts under Mr. Mulvaney's leadership 
     to hamstring the good work, passion, commitment, and the 
     capacity of dedicated professional, career Consumer Bureau 
     staff to fulfill the agency's statutory mission has likely 
     contributed to low employee morale. According to a 
     government-wide annual survey published in December 2018 that 
     was conducted by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Partnership for 
     Public Service, the Consumer Bureau experienced the largest 
     decline in employee morale for a government agency of its 
     size. A workplace with low morale undermines, among other 
     things, the agency's ability to hold bad actors accountable 
     when they harm consumers, and if

[[Page H4084]]

     unaddressed, will distort the functioning of fair and 
     competitive consumer marketplaces.
       (11) Despite the fact that the agency has been referred to 
     as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since it was 
     created in 2010, Mr. Mulvaney opted to change the agency's 
     well-known name. Although this decision is supposedly 
     intended to ensure that the agency is in compliance with 
     Dodd-Frank, when this change is viewed in conjunction with 
     the other detrimental actions to undermine the effectiveness 
     of the agency, it can only be interpreted as an attempt to 
     reduce the public's awareness of, and significant support 
     for, the agency's role as the top Federal consumer cop as 
     well as to obscure the public's ability to easily identify 
     the appropriate Federal agency to contact when faced with 
     predatory behavior by financial actors. As such, while some 
     may view this particular decision as minor, the action served 
     as an important symbolic and literal maneuver by the Trump 
     Administration, through its appointment of Mr. Mulvaney, to 
     diminish and undermine the consumer-focused mission of the 
     Consumer Bureau. Director Kathy Kraninger, who was duly 
     nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, 
     announced plans in an email to staff on December 19, 2018, to 
     reverse course and return to utilizing the agency's well-
     known name. However, questions remain regarding how this 
     change will be implemented and to what extent the agency may 
     continue to utilize Mr. Mulvaney's preferred name in certain 
     circumstances.
       (12) During Mr. Mulvaney's more than 12-month tenure 
     running the agency, he only appeared once before the House 
     Financial Services Committee to discuss his activities at the 
     Consumer Bureau. This is despite the fact that the law 
     requires, at a minimum, the Director's testimony before the 
     Committee semi-annually. This weak congressional oversight 
     under the direction of the previous Republican Majority pales 
     in comparison to their oversight of the Consumer Bureau 
     during former Director Richard Cordray's tenure. During 
     Director Cordray's tenure, he and other senior Consumer 
     Bureau officials testified before Congress more than 60 
     times; the agency was compelled to produce more than 200,000 
     pages of documents in response to over 90 letters of inquiry; 
     more than 20 subpoenas were sent to the Consumer Bureau; and 
     several of the Consumer Bureau's former and current employees 
     were compelled to sit for depositions over 21 days, that 
     lasted 136 hours, and produced 3,194 pages of transcripts.
       (13) Dodd-Frank gives the Director of the Consumer Bureau 
     broad administrative and executive powers to, among other 
     things: fix the number of, and appoint and direct, all 
     employees of the agency; direct the establishment and 
     maintenance of divisions or other offices within the agency; 
     determine the character of, and the necessity for, the 
     obligations and expenditure of funds; and the use and 
     expenditure of funds. These powers, however, are required to 
     be exercised in a manner consistent with carrying out the 
     responsibilities under Title X of Dodd-Frank, which includes 
     complying with the enumerated Federal consumer financial laws 
     under the Title, and satisfying the obligations in other 
     applicable laws. Mr. Mulvaney's destructive actions have 
     demonstrated the need for legislation to reorient the 
     Director's discretionary authority to ensure the maintenance 
     of all statutorily mandated policies, functions, and offices 
     of the Consumer Bureau regardless of who is leading the 
     agency.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--The following is the sense of 
     Congress:
       (1) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should meet 
     its statutory purpose in a transparent and accountable manner 
     by operating in a way that is consistent with both the spirit 
     and plain letter of the law. This includes the agency fully 
     carrying out the agency's statutory purpose, objectives, and 
     functions, and the agency being transparent, timely, and 
     responsive to all requests from Congress.
       (2) Dodd-Frank underscores that the agency is designed to 
     serve as an independent Federal agency that is primarily 
     focused on the protection of all consumers, without any undue 
     influence of partisan whims and special industry interests, 
     in carrying out its responsibilities and duties.
       (3) The official name of the agency should be consistent 
     with this mandate, and the agency should, figuratively and 
     literally, put ``Consumers'' first by using its better-known 
     name as the ``Consumer Financial Protection Bureau''. Thus, 
     any remaining utilization by the agency of the name, ``Bureau 
     of Consumer Financial Protection'', or the acronym ``BCFP'', 
     should cease in all forms.
       (4) The statute establishing the Consumer Bureau has been 
     grossly misinterpreted under Mr. Mulvaney's leadership, in a 
     manner that is inconsistent with the agency's statutory 
     purpose, objectives, and functions. One example of this was 
     Mr. Mulvaney's inane suggestion that the statutory 
     requirement for the Director to appear before relevant 
     Congressional Committees to discuss its semi-annual reports 
     could be interpreted as requiring the Director merely to 
     attend a hearing and not answer questions, despite the well-
     established interpretation of a similar statutory requirement 
     for the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to 
     appear before the House Financial Services Committee and the 
     Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee on a 
     semi-annual basis about the monetary policy report, as 
     required by the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act. In the 
     face of such blatant and disrespectful attempts to warp the 
     authorizing and oversight role of the first branch of the 
     Federal Government--the United States Congress--by the Trump 
     Administration, Congress must, in this instance, now refine 
     the Consumer Bureau's authority to ensure that the vital role 
     that the Consumer Bureau should be playing within the 
     country's financial regulatory regime is not effectively 
     destroyed by the agency's current leadership.
       (5) The Consumer Bureau, now under a new Director, should 
     promptly reverse all anti-consumer actions taken during Mr. 
     Mulvaney's tenure, including the actions identified by this 
     legislation, to ensure that the agency is fully complying 
     with its statutory purpose, objectives, and functions to 
     protect all consumers, including communities of color and 
     vulnerable populations. One important action is for the 
     Consumer Bureau to resume robust fair lending enforcement to 
     ensure that every consumer has fair and equal access to 
     affordable financial products and services. Another 
     demonstration of this would be for the Consumer Bureau to 
     immediately resume supervision of its regulated entities for 
     compliance with the Military Lending Act to ensure for the 
     most robust and efficient protection of active-duty 
     servicemembers and their families. Other examples include the 
     Consumer Bureau significantly revising its strategic plan to 
     align it with its statutory purpose, objectives and 
     functions, and for the agency to immediately resume 
     coordinating closely with other Federal agencies, such as the 
     Department of Education and the Department of Defense, and 
     State regulators, as is required by section 1015 of Dodd-
     Frank to, ``promote consistent regulatory treatment of 
     consumer financial and investment products and services.''
       (6) While the legislation is a direct response to address 
     many of the misguided decisions that have been orchestrated 
     under Mr. Mulvaney's leadership at the Consumer Bureau that 
     have been exposed to the public, as of the date of the bill's 
     introduction, and sharply criticized by numerous Federal and 
     State officials, including law enforcement, as well as 
     organizations representing servicemembers, senior citizens, 
     and other vulnerable consumer populations, this legislation 
     should not be viewed as an exhaustive list to fix all the 
     damaging actions that may have occurred at this agency since 
     the departure of former Director Cordray in November 2017, 
     particularly since detailed information revealing the full 
     scope, nature, and extent of the current flawed operation of 
     the agency, and the adverse impact resulting from these 
     actions, may not yet be publicly available. Rather, this 
     legislation should be interpreted as an attempt to highlight 
     and resolve a small sample of the publicly known egregious 
     statements, decisions, and actions that have occurred since 
     November 2017.

     SEC. 3. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU.

       (a) In General.--Section 1011(a) of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5491(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection'' and 
     inserting ``Consumer Financial Protection Bureau''.
       (b) Deeming of Name.--Any reference in any law, regulation, 
     document, record, or other paper of the United States to the 
     ``Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection'' shall be deemed a 
     reference to the ``Consumer Financial Protection Bureau''.
       (c) Name Use Requirement.--Section 1011 of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5491) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Name Use Requirement.--The Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau shall refer to itself in any public 
     communication, including on any website, as the `Consumer 
     Financial Protection Bureau' or the `CFPB'.''.

     SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Acts and provisions described under 
     subsection (b) are amended by striking ``Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection'' each place such term appears 
     (including in headings and items in table of contents) and 
     inserting ``Consumer Financial Protection Bureau''.
       (b) Acts To Conform.--The Acts and provisions described in 
     this subsection are as follows:
       (1) The Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982 
     (12 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.).
       (2) The Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et 
     seq.).
       (3) The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
       (4) The Expedited Funds Availability Act (12 U.S.C. 4001 et 
     seq.).
       (5) The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 et 
     seq.).
       (6) The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council 
     Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.).
       (7) The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and 
     Enforcement Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1811 note et seq.).
       (8) The Financial Literacy and Education Improvement Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 9701 et seq.).
       (9) Section 626 of the Financial Services and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 2009 (Division D of Public Law 
     111-8; 12 U.S.C. 5538).
       (10) The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 note et 
     seq.).
       (11) The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 
     2801 et seq.).
       (12) Section 10(a)(4) of the Homeowners Protection Act of 
     1998 (12 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.).
       (13) The Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App 2).
       (14) The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
       (15) The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 
     U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).
       (16) Title LXII of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States (12 U.S.C. 21 et seq.).
       (17) The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 
     3401 et seq.).
       (18) The S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 
     5101 et seq.).
       (19) The Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse 
     Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.).
       (20) Sections 552a(w) and 3132(a)(1)(D) of title 5, United 
     States Code.

[[Page H4085]]

       (21) Section 987(g)(3)(E) of title 10, United States Code.
       (22) Sections 3502(5) and 3513(c) of title 44, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 5. EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATION POWERS.

       (a) Office Responsibilities.--Section 1012 of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5492) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Office Responsibilities.--Notwithstanding subsections 
     (a) and (b), section 1013(a), and any other provision of law, 
     with respect to the specific functional units and offices 
     described under subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (h) 
     of section 1013 and the advisory boards described under 
     section 1014, the Director--
       ``(1) shall ensure that such functional units, offices, and 
     boards perform the functions, duties, and coordination 
     assigned to them under the applicable provision of section 
     1013 or 1014; and
       ``(2) may not reorganize or rename such units, offices, and 
     boards in a manner not provided for under the applicable 
     provision of section 1013 or 1014.''.
       (b) Duty To Provide Adequate Staffing.--Section 1013(a)(1) 
     of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 
     5493(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Duty to provide adequate staffing.--The Director 
     shall ensure that the specific functional units and offices 
     described under subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (h) 
     of section 1013, as well as other units and offices with 
     supervisory and enforcement duties, are provided with 
     sufficient staff to carry out the functions, duties, and 
     coordination of those units and offices.''.
       (c) Limitation on Political Appointees.--Section 1013(a)(1) 
     of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 
     5493(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Limitation on political appointees.--
       ``(i) In general.--In appointing employees of the Bureau 
     who are political appointees, the Director shall ensure that 
     the number and duties of such political appointees are as 
     similar as possible to those of the other Federal primary 
     financial regulatory agencies.
       ``(ii) Political appointees defined.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `political appointee' means an 
     employee who holds--

       ``(I) a position which has been excepted from the 
     competitive service by reason of its confidential, policy-
     determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character;
       ``(II) a position in the Senior Executive Service as a 
     noncareer appointee (as such term is defined in section 
     3132(a) of title 5, United States Code); or
       ``(III) a position under the Executive Schedule (subchapter 
     II of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code).''.

       (d) Public Availability of Complaint Information.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1013(b)(3) of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5493(b)(3)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by inserting ``publicly available'' before ``website'';
       (ii) by inserting ``publicly available'' before 
     ``database'', each place such term appears; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following: ``The Director 
     shall ensure that the landing page of the main website of the 
     Bureau contains a clear and conspicuous hyperlink to the 
     consumer complaint database described in this subparagraph 
     and shall ensure that such database is user-friendly and in 
     plain writing (as such term is defined in the Plain Writing 
     Act of 2010). The Director shall ensure that all information 
     on the website or the database that explains how to file a 
     complaint with the Bureau, as well as all reports of the 
     Bureau with respect to information contained in the database, 
     shall be provided in each of the 5 most commonly spoken 
     languages, other than English, in the United States, as 
     determined by the Bureau of the Census on an ongoing basis, 
     and in formats accessible to individuals with hearing or 
     vision impairments.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Public availability of information.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Director shall--

       ``(I) make all consumer complaints available to the public 
     on a website of the Bureau;
       ``(II) place a clear and conspicuous hyperlink on the 
     landing page of the main website of the Bureau to the website 
     described under subclause (I); and
       ``(III) ensure that such website--

       ``(aa) is searchable and sortable by both consumer 
     financial product or service and by covered person; and
       ``(bb) is user-friendly and written in plain language.
       ``(ii) Inclusion of complaints submitted with inquiries.--
     For purposes of clause (i), in addition to all complaints 
     described under subparagraph (A), consumer complaints shall 
     include any complaints submitted with, or as part of, an 
     inquiry described under section 1034.
       ``(iii) Removal of personally identifiable information.--In 
     making the information described under clause (i) available 
     to the public, the Director shall remove all personally 
     identifiable information.''.
       (2) Rule of construction.--
       (A) In general.--The Director of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau shall ensure--
       (i) that the database and website described under section 
     1013(b)(3) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 
     have, at a minimum, the same availability, transparency, and 
     functionality that such database and website had prior to 
     November 24, 2017; and
       (ii) that consumers are able, at a minimum, to submit 
     complaints to the Bureau with respect to--

       (I) any covered person or service provider; and
       (II) any financial product or service.

       (B) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the terms 
     ``covered person'', ``financial product or service'', and 
     ``service provider'' have the meaning given those terms, 
     respectively, under section 1002 of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010.
       (e) Memoranda of Understanding.--
       (1) Report on current mous.--Not later than the end of the 
     30-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
     shall issue a report to the Committee on Financial Services 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate listing--
       (A) each memorandum of understanding in effect with the 
     Bureau on November 24, 2017;
       (B) any changes made to such a memorandum of understanding 
     since such date, including any memorandum of understanding 
     rescinded since such date; and
       (C) a justification for each such change or rescission.
       (2) Semi-annual report on mous.--Section 1016(c) of the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5496(c)) 
     is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) a list of each memorandum of understanding in effect 
     with the Bureau, any changes made to a memorandum of 
     understanding since the last report was made under subsection 
     (b), and a justification for each such change;''.
       (f) Additional Report Information on Consumer Savings.--
     Section 1013 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 
     (12 U.S.C. 5493) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(i) Additional Report Information on Consumer Savings.--
     In issuing each report required under section 502(d) of the 
     Credit CARD Act of 2009, the Bureau shall include a numerical 
     estimate of the amount that such Act has saved consumers in 
     fees impacted by such Act, relative to the level of such fees 
     prior to the enactment of such Act.''.

     SEC. 6. OFFICES OF THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU.

       (a) Clarification of the Duties of the Office of Fair 
     Lending and Equal Opportunity.--Section 1013(c)(2) of the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 
     5493(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Office of Fair Lending and Equal 
     Opportunity shall have such powers and duties as the Director 
     may delegate to the Office, including'' and inserting 
     ``powers and duties of the Office of Fair Lending and Equal 
     Opportunity shall include'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (3) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) implementing the Bureau's enforcement and supervisory 
     authority with respect to fair lending laws; and
       ``(F) such additional powers and duties as the Director may 
     determine appropriate.''.
       (b) Office of Students and Young Consumers.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1013 of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5493), as amended by 
     section 5(f), is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(j) Office of Students and Young Consumers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall, not later than the 
     end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this section, establish an Office of Students and Young 
     Consumers, which shall work to empower students, young 
     people, and their families to make more informed financial 
     decisions about saving and paying for college, accessing 
     safer and more affordable financial products and services, 
     all matters related to private education loans (as defined 
     under section 1035(e)), and repaying student loan debt, 
     including private education loans.
       ``(2) Head of the office.--The head of the Office of 
     Students and Young Consumers shall be the Assistant Director 
     and Student Loan Ombudsman, and the Assistant Director and 
     Student Loan Ombudsman shall carry out all functions 
     established under section 1035 through the Office of Students 
     and Young Consumers.
       ``(3) Supervisory, enforcement, and regulatory matters.--
     The Office of Students and Young Consumers shall assist in 
     all supervisory, enforcement, and regulatory matters of the 
     Bureau related to the functions of the Office.
       ``(4) Coordination.--The Director shall enter into 
     memoranda of understanding and similar agreements with the 
     Department of Education and other Federal and State agencies, 
     as appropriate, in order to carry out the business of the 
     Office of Students and Young Consumers.''.
       (2) Renaming and appointment clarification of the private 
     education loan ombudsman.--
       (A) In general.--Section 1035 of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5535) is amended--
       (i) in the heading of the section by striking ``private 
     education'' and inserting ``assistant director and student'';
       (ii) in subsection (a), by striking ``The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Director, shall designate a Private 
     Education Loan Ombudsman'' and inserting ``The Director shall 
     designate an individual as the Assistant Director and Student 
     Loan Ombudsman'';
       (iii) in subsection (b), by striking ``The Secretary and 
     the Director'' and inserting ``The Director''; and

[[Page H4086]]

       (iv) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``the Director,'' 
     before ``the Secretary,''.
       (B) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents under 
     section 1(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
     Consumer Protection Act is amended, in the item relating to 
     section 1035, by striking ``Private education'' and inserting 
     ``Assistant director and student''.
       (C) Deeming of name.--Any reference in any law, regulation, 
     document, record, or other paper of the United States to the 
     ``Private Education Loan Ombudsman'' shall be deemed a 
     reference to the ``Assistant Director and Student Loan 
     Ombudsman''.
       (c) Semi-Annual Report to Congress on Certain Offices of 
     the Bureau.--Section 1016(c) of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5496(c)), as amended by 
     section 5(e)(2), is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(11) with respect to each of the specific functional 
     units and offices established under section 1013--
       ``(A) a detailed description of the activities of the unit 
     or office since the last report was made under subsection 
     (b); and
       ``(B) an analysis of the efforts of the Bureau to achieve 
     the duties of the unit or office; and
       ``(12) with respect to each specific functional units and 
     offices established under section 1013, as well as each other 
     unit and office with supervisory and enforcement duties, a 
     break down of the number of political and professional career 
     staff assigned to and employed by each unit or office at the 
     end of the reporting period.''.
       (d) Function of Any Unit or Office Established To Conduct 
     Cost Benefit Analysis.--Any unit or office established to 
     conduct cost benefit analysis within the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau shall, as its sole function, carry out the 
     considerations required by section 1022(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 
     5512(b)(2)(A)).

     SEC. 7. CONSUMER ADVISORY BOARD REFORMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1014 of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5494) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Membership.--
       ``(1) Qualifications.--In appointing the members of the 
     Consumer Advisory Board, the Director shall--
       ``(A) seek to assemble a diverse and inclusive group of 
     experts in consumer protection, financial services, community 
     development, fair lending and civil rights, and consumer 
     financial products or services and representatives of 
     depository institutions that primarily serve underserved 
     communities, and representatives of communities that have 
     been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgage loans, 
     and seek representation of the interests of covered persons 
     and consumers, without regard to party affiliation; and
       ``(B) ensure that at least \2/3\ of the members represent 
     the interests of consumers, including experts in consumer 
     protection, fair lending, civil rights, and representatives 
     of communities that have been significantly impacted by 
     higher-priced mortgage loans and other products that resulted 
     in consumer harm.
       ``(2) Number of members.--The Director shall appoint not 
     fewer than 25 members to the Consumer Advisory Board, and not 
     fewer than 6 members shall be appointed upon the 
     recommendation of the regional Federal Reserve Bank 
     Presidents, on a rotating basis.
       ``(3) Membership rights after charter change.--Any change 
     to the charter for the Consumer Advisory Board affecting the 
     membership shall not preclude prior or current members from 
     applying for consideration to serve on a reconstituted 
     Consumer Advisory Board.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``meet from'' and inserting ``meet in 
     person from''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The Bureau shall 
     provide adequate notice to the members of the Consumer 
     Advisory Board of the time and date of each meeting, and of 
     any meeting cancellations.''
       (b) Inclusion of the Director in Meetings and Access to 
     Bureau Staff.--Section 1014 of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5494) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(e) Inclusion of the Director in Meetings and Access to 
     Bureau Staff.--With respect to each in person meeting of the 
     Consumer Advisory Board--
       ``(1) the Director shall attend such meeting in person; and
       ``(2) the Director shall ensure that the members of the 
     Consumer Advisory Board have an opportunity to meet and 
     engage in person with all appropriate staff and office of the 
     Bureau.''.
       (c) Treatment of Members of the Consumer Advisory Board.--
     Notwithstanding any other law--
       (1) any member of the Consumer Advisory Board of the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on November 1, 2017, may 
     continue to serve as a member of such advisory board until 
     March 27, 2020, and may not be removed from such position 
     without cause by the Director of the Bureau until such date; 
     and
       (2) any member of the Consumer Advisory Board of the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on the date of enactment 
     of this Act, may continue to serve as a member of such 
     advisory board until March 27, 2020, and may not be removed 
     from such position without cause by the Director of the 
     Bureau until such date.
       (d) Additional Requirements for Advisory Committees.--
     Section 1013 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 
     (12 U.S.C. 5493), as amended by section 6(b)(1), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Advisory Committee Requirements.--
       ``(1) Qualifications.--In appointing members of any 
     advisory committee, other than the Consumer Advisory Board, 
     the Director shall ensure that at least \1/3\ of the members 
     represent the interests of consumers, including experts in 
     consumer protection, fair lending, civil rights, and 
     representatives of communities that have been significantly 
     impacted by higher-priced mortgage loans and other products 
     that resulted in consumer harm.
       ``(2) Selection of members representing minority-owned and 
     women-owned businesses.--In appointing members of any 
     advisory committee, the Director shall seek to promote 
     diversity and inclusion in making appointments, including by 
     appointing individuals who represent minority-owned and 
     women-owned businesses.''.

     SEC. 8. DISCRETIONARY SURPLUS FUNDS.

       Section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 
     289(a)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``$6,825,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$6,797,000,000''.

     SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, except that 
     the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
     shall have 30 days to complete any operational changes to the 
     Bureau required by this Act or an amendment made by this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
be in order except those printed in part A of House Report 116-79. Each 
such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 40, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 9. MODIFICATION OF THE EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN DISCLOSURE 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Home Mortgage 
     Disclosure Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2803) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (i) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) Exemption From Certain Disclosure Requirements.--The 
     requirements of paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subsection 
     (b) shall not apply with respect to any depository 
     institution described in section 303(3)(A) that has total 
     assets, as of the most recent full fiscal year of the 
     institution, of $30,000,000 or less.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (o).
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 104 of the 
     Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection 
     Act (Public Law 115-174; 132 Stat. 1301) is amended by 
     striking subsection (b).

     SEC. 10. LIMITATION ON PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS FROM HMDA 
                   REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 1027 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (12 
     U.S.C. 5517) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(t) Limitation on Providing Exemptions From HMDA 
     Reporting Requirements.--Notwithstanding any provision of 
     this title or the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, the 
     Bureau may not provide any person with an exemption from 
     complying with any reporting requirements under the Home 
     Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 if such exemption did not 
     exist on the date of enactment of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 11. LIMITATION ON MODIFYING HMDA DATA FIELDS.

       Section 1027 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (12 
     U.S.C. 5517) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(t) Limitation on Modifying HMDA Data Fields.--
     Notwithstanding any provision of this title or the Home 
     Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, the Bureau may not 
     eliminate, with respect to the reporting requirements under 
     the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, any data fields 
     that were required to be reported on the date of enactment of 
     this subsection.''.

     SEC. 12. MAINTAINING THE HMDA EXPLORER TOOL AND THE PUBLIC 
                   DATA PLATFORM API.

       The Consumer Financial protection Bureau may not retire the 
     HMDA Explorer tool or the Public Data Platform API.
       Page 40, line 9, strike ``sec. 9'' and insert ``sec. 13''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to restore 
and protect important provisions of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.

[[Page H4087]]

  More than four decades after Congress passed HMDA, the evidence 
continues to suggest that racial minorities, women, and some rural 
residents still face loan discrimination by mortgage lenders.
  In fact, a recent report from the Center for Investigative Reporting 
found that modern-day redlining has occurred in 61 metropolitan areas 
around the country.
  Unfortunately, however, last year Congress voted to roll back 
enhanced HMDA protections passed under the Dodd-Frank Act, exempting 85 
percent of all banks and credit unions from reporting loan 
characteristics vital to ensuring lending fairness.
  My amendment will reverse this shortsighted decision. It reinstates 
the requirement put in place by Dodd-Frank that any bank or credit 
union that makes more than 25 mortgage loans per year or 100 home 
equity lines of credit report detailed loan characteristics.
  My amendment will establish additional safeguards to defend HMDA from 
further assault by the Trump administration and those who seek to 
destroy it by:
  Prohibiting the CFPB from making further HMDA modifications to exempt 
additional institutions from complying with its reporting requirements;
  Barring the CFPB from making further modifications to eliminate HMDA 
data fields that are otherwise required to be collected and reported; 
and
  Preventing the CFPB from retiring its HMDA Explorer and the public 
data platform, both of which are critical to the public's ability to 
access loan level data and root out discrimination in their 
communities.
  These protections are not just preventive measures but needed 
reforms. Just this month, the CFPB released proposals to further erode 
HMDA requirements.
  The public's access to mortgage data is essential to promoting fair 
lending, homeownership, and stronger communities.
  As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. My amendment 
brings badly needed transparency to the home mortgage process, shining 
a light and helping us root out discrimination.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Fletcher). The gentleman from North Carolina 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, this bill, this amendment, reinstates an 
older form of regulation of HMDA data. This is the data that is 
collected when you have a home mortgage. It is required data.
  Under the old regulation, there were 48 pieces of data that had to be 
collected. Under the new regulation, it is 23. That is a modest change 
that was agreed upon by a bipartisan vote of this House and the Senate 
and signed into law last Congress under S. 2155. A changed regulatory 
structure, still collecting the data.
  The most important thing this bill does, however, is it subjects 
small credit unions and small banks to a higher level of regulation 
than contemplated under the new regulations and the new law.
  We are rolling back to an older form, whereby community institutions, 
small banks, and small credit unions have been disproportionately 
disadvantaged in the mortgage marketplace. They have been given a 
higher regulatory burden, a higher cost structure, which means that 
they are out of the home mortgage game.
  The net effect of this amendment is that you will have small credit 
unions and small banks not being able to participate as fully as under 
existing regulations in home mortgage making, and I think that is one 
of the deep flaws of this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Chair, I am ready to close.
  Madam Chair, more than 40 years after Congress first passed HMDA, the 
evidence continues to demonstrate that countless Americans still face 
loan discrimination by mortgage lenders.
  Data is the tool that makes it possible to fight discrimination. My 
amendment puts us back on the right track by ensuring this information 
remains available.
  Madam Chair, I urge Members to support this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. This rolls 
back to an older form of regulation, not a new, modern form of 
regulation.
  We still collect very important data from mortgage makers, those that 
are actually in the mortgage marketplace. What we did was right-size 
our regulation so that small financial institutions like community 
banks and credit unions could be in the mortgage marketplace once 
again.
  This amendment rolls back those reforms and hurts small community 
banks and hurts small credit unions in a way that this body, I don't 
think, wants to support.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Steil

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Mr. STEIL. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 2 and insert the following:

     SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT ON THE OPERATIONS OF THE CONSUMER 
                   FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU AND ITS 
                   EFFECTIVENESS AT MEETING ITS STATUTORILY 
                   MANDATED OBLIGATIONS.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall carry out a study of--
       (1) the effectiveness and efficiency of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Bureau in meeting the Bureau's 
     statutorily mandated obligations;
       (2) the prevalence of discriminatory practices in lending; 
     and
       (3) the workplace rights of Bureau staff since 
     establishment of the Bureau.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall issue a 
     report to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the 
     Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate containing all findings and 
     determinations made in carrying out the study required under 
     subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. STEIL. Madam Chair, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has 
a duty to the American people.
  Congress established the Bureau almost a decade ago to protect 
consumers from abuse and empower people to make good financial choices, 
regardless of who the President is. That is a very important 
responsibility. With that in mind, Chairwoman Waters is right to call 
attention to the governance of the CFPB.
  CFPB actions and interpretations can vary significantly from one 
administration to another, and because the CFPB is unaccountable, there 
isn't much Congress can do about it. In fact, the Bureau was built to 
be unaccountable and unresponsive, and this has given its Directors 
free rein to take actions that many of us do not support.
  There are many ideas on both sides of the aisle on how best to reform 
the CFPB, and this is something Congress should consider soon.
  Today, I have an amendment. My amendment sets aside the politically 
charged findings in the bill and takes us one step closer to 
transparency and accountability.
  Some of these findings target former Acting Director Mick Mulvaney by 
name. One disparages Mulvaney by referencing a political article that 
includes a critical quote from an anonymous source. Another criticizes 
him for

[[Page H4088]]

rearranging the initials of the CFPB. Let me repeat that: Another 
criticizes him for rearranging the initials of the CFPB. Only in 
Washington.
  My amendment strikes all of this unhelpful rhetoric and replaces it 
with a requirement that the Comptroller General conduct an independent 
study focused on three key questions: One, is the CFPB meeting its 
obligations efficiently and effectively? Two, how prevalent are 
discriminatory lending practices? Three, are the workplace rights of 
CFPB staff respected?
  The Comptroller General's findings can then help to inform our 
continued efforts to oversee and reform the Bureau to make it work 
better for all Americans.
  Protecting consumers, examining the prevalence of discrimination, and 
protecting workplace rights should not be controversial. Ensuring 
effectiveness and transparent governance should not be a source of 
partisan disagreement.
  I understand that the chairwoman is unhappy with the way the CFPB is 
governed. So am I. Anyone who has read about the past abuses at this 
unaccountable agency should have concerns about the structure that 
enables this bad behavior to exist in the first place.
  Today's amendment recognizes that Congress has a responsibility to 
ensure that the Bureau is fulfilling its mission, and that independent 
audit, not political rhetoric, is the best way to move toward this 
goal.
  The American people deserve an unbiased look at what the Bureau does 
right and what it does wrong so we can find common ground on the best 
way to protect consumers.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Chair, this is a terrible 
amendment, and I want to take my time to go through it so the American 
people can see how terrible this amendment is.
  The gentleman is a fine gentleman and a good friend, and we work 
together. The amendment is what is terrible, not the gentleman. Let me 
tell you why.
  This amendment would, number one, do away with the important findings 
on the failures of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Mick 
Mulvaney that every American should know about. I am going to take a 
few minutes so the American people will know about them.
  The amendment, which also removes the direction from Congress to the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to reverse its recent anticonsumer 
activities, was rejected by all Democrats in our committee markup.
  This amendment is trying to hide from public view how Acting Director 
Mulvaney stopped payments from the Civil Penalty Fund to consumers who 
were harmed, tried to reduce the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 
funding and staffing, politicized the work of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau by making unusual efforts to fill the independent 
agency with political appointees, and reduced the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau's enforcement actions by 75 percent compared to the 
average annual number of enforcement actions from the previous 3 years.
  I mean, that is why it is terrible. That is why it is dangerous. Of 
particular concern, this amendment strikes a direction to the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau to resume exams for compliance with the 
Military Lending Act, for our veterans, to ensure that they are not 
ripped off by unscrupulous lenders. That practice is heavy.
  We just passed a bill in committee to deal with mortgages that were 
churning, where predatory lenders were going in and churning, churning 
over and over again, making our veterans pay the same bill over and 
over again. That is what your amendment would take protections from.
  In January of this year, the Consumer Office of Servicemember 
Affairs, our veterans, reported that servicemember complaints and 
requests for assistance have continued to increase over time. In fact, 
from 2016 to 2017, there was a 47 percent increase in complaints 
received from servicemembers.
  Nevertheless, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under its 
current director, Ms. Kathy Kraninger, is ignoring its own legal 
counsel and refuses to supervise banks for MLA compliance.
  During our March 7 hearing on the Bureau, veteran Jennifer Davis from 
the National Military Family Association stated: ``We have become 
alarmed by the CFPB's decision to no longer supervise lenders for 
compliance with the MLA. Current leadership has expressed the opinion 
that the agency does not explicitly have the authority to do 
supervisory examinations to ensure MLA compliance. We disagree.'
  As Ms. Davis noted, Dodd-Frank grants the Bureau executive and 
administrative authority in implementation of consumer financial laws 
through rules, orders, guidance, interpretations, statements of policy, 
examinations, and enforcement actions. She has been joined by 38 
military and veteran service organizations, a bipartisan coalition of 
33 State attorneys general, as well as retired Army Colonel Paul 
Cantwell and the former head of the Office of Servicemember Affairs, in 
disagreeing with the Bureau's decision.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEIL. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
my side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. STEIL. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I think the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
authored a very good amendment. It is a constructive amendment in this 
legislative process to make a bad bill less bad.
  It strikes the findings sections, not the legislation contained 
therein. It is the egregious findings and the personalities in the 
first 21 pages that the gentleman removes and says we should use the 
arm of Congress to look at those findings of fact and to get a report 
from the General Accountability Office on those matters raised in the 
findings section.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very good amendment.
  Mr. STEIL. Madam Chair, I think the most important part here is that 
the findings are the political rhetoric that we are looking to remove. 
This town has far too much political rhetoric.
  I am willing to work with my colleague to make this unaccountable 
entity accountable to Congress in the first place. I urge my colleagues 
to vote in favor of this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEIL. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Adams

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment made in order by the 
rule, and I ask for its consideration.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 24, beginning on line 9, strike ``described under 
     subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (h) of section 
     1013'' and insert ``established under section 1013''.
       Page 30, after line 19, insert the following:
       (3) Reestablishment of memoranda of understanding.--The 
     memoranda of understanding between the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau and the Department of Education titled 
     ``Memorandum of Understanding Between the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection and the U.S. Department of Education 
     Concerning the Sharing of Information'' (October 19, 2011) 
     and ``Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Supervisory and 
     Oversight Cooperation and Related Information Sharing Between 
     the U.S. Department of Education and the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau'' (January 9, 2014)--

[[Page H4089]]

       (A) shall remain in effect and may not be terminated by any 
     party to such memoranda; and
       (B) may only be amended or revised if the parties to the 
     memoranda determine that such amendment or revision would 
     promote better interagency coordination to the benefit of 
     consumers.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Adams) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, before the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, there was no Federal agency dedicated to protecting consumers 
from predatory and abusive practices, so I am grateful to my chair for 
bringing this issue before us.
  I am not exactly sure why my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have been so resistant to protecting consumers and to restoring 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to its original intent.
  My amendment would restore the relationship between the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of Education. 
Specifically, it would reestablish an interagency agreement concerning 
the sharing of student borrower complaints and allow for cooperation in 
the supervision and oversight of student loan servicers.
  It is critical that the Department of Education work with the CFPB on 
student loan oversight. Currently, the Department of Education is 
refusing to share information about loan servicers and student borrower 
complaints, which is making it more difficult for the CFPB to conduct 
its investigations into the lenders' bad behavior and deceptive 
practices.
  In fact, last Thursday, it was reported that the Director of the 
CFPB, in response to Senator Warren's inquiry, stated that Secretary 
DeVos and the Department of Education were blocking efforts to conduct 
proper oversight on the student loan industry.
  Because of the stance the Department of Education has taken, many 
student loan servicers and lenders are not complying with CFPB's 
request for information as well. These companies that manage student 
loans are refusing to share information that the CFPB needs to perform 
proper oversight. This is unacceptable.
  The national student loan debt has reached crisis levels. The 
American people are getting crushed by more than $1.5 trillion in 
student debt. Moreover, we have seen countless lawsuits allege that 
widespread wrongdoing by student loan companies is costing some 
borrowers thousands of dollars.
  This critical amendment would put borrowers back at the center of the 
Bureau's consumer protection work.
  Our constituents have elected us to look out for their best 
interests, to protect them from harmful policies, and to provide them 
recourse when they get into difficult situations. Dismantling, 
undermining, and weakening the CFPB is not in our constituents' best 
interests.
  I thank Chairwoman Waters for her leadership in restoring the CFPB to 
its original intent.
  Let's do the right thing for the American people. I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment to help student borrowers and to 
support H.R. 1500.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from North Carolina 
for raising this issue of student loans. It is a very important issue 
for a whole generation of Americans.
  But let's rewind and understand why we are in the position we are in 
with student loans. In 2009 and 2010, there was a Democratic majority 
in the House and the Senate that, in order to pass ObamaCare, they 
needed pay-fors to pass the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, 
the formal name of what we commonly call ObamaCare.

                              {time}  1345

  One of the major pay-fors was the nationalization of student lending. 
So now we have a generation of American students that have a crushing 
debt burden because of a government program. Ninety percent of student 
loans are done through the Federal Government.
  So let's get to the fundamentals of this reform, so that consumers 
can have choice, students can have choice.
  This amendment doesn't do that.
  The memorandum of understanding between the CFPB and the U.S. 
Department of Education outlines the parameters to share student loan 
information. The Department of Education was clear in its letter 
terminating the memorandum of understanding, stating:
  It takes exception to the CFPB unilaterally expanding its oversight 
role to include the Department's contracted Federal student loan 
servicers. The Department has full oversight responsibility for Federal 
student loans under Federal law.
  The Department letter also expressed concern that:
  CFPB's intervention in this area adds confusion to borrowers who now 
hear conflicting guidance related to Title IV of student loan services 
for which the Department is responsible.
  So the memorandum of understanding was terminated because the two 
separate departments, the CFPB and the Department of Education, were 
sending information to students who were trying to make payments, some 
were trying to catch up on payments, and they are getting two different 
pieces of guidance.
  So to reinstate this provides more confusion for the very people that 
are being crushed by a generation of debt. So it is a deeply 
problematic amendment, not because it has an ill intent.
  The very issue that we are trying to confront here is a very real one 
to these students, to their families, and to the lost prosperity and 
economic opportunities that they are experiencing because of the 
structure of this debt load and because of this Federalized approach to 
student lending.
  Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments from my colleague 
from North Carolina.
  But we want to make sure that private loan services who collect 
payments, or those who collect payments from students, are doing their 
job.
  Now, yes, students want choices. I taught for 40 years on the campus 
of Bennett College. I know the difficulty that students have, and I 
know that they leave college with a lot of debt, but we should not hold 
them hostage. They are asking for a choice to resolve the problems, and 
they need someone there who will speak for them.
  That is what this bill will do. That is what was done before, and we 
need to restore that kind of confidence back into these students so 
that they know that they can get some help when they need it.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Chair, let me just say this: This is a good 
amendment. This is a great bill. It is an opportunity for us to restore 
some confidence and integrity into this process.
  We should not hold our students hostage and penalize them because of 
something that the Congressman said the government has done.
  Madam Chair, we have an opportunity to fix this, and I would 
certainly encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, let me state this clearly. Dodd-Frank 
conferred authority over private student lending to the CFPB. It did 
not grant the CFPB a role in Federal student lending that is overseen 
by the Department of Education.
  So this amendment is a counterpoint to what is existing law. The 
memorandum of understanding was terminated for good reason.
  This amendment is nothing more than an attempt to undo another 
Federal agency's action without understanding the context in which it 
was terminated.
  I think the fundamental issue here is consumer choice, student 
choice. We lack that currently.

[[Page H4090]]

  When 90 percent of student lending is run by the Federal Government, 
we have a problem. That is a nationalized set of lending.
  With more consumer choice, with better technology, with real 
innovation, we can give students better opportunities and better 
choices. Those things are happening in the private sector, but in a 
limited way, because the Federal Government is so deeply involved in 
student lending.
  Let's fix that issue of student lending with good reforms, with 
proper innovation, with more choices.
  Madam Chair, this amendment does not achieve those things, sadly, and 
I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Lawson of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Madam Chair, I have an amendment on the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 40, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 9. REPORT ON FAIR LENDING INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT 
                   ACTIONS.

       Section 1016 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010 (12 U.S.C. 5496) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Report on Fair Lending Investigations and Enforcement 
     Actions.--The Director shall issue a monthly report to 
     Congress containing--
       ``(1) the number of investigations opened and closed by the 
     Bureau relating to potential fair lending violations;
       ``(2) how many fair lending enforcement actions have been 
     taken or referred;
       ``(3) an analysis of consumer complaints relating to 
     potential fair lending violations; and
       ``(4) statistics on how many staff of the Office of Fair 
     Lending and Equal Opportunity are dedicated to fair lending 
     supervision and enforcement issues.''.
       Page 40, line 9, strike ``sec. 9'' and insert ``sec. 10''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Lawson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise to support the Consumers 
First Act and my amendment that would provide transparency in the 
number of fair lending cases that are opened and closed by the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau.
  This Bureau was created under Dodd-Frank to provide consumer 
protection from unfair lending practices. These individuals include our 
Nation's veterans, students, those who have mortgages, and individuals 
with auto loans, which is very prevalent.
  Since the creation of the CFPB, it has helped over 31 million harmed 
consumers with over $12 billion in relief. That is pretty substantial.
  In addition, the CFPB has received and taken action on nearly 1 
million complaints.
  Today, the CFPB's ability to continue protecting our Nation's 
borrowers has been severely limited by the Trump administration. The 
administration has weakened the supervision and enforcement of fair 
lending, blocked payday loan cases, dismantled protections for 
servicemembers, and has reduced transparency and accountability.
  The Consumers First Act fights back.
  The bill, along with the amendment, specifically requires 
transparency in fair lending investigations, requires interagency 
cooperation, and demands diversity and inclusion efforts.
  My home State of Florida has one of the highest rates of consumer 
complaints in the Nation. Some of it might be due to the elderly 
population that we have or the high number of just regular citizens who 
need protection.
  What would these consumers do without the CFPB? What would be their 
recourse for Federal action?
  Madam Chair, it is time that we put consumers first. I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment and to support the underlying bill.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I believe this amendment will divert 
important resources away from pursuing fair lending violations. I know 
that is not my colleague's intent.
  We currently have an annual report requirement under this very 
provision. I do not think a monthly report would give added clarity to 
Members of Congress.
  Moreover, when it comes to Federal regulatory agencies under the 
jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee, I know of no other 
monthly reporting requirement we impose upon regulators, and so this 
would be inconsistent with other pieces of financial regulation and the 
law that we currently have.
  If Congress wants to control more of how the CFPB is using its 
resources, we should bring them under the annual appropriations 
process. That is a fundamental reform which is not included in the 
underlying bill.
  Madam Chair, I would say that while my colleague has a very important 
issue he is raising here and trying to clarify on the actions of the 
CFPB and ensuring that fair lending is enforced reasonably, I concur 
with him that that is an important and good thing, but a monthly 
reporting requirement will provide no additional clarity for us as 
public policymakers.
  Madam Chair, I stand in opposition to the bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Madam Chair, how many minutes do I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Madam Chair, I would say to the distinguished 
member from North Carolina, who I have enjoyed working with, during my 
tenure in Florida, especially in the Florida legislature, one of the 
biggest complaints was for protection for the consumers.
  I spent my career there fighting on their behalf, for the voiceless 
who did not have a voice, and I continue with this fight here, because 
I know the importance of it.
  Madam Chair, I can tell the gentleman, if I walked out of here today 
and just walked down the street and asked an average person what was 
more important to them, they would say the consumer protection that 
they feel that they don't really have.
  This is the most important legislation that I have seen since I have 
been in Congress, because it goes straight to the people who need it 
the most, our veterans, our students, regular consumers, just the 
average people.
  Big banks and institutions have a lot of protection, but the average 
person does not have this protection.
  Madam Chair, I can guarantee my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, if they vote for this protection, it will be in the same vein of 
when our great President Lincoln said that: ``The world will little 
note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what 
they did here.''
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, in closing, I want to commend the author of this 
amendment, who is using this opportunity to highlight his support of 
fair lending enforcement by the CFPB. I commend him for that. I commend 
my colleague for that. I believe he is a thoughtful legislator.
  I reluctantly oppose this amendment, given the fact that we have 
already provided in law and regulation an annual report of this same 
data, and I believe that resources would be better spent on protecting 
consumers directly around fair lending violations rather than reporting 
on a monthly basis what they do on an annual basis.
  Madam Chair, while I oppose this bill, I certainly commend my 
colleague for his passion, his care for consumer protection.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lawson).

[[Page H4091]]

  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1400


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Pressley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 40, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 9. DEBT COLLECTION.

       (a) Report on Debt Collection Complaints and Enforcement 
     Actions.--Section 1016 of the Consumer Financial Protection 
     Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5496) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(d) Report on Debt Collection Complaints and Enforcement 
     Actions.--The Director shall issue a quarterly report to 
     Congress containing--
       ``(1) an analysis of the consumer complaints received by 
     the Bureau with respect to debt collection, including a 
     State-by-State breakdown of such complaints; and
       ``(2) a list of enforcement actions taken against debt 
     collectors during the previous 12 months.''.
       (b) Limitation on Debt Collection Rules.--Section 1022 of 
     the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 
     5512) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Limitation on Debt Collection Rules.--The Director 
     may not issue any rule with respect to debt collection that 
     allows a debt collector to send unlimited email and text 
     messages to a consumer.''.
       Page 40, line 9, strike ``sec. 9'' and insert ``sec. 10''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 1500 and in support of the Consumers First Act.
  I also want to thank Chairwoman Waters for her leadership and her 
stewardship in this endeavor.
  I am proud to cosponsor this bill, which will return the Consumer 
Bureau to its intended role as a nonpartisan consumer watchdog that 
protects the interests of American taxpayers, not those of special 
interests.
  In 2017, the Urban Institute found that 71 million Americans had a 
debt in collection on their credit report. Meanwhile, collectors 
estimate they contact consumers more than a billion times a year--a 
billion.
  During the 2008 financial crisis, people lost homes, jobs, and hard-
earned wealth. This crisis was the prime example of what can happen 
when nobody is looking out for the consumers who are left to navigate a 
financial system built to confuse, mystify, and capitalize on the most 
vulnerable.
  In response, Democrats created the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, an agency with the sole mission of protecting consumers and 
holding lenders accountable when they put profits over people.
  In my home State of Massachusetts, 46 percent of those living in 
communities of color have debt in collections compared to only 18 
percent of residents in predominantly White areas.
  We know that debt collectors engage in some of the most aggressive 
tactics: harassing, berating, and even falsely threatening legal action 
against vulnerable consumers.
  My amendment would require the Director of the Consumer Bureau to 
issue quarterly reports to Congress, including an analysis of 
complaints submitted by consumers. The Consumer Bureau's complaint 
database has been a crucial tool to monitor harmful industry trends and 
agency enforcement efforts in defense of consumers.
  Since the beginning of this administration, more than 62,000 
consumers submitted complaints on harmful and unfair debt collection 
practices. The Consumer Bureau, under Director Mulvaney and now 
Director Kraninger's failed leadership, has returned zero--zero--relief 
to harmed consumers.
  My amendment will require the Director to report on the various 
enforcement actions taken against these debt collectors because we 
cannot afford to go back to the days in which consumers were left to 
fend for themselves in a financial industry that was stacked against 
them.
  Information is power. The more information we have, the more power we 
have to protect consumers from harassment.
  Recently, the Consumer Bureau released a proposed debt collection 
rule filled with carveouts and loopholes that would allow debt 
collectors to more aggressively target and harass consumers through 
emails and text messages.
  My amendment would prohibit the Director from issuing further rules 
that would essentially open the floodgates and allow collectors to 
bombard consumers.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with consumers and to support my 
amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. I am opposed to the amendment.
  I would ask the amendment's author, if I am reading this correctly, 
that on a quarterly basis they will disclose the previous 12 months' 
action.
  Am I reading the legislative text?
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McHENRY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for clarifying.
  Madam Chair, I would say that having a quarterly requirement for an 
annual report doesn't seem like the right approach. We currently have 
an annual report, so what this amendment does is simply say, on a 
quarterly basis, they must provide an annual report rather than have an 
actual annual report annually. So this is really about micromanaging 
the Bureau.
  The Bureau currently reports on an annual basis, as the Congresswoman 
from Massachusetts outlined. Moreover, it not only changes that, it 
also changes what is currently in the middle of a 90-day public comment 
period, which is the regulations put forward on May 7 by the Bureau on 
fair debt collection practices.
  What this amendment does is simply say that, for debt collection 
purposes, you can't text or email a consumer. That is what this 
amendment does. That is not modern. That is not the nature of how we 
communicate with our smartphones in today's environment.
  What this amendment would do is drive up the cost of healthcare, of 
collecting on student loans. By not being able to communicate with 
consumers in a modern way, they will not have the follow-up necessary 
so that consumers will have some knowledge that perhaps they owe money 
that they didn't otherwise know about.
  And simply saying snail mail is the way to go does not seem like what 
this amendment should be about nor what we should be about as a 
Congress. We should be using all elements of technology to make sure 
that our financial institutions, our government can actually 
communicate with people in the way that they see fit. This amendment 
limits that.
  I think this amendment is unproductive. The public should have the 
right to opine on the proposal put forward by the CFPB, and the public 
should also have the right to be communicated with by their financial 
service providers in a way that they see fit.
  So, with that, I do ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Chair, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Chair, I just think it is important to remind my 
colleague across the aisle that consumers are being harassed 
aggressively, and many of them did not even incur the debt for which 
they are being harassed. So we need to close these loopholes.
  The current rule is rife with loopholes and carveouts and will open 
the floodgates for debt collectors to further bombard consumers. My 
amendment will ensure that the Consumer Bureau continues to put 
consumers first and protects them from relentless harassment. We simply 
want this data to be accessible on a quarterly basis because it will 
make it easier.
  The Consumer Bureau is an independent agency, and it needs to 
continue to operate as such. Under Dodd-

[[Page H4092]]

Frank, the Director is required to report to Congress annually, and the 
GAO office is required to annually audit the agency's finances. The 
efforts of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are intended to 
weaken this agency.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Chair, again, this is ultimately about honoring 
the very mission of the Bureau, and that is to put consumers first.
  I support H.R. 1500, and I urge all of my colleagues to support my 
amendment, which will be a further effort to protect consumers and to 
guard against the harassment that so many Americans are experiencing 
every day.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to say to the author of this legislation, I understand your 
intention. We have a rule that is out for comment right now to get the 
public feedback on this.
  Moreover, I would say, under existing law, harassment by debt 
collectors is not permitted, period, under current law. What is 
prevented, though, is somebody who is trying to collect debts from 
actually texting someone. That is a problem.
  I don't think that is the intention of this amendment, but that is 
the net effect, because the regulations put forward say that you can 
text, you can email, something that the Debt Collection Act, written 
before email, written before text messaging, did not contemplate. We 
are updating this so that people can be communicated with in a modern 
way.
  There is nothing more annoying than finding on your voice mail some 
random voice mail from somebody you have never heard of, and you are 
supposed to call this random person and provide them information. How 
about a text, right?
  When I got a text from my pharmacy that said, ``Do you want to 
reorder your prescription?'' and I texted back, ``Yes,'' that saved me 
a phone call. I liked it.
  When talking about student debt, if somebody doesn't even know that 
they have missed a payment and the debt collector calls and they have 
got a full voice mail, they may never know that they missed a payment. 
If they got a text or if they got an email, that may be the way that 
they actually want to be communicated with.
  What we are talking about is innovation; what we are talking about is 
modern communication; and what we are talking about is reasonable 
regulation to ensure that consumers, especially students, are able to 
be communicated with in the way that they seek and the way that they 
like.
  This amendment is premature because there is notice and comment out 
under the rule that this seeks to undo, and this amendment is 
unproductive because it limits the rights of individuals to be 
communicated with in the way that they seek. That is what I would say.
  To Members of Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I 
would also say that they are going back to an old system. If they don't 
want modernization under the current rule so that people can be 
communicated with in the way that they seek, I would tell Members of 
Congress to not text or email their constituents but only mail them 
through the U.S. Postal Service.
  Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Jackson Lee). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Burgess

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 27, line 5, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       Page 27, strike line 6 and all that follows through page 
     28, line 13.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, this amendment permanently subjects funding 
for the CFPB to congressional appropriation and authorizes funding for 
fiscal year 2020 at the fiscal year 2019 level.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is currently funded by the 
Federal Reserve System, based upon a formula. Congress has never been 
able to fully determine the funding level for the CFPB, limiting 
congressional oversight and the American taxpayers' right to have a 
voice in these activities.
  As Acting Director Mick Mulvaney stated in his quarterly funding 
request to Chairman Jerome Powell of the Federal Reserve Board of 
Governors: ``By design, this funding mechanism denies the American 
people their rightful control over how the Bureau spends their money. 
This undermines the Bureau's legitimacy. The Bureau should be funded 
through congressional appropriations. However, I am bound to execute 
the law as written.''
  If Democrats do not like the actions of the CFPB Director, they 
should support returning control to the Congress, to the United States 
House of Representatives, to the people's House, through the 
appropriations process, as was envisioned by the Founders in the 
Constitution. This amendment simply returns congressional oversight by 
bringing funding for the CFPB under our discretionary appropriations 
process.
  Madam Chair, I urge all Members to support this important and 
commonsense reform, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to amendment 
No. 6.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, this amendment would take the widely 
successful consumer complaint database dark, hiding from the public how 
consumers report personally being harmed by financial institutions.
  The Dodd-Frank Act required the CFPB to establish a consumer 
complaint database to provide consumers with the opportunity to report 
complaints about financial products and services.
  A public database empowers consumers to seek redress when harmed and 
benefits the public by providing firsthand stories to help other 
consumers to avoid similar harms.
  A public database also promotes market discipline and encourages 
financial firms to treat their consumers fairly. The Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau has received over 1.5 million consumer submissions, 
with a 97 percent response rate by financial firms to the consumer 
complaints.

                              {time}  1415

  This means that the American people know, need, and use this 
function. Taking this away from the public only harms hardworking 
people in need of help and benefits the bad actors.
  Through its research, education, market monitoring, and the much-used 
consumer complaint database, the CFPB has been able to directly address 
problems in the market and issues that directly harm hardworking 
families. This is especially useful for the millions of consumers who, 
unfortunately, do not have the financial means, time, or access to the 
judicial court system.
  Mandating that the consumer complaint database remain transparent and 
publicly accessible is an important aspect of this bill and will 
promote better conduct from providers of financial services across this 
country. Thus, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment to H.R. 
1500, the Consumers First Act.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, this amendment strikes a section of the bill requiring

[[Page H4093]]

public availability of all consumer complaints, obviously a CFPB web 
page. A provision of the bill requires that all consumer complaints be 
made available on a public CFPB website. While it sounds like an 
attempt at transparency, I am concerned about how it will affect the 
entities against which the complaints are filed.
  We had a similar provision that was included back in the stimulus 
bill, the HITECH Act in ARRA in 2009, resulting in the loss of consumer 
confidence in healthcare entities because there was no reporting 
required on remedial action. That is, once you got on the list, you 
could never get off the list.
  The language of this bill requires disclosure of complaints, but 
there is no information on which complaints must be posted and whether 
they can be removed. Will entities be publicly held as guilty before an 
investigation is conducted? Will there be a way to indicate that 
remedial action has occurred?
  Until these questions are clarified, we must not subject entities to 
the immediate disclosure of consumer complaints.
  This amendment strikes this provision so that we may thoroughly 
discuss these issues before submitting them to become law.
  Madam Chair, again, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, I would like to reiterate my strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Congress must ensure that consumer complaints to the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau are available to the public to hold 
companies accountable to the American people for their actions or lack 
of actions.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment to H.R. 
1500, the Consumers First Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Burgess

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Redesignate section 9 as section 10.
       Insert after section 8 the following:

     SEC. 9 BRINGING THE AGENCY INTO THE REGULAR APPROPRIATIONS 
                   PROCESS.

       Section 1017 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010 (12 U.S.C. 5497) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by amending the heading of such subsection to read as 
     follows: ``Budget, Financial Management, And Audit.--'';
       (B) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3);
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively; and
       (D) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F) of paragraph (1), 
     as so redesignated;
       (2) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
       (3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (b) and (c), respectively; and
       (4) in subsection (c), as so redesignated--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Bureau for fiscal year 2020 an 
     amount equal to the aggregate amount of funds transferred by 
     the Board of Governors to the Bureau during fiscal year 
     2019.''; and
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, this amendment permanently subjects the funding of the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to congressional appropriation and 
authorizes funding for fiscal year 2020 at the fiscal year 2019 level.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is currently funded through 
the Federal Reserve System based on a formula. Congress has never been 
able to fully determine the fund level for the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, limiting congressional oversight and the American 
taxpayers' right to have a voice in these activities. Acting Director 
Mick Mulvaney so stated during his quarterly funding request to 
Chairman Jerome Powell of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
  If the Democrats do not like the actions of the Director of the CFPB, 
they should support returning control to Congress, to the people's 
House, through the appropriations process.
  This amendment simply returns congressional oversight by bringing 
funding for the CFPB under our discretionary appropriations process.
  Madam Chair, I urge all Members to support this commonsense reform, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment because it seeks to 
limit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by using the 
appropriations process to politicize and defund the agency.
  All the bank regulators are independently funded. In addition to the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the 
FDIC, and the NCUA are all funded outside of the appropriations 
process. In fact, so is the FHFA, the FSOC, and OFR.
  Congress provided the regulators with independence from the executive 
branch and the appropriations process to ensure that financial 
regulators focused on protecting the financial system from harm.
  However, ever since it was created, Republicans have focused on the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding because, more than any 
other agency, it has helped level the playing field between Wall Street 
on one side and families, communities of color, older Americans, 
servicemembers, and students on the other.
  Under the guise of the appropriations process, Republicans are 
seeking to do by amendment what they were unable to do for the 8 years 
they were in power, eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
entirely.
  To that end, Mulvaney's first request for funds to be transferred 
from the Federal Reserve to fund the CFPB's operations was zero. He 
later asked Congress to turn the CFPB, which he previously called a 
``sick, sad'' joke of an agency, into an appropriated one.
  In addition, Republicans often point to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, which is subject to annual appropriations, as an example we 
should follow. What they seem to forget is that during Trump's 35-day 
shutdown, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau remained open while 
the SEC was effectively shuttered.
  Advocacy groups like Americans for Financial Reform also point out 
that ``big banks would be able to use the politically charged 
appropriations process to deny funding for rule-writing or enforcement 
actions that Wall Street particularly dislikes. They could simply 
starve the agency of the basic funds it needs to do its job or threaten 
to do so in order to intimidate the agency out of taking actions to 
curb abuses by powerful companies.''
  The difference with Mulvaney and the Trump administration is that 
they have purposely sought to ignore or disregard the law and the 
independence Congress tried to create. Mulvaney, who reports directly 
to Trump, clearly ignored the law when he directed the agency to stop 
supervising banks for violations of the Military Lending Act.
  Nevertheless, I am not surprised that Republicans' efforts to reform 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau involve trying to starve the 
agency of funding.
  Madam Chair, Democrats want to ensure the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau can do and is doing its jobs and puts consumers 
first. This amendment does exactly the opposite, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.

[[Page H4094]]

  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Director Mulvaney in his quarterly funding request to Jerome Powell 
of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors: ``By design, this funding 
mechanism denies the American people their rightful control over how 
the Bureau spends their money, which this undermines the Bureau's 
legitimacy. The Bureau should be funded through congressional 
appropriations. However, I am bound to execute the law as written.''
  It says pretty clearly in the Constitution that no money may be drawn 
from the Treasury except as an appropriation by the United States 
Congress.
  Most people do not accuse us of underspending when it comes to the 
appropriations process, so I fail to see that as a valid argument.
  Look, if you don't like the actions of the Director of the CFPB, 
support returning the funding to the Congress, support returning 
control to the Congress so you will have the control that you seek.
  Madam Chair, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, I would like to reiterate my strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Today, the House is trying to return the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau to its mission of putting consumers first. This 
amendment, instead, is meant to slow down and ultimately starve the 
agency by using the appropriations process.
  Madam Chair, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have tried 
everything they could try to dismantle the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. I think it is odd that they would spend their time 
opposing what is good for consumers and, yet, embracing the very 
institutions that caused us to have a recession in 2008 and to harm the 
American people.
  Madam Chair, I ask that everyone oppose this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURCHETT. Madam Chair, I rise today to speak on behalf of Dr. 
Burgess' Amendment to H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has two primary 
flaws. First, Congress does not oversee the agency, and a sole director 
determines its priorities. Second, instead of securing funding through 
the Congressional appropriations process, the CFPB receives money from 
the Federal Reserve. This funding method exempts it from budgetary 
limitations and is a prime candidate for the irresponsible use of tax 
dollars.
  These practices do not serve the American people, those that this 
agency was designed to protect. Because of this current lack of 
oversight and accountability, the agency is vulnerable to political 
whims. An agency this powerful should have Congressional oversight.
  Dr. Burgess' amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, would help to 
right these wrongs. It would subject the CFBP to the Congressional 
appropriations process, just like other federal agencies of similar 
scope and size. This is not a partisan amendment: The simple change 
would increase resistance to political impulses and accountability to 
the American people.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Redesignate section 9 as section 10.
       Insert after section 8 the following:

     SEC. 9. CREDIT SCORES INCLUDED IN FREE ANNUAL DISCLOSURES.

       Section 609 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1681g) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end and inserting a period;
       (B) by striking ``except that--'' and all that follows 
     through ``(A) if the'' and inserting ``except that if the''; 
     and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) If the consumer reporting agency is a consumer 
     reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on 
     consumers on a nationwide basis as described in section 
     603(p), each such agency shall disclose a current credit 
     score generated using the scoring algorithm, formula, model, 
     program, or mechanism that is most frequently used to 
     generate credit scores sold to creditors, subject to 
     regulations of the Bureau, along with any information in the 
     consumer's file at the time of the request concerning credit 
     scores or any other risk scores or other predictors relating 
     to the consumer, if such request is made in connection with a 
     free annual disclosure made pursuant to section 612(a).
       ``(8) Such other consumer information as the Bureau 
     considers appropriate with respect to consumer financial 
     education, including the information required by subsection 
     (f)(1), information describing the credit score of the 
     consumer with respect to a range of possible credit scores, 
     and the general factors contributing to the credit scores of 
     consumers.''; and
       (3) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``, a consumer reporting agency'' and all 
     that follows through ``shall include--'' and inserting ``or a 
     risk score, a consumer reporting agency shall supply to the 
     consumer--''; and
       (ii) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) any credit score or risk score in the file of the 
     consumer at the consumer reporting agency;'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) Credit score.--The term `credit score' means a 
     numerical value or a categorization derived from a 
     statistical tool or modeling system used by a person who 
     makes or arranges a loan to predict the likelihood of certain 
     credit behaviors, including default.
       ``(B) Risk score.--The term `risk score' means a numerical 
     value or a categorization derived from a statistical tool or 
     modeling system based upon information from a consumer report 
     for the purpose of predicting the likelihood of certain 
     behaviors or outcomes, and includes scores used for the 
     underwriting of insurance.'';
       (C) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
       ``(6) Maintenance of credit scores.--All consumer reporting 
     agencies shall maintain in the consumer's file credit scores 
     or any other risk scores or other predictors relating to the 
     consumer for a period of not less than 1 year beginning on 
     the date on which such information is generated.'';
       (D) by striking paragraph (7) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (8) and (9) as paragraphs (7) and (8), respectively; and
       (E) in paragraph (7) (as so redesignated), by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``, except that a 
     consumer reporting agency described in section 603(p) shall 
     provide a credit score without charge to the consumer if the 
     consumer is requesting the score in connection with a free 
     annual disclosure made pursuant to section 612(a)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. The coauthor 
of this amendment is Mrs. Beatty from Ohio.
  Madam Chair, this amendment will allow consumers to obtain free 
access to their credit scores. It directs the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau to require that consumer reporting agencies disclose 
free credit scores to consumers who make that request.
  Federal law currently allows consumers to obtain one credit report 
per year from each of the major credit bureaus that monitor consumer 
credit information. These free reports include all the current data on 
which a credit score would be based but don't include the credit score 
itself.
  For consumers, this is kind of like trying to figure out how well 
their favorite baseball team is doing based on newly created analytics 
for the modern sports fan and not for us who know just home runs, ERA, 
and strikeouts. If not for the current win-loss record, would people be 
able to know how their team is doing.
  Good credit scores mean better interest rates on mortgages, bank 
loans, and credit cards; smaller deposits for rent and utilities; and 
even lower insurance premiums.
  As important as credit scores are, they are still a mystery to most 
Americans. While most understand the fundamentals, such as the 
importance of

[[Page H4095]]

paying bills on time, there is a lot of uncertainty about how the 
credit score is actually determined.
  Many Americans don't know, for example, that maxing out your credit 
card can be about as bad as making a late payment. Many people also 
wrongly believe their credit scores reflect their income, age, marital 
status, education, or even ethnicity.
  A large majority of Americans are unable to define a good credit 
score--700--and many don't know that small changes in behavior could 
have a large impact on the interest rates that they will pay on loans.
  With that in mind, this amendment directs the CFPB to determine if 
agencies should also disclose other consumer information appropriate 
with respect to consumer financial education.

                              {time}  1430

  People with poor or mediocre credit scores pay for them with higher 
interest rates, bigger security deposits, and higher insurance 
premiums.
  The one number that can make or break someone's financial future more 
than salary is their credit score. I believe consumers have a right to 
obtain their credit score for free from the same source that supplies 
it to other entities.
  I would like to acknowledge my former staffer, Michael Fulton, now an 
executive with the Memphis International Airport, who worked on the 
original bill, the Fair Access to Credit Scores Act, which I introduced 
9 years ago in the 111th Congress.
  I look forward to working more on this important issue with 
Chairwoman Waters and my partner on this amendment, Congresswoman 
Beatty from Ohio.
  I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
  Mrs. BEATTY. Madam Chair, the inclusion of credit scores on the free 
annual credit report is an issue that my colleague from Tennessee and I 
have worked on for several Congresses. Under current law, all consumers 
are entitled to a free annual report from the three credit reporting 
agencies. However, despite providing consumers with all of the 
information that makes up their credit scores, the free annual report 
does not actually include a credit score. That needs to change. 
Adoption of this amendment would do just that.
  I want to thank Chairwoman Waters for working with us.
  I also want to share that financial literacy is a lifelong journey, 
and as co-chair of the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, I 
believe that knowledge of one's own credit score is essential. There 
are few three-digit numbers as important to consumers as their credit 
score. Despite the importance, nearly 60 percent of U.S. adults are 
unaware of what their score is.
  Whether applying for a home or an auto loan, applying for a line of 
credit or a credit card, or even applying for a job, undoubtedly, a 
credit score plays an integral role in the everyday financial lives of 
all Americans. I am asking and urging my colleagues to support this 
important amendment.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
that would place, I believe, an unnecessary burden on credit bureaus 
with no benefits to consumers.
  Currently, consumers have access to free credit scores through the 
annualcreditreport.com website run by the big three credit reporting 
agencies, or CRAs. On this website, consumers can get three separate 
credit scores, one at each of these three CRAs, for free. This 
amendment will use the CFPB to require that the CRAs provide an 
additional credit score to consumers. That is right, a fourth credit 
score.
  Specifically, the amendment requires CRAs to use the credit score 
that is most frequently used. What the legislation fails to mention is 
that the most frequently used score is a FICO score. FICO scores are 
not free.
  This amendment requires that the credit bureaus, all private 
companies, purchase credit scores from FICO, another private company; 
and in doing so, it is mandating the transfer of potentially hundreds 
of millions of dollars from one company to another company.
  One has to ask oneself, why is this designed to punish these three 
CRAs or to create a massive payday for FICO? This is the USA, not USSR, 
not China, and not Venezuela. The government has no right to force a 
private company to hand millions of dollars to another private company 
simply because the government official prefers one product over 
another.
  In addition, the chairwoman has introduced legislation to reform the 
CRA and has yet to bring a bill up before the committee. I would 
imagine this amendment that deals with credit scores, not consumer 
protection, is better suited to be debated under regular order in our 
committee than thrown onto a bill that seeks to amend CFPB governance.
  In short, this amendment has the government picking winners and 
losers, provides little or no benefit to consumers, is irrelevant to 
the subject of this bill, and should be soundly defeated.
  This sets a horrible precedent, Madam Chairwoman. We are dictating 
one private company to pay another private company for a service. When 
do we ever do that? That is amazing precedent to set. How can we do 
this?
  We are not a dictatorial government here. We allow the winners and 
losers to be chosen by the people through economic freedom. We don't 
dictate who buys a product from here and who buys a product from there. 
That is what the people are allowed to do on their own, and that is 
what makes our country so great is economic freedom to be able to do 
that: pick and choose between what companies provide what services and 
which ones they want to pay for. Instead of dictating how one company 
should pay another, we should be allowing the freedom for them to 
choose.
  Again, this amendment is about picking winners and losers. It 
provides no benefit to consumers and should be soundly defeated.
  Madam Chair, is my understanding correct that the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) has no time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Chairwoman, in the minute that I have, I can't read 
the bill to the gentleman, but what the gentleman talked about is not 
the bill. It might be something somewhere up in the stratosphere, but 
this has nothing to do with picking one company, or Venezuela, or some 
other communist country. This has to do with giving consumers the fair 
opportunity to see what their credit score is
  That is America. That is fairness. That is justice.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chairwoman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  There is landmark legislation in the 1990s that required a free 
credit report. The underlying components of a free credit report are 
given directly by the agencies to the people. What this would require 
is the CFPB to go purchase the FICO, or take the FICO score, which is 
derived from the underlying credit reports.
  The underlying credit reports are much more meaningful in terms of 
the value they provide to consumers. The flaws that they have in them, 
consumers can remedy.
  We currently have existing law that does the right thing here. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this, while a thoughtful idea, a bad 
idea in how it is constructed.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I have the right to close, so I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has the right to close.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Chairwoman, this is a good bill. I appreciate the 
idea of thoughtful. It is thoughtful and it is good. And maybe it 
distinguishes the parties. One party is looking out for consumers to 
have an opportunity to get a chance to see their score and

[[Page H4096]]

have a fair chance in the American economic system, to participate, and 
the other doesn't care.
  Madam Chairwoman, I ask that we pass the bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the ranking member.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, it is insulting to hear a colleague say 
that the other party does not care about the consumer. That is 
absolutely wrong. It is not becoming to the House, and it is not 
becoming to the debate on this House floor.
  We care about consumers; we all do. It is about how we take care of 
them and how we defend them.
  This is a bad amendment, badly constructed. We already have a free 
credit report. We don't need the CFPB to get between consumers and 
their free credit report. This amendment does that, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Bonamici

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       On page 33, insert after line 15 the following:
       (5) Report on risks to young consumers and student 
     borrowers.--Not less than once annually, the Assistant 
     Director and Student Loan Ombudsman shall issue a report to 
     Congress containing an analysis of complaints submitted to 
     the Bureau by young consumers and student borrowers during 
     the previous year and offering an independent evaluation of 
     risks to young consumers and student borrowers posed by 
     policies and practices in the marketplace for consumer 
     financial products and services.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chairwoman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act.
  I thank Chairwoman Waters and my colleagues for their leadership in 
restoring essential functions of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, which this administration so recklessly rolled back.
  During my years of work as a consumer protection attorney, I learned 
firsthand how strong consumer protection laws help to keep Americans 
financially secure. This administration's efforts to weaken the CFPB 
have harmed millions of people across the country, including young 
consumers and student borrowers.
  I commend my colleagues for including in the original bill the 
restoration of the CFPB's Office of Students and Young Consumers, which 
this administration closed last year. Shutting down this office 
diminished the CFPB's mission and weakened its enforcement 
capabilities.
  Before its closure, this office returned more than $750 million to 
students and student loan borrowers through actions against 
unscrupulous student loan servicers. They also helped more than 60,000 
borrowers who submitted complaints about the student loan industry to 
the CFPB.
  Notably, in January of 2017, the CFPB and the Office of Students and 
Young Consumers stood up to the Nation's largest student loan servicer, 
Navient, for misallocating payments and improperly steering borrowers 
away from income-based repayment plans.
  The amendment I am offering today with my colleague, Congressman 
Harley Rouda, would build on this office's critical role in protecting 
young consumer students and student loan borrowers. This amendment 
would require the Assistant Director and Student Loan Ombudsman of the 
newly restored Office of Students and Young Consumers to issue an 
annual report to Congress on risks to young consumers and student 
borrowers.
  Specifically, this report would analyze complaints that were 
submitted to the CFPB in the previous year by young consumers and 
student borrowers and offer an independent evaluation of the risks to 
this population as a result of policies and practices in the consumer 
financial products and services marketplace. This report will help us 
understand the risks that our young consumers and borrowers face, and 
it will help inform the work of Congress on how to best fight back 
against those who seek to prey on our Nation's young people.
  I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment that will 
help students, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chairwoman, I claim the time in opposition, though 
I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North 
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, this is a reasonable amendment that 
highlights the issues facing young borrowers.
  As I said in previous amendment debate, in 2009 and 2010, the student 
loan industry was nationalized. Ninety percent of student loans are 
government loans. It is the government that is putting and saddling a 
generation of students in unsustainable debt. That is deeply 
problematic.
  As a result of the pay-for of the ACA and as a result of the pay-for 
under ObamaCare, that industry is now 90 percent government. That is 
problematic.
  This amendment doesn't deal with the substance of that, though it 
does deal with the risk factors associated with young consumers and 
student borrowers. I think it is important that we highlight the needs 
of young borrowers, the needs of students, and this amendment will 
provide that type of data on an annual basis. I think it is a good 
amendment.
  I appreciate the author for her willingness to engage in this debate, 
but also highlighting the need for us to think more thoughtfully here 
in Congress, think more deeply around financial literacy.
  We passed a bipartisan resolution a month ago that highlighted the 
National Endowment for Financial Education and the needs of financial 
literacy, the basic understanding of interest rates, the time value of 
money, and basic fundamentals of financial literacy that young people 
need to be aware of and the population needs to be aware of more 
generally. This amendment gets to that subject matter that is a 
bipartisan concern and is a bipartisan approach to that bipartisan 
concern.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the 
Congresswoman for offering it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for his 
bipartisan support. This is an issue that we all hear about from our 
constituents.
  As a member of the Education and Labor Committee, I know that we are 
working hard on affordable higher education; but, in the meantime, we 
need to make sure that we are aware of the problems that so many 
student loan borrowers have. This amendment will help us get the 
information through a report, and I appreciate that this will help us 
inform our approach here in Congress, as well as get a better 
understanding of the practices of student loan services.

                              {time}  1445

  Again, I thank the gentleman for his bipartisan support, I thank 
Chairwoman Waters for her support of the amendment, I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, I want to close by reminding Congress and reminding my 
colleagues that in 2009 and 2010 the Democrat House, Democrat Senate, 
and Democrat President nationalized the student lending industry. 
Ninety percent of student loans last year were done by the government. 
Only 10 percent were done by the private sector.
  That is deeply problematic. It is government that is saddling a 
generation of students with debt that is unsustainable for them. The 
lost economic potential as a result of that is

[[Page H4097]]

deeply problematic for our Nation and for the individuals who are 
affected here.
  To highlight the risk factors facing young consumers and student 
borrowers is the right thing. For our Congress to have that proper data 
is important, but do remember the nature of what is happening in the 
student loan industry is being driven by a proactive decision of 
Congress to nationalize that area of student lending. That is 
problematic. We need to resolve that issue. It is an issue I want to 
continue to highlight in any debate that we have around student 
lending.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment Number 10 Offered by Mr. Case

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 36, line 25, strike ``and''.
       Page 37, line 7, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 37, after line 7, insert the following:
       ``(C) ensure that at least 1 member is an expert in 
     consumer privacy.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman 
from Hawaii (Mr. Case) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 1500 
which would ensure at least one member of the Consumer Advisory Board 
be an expert in privacy.
  Over a decade ago, predatory lending and lax regulation led to one of 
the most devastating financial crises in our lifetime or any lifetime. 
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, or CFPB, was established 
by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
in response to this crisis. The CFPB is tasked with implementing and 
enforcing federal consumer financial laws while ensuring consumer 
access to fair, transparent, and competitive financial products and 
services.
  Under former Director Richard Cordray, the CFPB returned roughly $12 
billion to over 30 million consumers who fell victim to deceptive 
financial practices, handled over 1.2 million consumer complaints about 
financial firms, reined in payday lenders, examined mortgage and 
student loan servicers, combated discrimination in lending, and held a 
number of bad actors accountable.
  Under this administration, the CFPB's leadership ordered a number of 
changes that weakened its ability to protect consumers. This included 
firing members of the Consumer Advisory Board and reducing the size of 
the board. This hurt the CFPB's ability to help and protect consumers.
  The board's experts help inform the CFPB about emerging practices and 
trends in the consumer finance industry and share analysis and 
recommendations. It helps ensure the government fully leverages 
expertise of those from outside of government.
  H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act, would reverse anticonsumer 
changes taken by the administration and strengthen the Consumer 
Advisory Board. The bill would require the CFPB director to appoint at 
least 25 members, at least two-thirds of which would have to represent 
consumers, including fair lending and civil rights experts and 
representatives of communities affected by high-priced mortgages. My 
amendment would require at least one member of that board to be a 
demonstrated expert in privacy.
  My amendment is needed because the interplay of privacy and 
technology in the financial landscape has changed dramatically since 
2008. As internet connectivity increases, Americans now transmit more 
of their personal and financial information on the internet at 
exponentially higher rates than in the past, and their data is at risk.
  Since 2013 there have been at least 10 major data breaches 
compromising billions of consumers. A number of these breaches exposed 
consumers' financial information. For example, Marriott International's 
2018 breach compromised the personal information of some 500 million 
customers, including credit card numbers of more than 100 million. In 
2017 Equifax was breached, exposing the personal information of 143 
million consumers, including Social Security numbers. In 2014 the 
Nation's largest bank, JPMorgan Chase, was breached, compromising 76 
million, or two in three U.S. households. The list, unfortunately, goes 
on and on.
  In the wake of these high-profile data breaches and privacy 
violations, consumers are increasingly concerned about their online 
personal and financial privacy. A recent Pew Research Center public 
opinion study found that over half feel that their personal information 
is less secure than it was just 5 years ago, and 68 percent of internet 
users believe current laws are not good enough in protecting people's 
privacy online.
  Our consumers are demanding action on the issue of privacy, and our 
privacy laws and enforcement significantly lag much of the rest of the 
world. Obviously, the current system is not working to ensure that 
personal privacy is protected.
  My amendment responds to these concerns by ensuring that an expert in 
consumer privacy is part of the membership of the CFPB's Consumer 
Advisory Board. It will make sure that these concerns are front and 
center at the table as the board provides its advice to the CFPB.
  My amendment is a small, yet important, nonpartisan amendment in 
response to the growing movement in Congress and across the Nation and 
world to protect consumers' personal data and basic right of privacy.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North 
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, this amendment would ensure at least one 
member of the Consumer Advisory Board is an expert in consumer privacy. 
I think Congress has a proper role that they can exert in the make-up 
of boards, advisory boards, or make-up of commissions, and I think this 
is reasonable legislating around that.
  We constantly hear from both financial firms and their regulators 
that cybersecurity and insufficient data privacy standards are 
significant threats to consumers and financial stability.
  Moreover, as employees of the Federal Government, we know of Federal 
Government data breaches of Federal employees. We have to do more to 
make sure that we stop that and stop malicious state actors from these 
cyberattacks.
  Billions of people were impacted by data breaches and cyberattacks in 
2018 alone. The problem is only growing, and the threats are becoming 
much more sophisticated. Given the importance of this conversation, 
ensuring that one individual on the Consumer Advisory Board has 
consumer privacy expertise offers a reasonable solution.
  Madam Chair, I commend my colleague from Hawaii for offering this 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments o my colleague very 
much and the support. This clearly demonstrates that when it comes to 
consumer privacy, there is no party involved. We are all concerned 
about it regardless of our party. So I appreciate those comments.

  I would only add that certainly this member of the board should deal 
not only with data breaches, but also with the basic rules and 
regulations that govern privacy. We need a large, massive, and 
increased broad government debate over our own rules on privacy in this 
country where, in fact, we do lag the rest of the world.
  Madam Chair, I appreciate, again, my colleague's support, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  I commend my colleague for offering this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to support it. It is a reasonable step for Congress to say, 
clearly, that data breaches, cybersecurity, and personal privacy 
matter. As a matter of public policy, we need to be interested in it.

[[Page H4098]]

  I would also urge my colleagues and reach out to the other side of 
the aisle for us to have a deeper conversation about cyber data and 
privacy. We need to legislate in these areas.
  Without our taking action, we are allowing the Europeans to set the 
global standard, and we are allowing the European Union to set the 
standard for our data and privacy here in the United States. That is 
not appropriate. As American policymakers, we should be interested in 
legislating in a bipartisan way to achieve that type of data privacy 
and cybersecurity that is necessary for the American economy, not just 
in the short run, not just for the next election, but for the next 
generation to make sure that they are safe and secure.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I commend my 
colleague for raising this important issue, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Golden

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 36, line 20, after ``communities,'' insert 
     ``representatives of servicemembers, veterans, and their 
     families,''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Golden) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, I first want to thank Chairwoman Waters for 
her hard work and the hard work of the committee on behalf of American 
families in Maine and across the country who have fallen victim to 
financial schemes.
  I rise today to offer my amendment on behalf of military 
servicemembers and veterans and their families. One of the challenges 
that military men and women face are countless financial scams that 
exist in the financial marketplace. Travel just outside of a military 
base, Madam Chair, and there will be payday lenders with high interest 
rates, title loan companies, and supplemental life insurance schemes 
all looking for their next target.
  Military personnel who are distracted by financial problems created 
by these schemes cannot focus on doing their jobs to the best of their 
abilities. If the problems get out of hand, they can even end a 
military career. On average, thousands of servicemembers are separated 
each year from the military for financial hardship and other issues 
related to these types of schemes. Even worse, many servicemembers or 
their families come under pressure from scammers while they are in the 
midst of a deployment.
  Just as an example of this, I was in an infantry unit. I served in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. I have known people who have actually taken the 
time, when they get that rare opportunity, to hop on to a sat phone. 
They should be calling their family or a loved one, and instead they 
are calling to talk to a debt collector because they had fallen victim 
to one of these scams, then had it turned over to a debt collector. By 
law that is not supposed to happen, but too often servicemembers don't 
know what their rights are and what the law is, and they end up trying 
to deal with this kind of a stress while in the midst of a deployment 
to a place like Iraq.
  We know it is not right. We need to make sure struggling military 
families can have resources that they can turn to for help.
  Unfortunately, these challenges don't stop upon leaving the service 
either. According to a study done by the AARP, nearly eight in ten 
veterans report having received a scam attempt in the last 5 years. I 
get them myself. I get them in the mail. I get them from people talking 
to me about my VA home loan or education benefits and others, offering 
what sounds like a good deal, but we know it is not.
  Recognizing the vulnerability of vets and servicemembers to predatory 
lenders and other financial scams, Congress created the Office of 
Servicemember Affairs at the CFPB. The office monitors complaints from 
servicemembers and veterans and their families and takes appropriate 
action to protect them.
  Since 2011 the CFPB has received approximately 123,000 complaints 
from servicemembers, and the problem is not improving; it is actually 
getting worse. From 2016 to 2017, there was a 47 percent increase in 
complaints received from servicemembers.
  My amendment helps ensure that the CFPB can better protect veterans 
and servicemembers from financial abuse, fraud, and scams. The 
provision opens up CFPB's Consumer Advisory Board to a representative 
veteran from the military community and the veterans' community.
  The advisory board is a critical part of CFPB's role as a watchdog 
for consumers. They inform CFPB about emerging trends, they share 
analysis and recommendations for action and policies, and they assess 
the consumer impact of emerging financial products, practices, and 
services.
  Putting a family member of a servicemember or a veteran on the 
advisory board will ensure that CFPB is better informed of new and 
emerging scams and tactics targeting servicemembers and veterans so 
that we are better able to protect them.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North 
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, this amendment will help ensure that 
servicemembers, veterans, and their families have representation on the 
CFPB's Consumer Advisory Board.
  As I stated with the previous amendment, I think it is fair and just 
for Congress to make the decision on who should be members of the 
advisory boards, various agencies, and the make-up of boards and 
commissions as well as for government.
  Congress' action in the past ensures that men and women serving our 
Nation do not fall victim to fraud and unscrupulous lenders, and this 
amendment is consistent with those efforts.

                              {time}  1500

  Moreover, I think there is a missed opportunity in this bill. Mr. 
Barr, my colleague from Kentucky, offered an amendment before the Rules 
Committee to this bill to say that the Military Lending Act gives 
explicit authority to the CFPB. That amendment was not made in order by 
the Rules Committee. I think it was a bad decision.
  If my colleague supports defending those in the military from 
unscrupulous action, I would encourage him to cosponsor Mr. Barr's 
amendment because it is conforming with his very concern about making 
sure that military families and veterans are protected. The Military 
Lending Act and the supervisory authority to the CFPB is just the way 
to do that.
  I am supportive of that measure. It should have bipartisan support 
and should have been made in order under this amendment.
  So, both sides of the aisle have these concerns. I am grateful that 
the gentleman from Maine and the gentleman from Texas have offered a 
good amendment.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, I will go ahead and close and leave it to 
the gentleman to close on his end.
  This amendment will help servicemembers, veterans, and their families 
make sure that they are protected financially and give them a voice at 
the table. I encourage my colleagues to support it. I thank the ranking 
member for encouraging his colleagues to support it as well.
  I would be happy to talk to our colleague from Kentucky about ways in 
which we can work together to protect our servicemembers and veterans. 
I know we are all in on that together, to do the best that we can for 
our servicemembers and veterans.
  Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member, the chairwoman, and the 
entire committee for their support, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the 
balance of my time

[[Page H4099]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Escobar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 39, line 24, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
       Page 39, line 25, insert before the period the following: 
     ``, and military- and veteran-serving financial 
     institutions''.
       Page 40, line 4, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
       Page 40, line 4, after ``businesses'' insert the following: 
     ``, and military- and veteran-serving financial 
     institutions''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Escobar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I would like to thank Congresswoman Waters for her 
incredible work and leadership on this bill, which will help restore 
trust in Federal consumer protections and ensure those protections 
extend to all communities.
  I also thank my colleague, Representative Golden, for cosponsoring my 
amendment. This amendment would direct CFPB to include representatives 
of military- and veteran-serving financial institutions in their 
advisory committees.
  There are over 18 million veterans in America today and nearly 3 
million Department of Defense employees. Many in these communities 
choose to bank with financial institutions that cater to their unique 
needs. These over 20 million Americans deserve a voice at the CFPB from 
technical experts who know how to best serve our veterans and military.
  We know that many military members pick a financial institution and 
stick with it. That is because these organizations have the skills and 
experience to help servicemembers with challenging circumstances, like 
frequent moves and deployments, that the average civilian customer 
won't face.
  These organizations help support our veterans and military at 
critical life moments, providing early capital to help start a 
business, helping finance a new home, and even partnering with 
educational institutions to provide technical assistance to veteran 
entrepreneurs.
  They know the unique needs and concerns of their clientele, including 
identity theft during deployments, VA loan issues, and improper credit 
reflections that occur when the VA experiences administrative delays.
  And they can share key industry insight to help CFBP ensure vets and 
servicemembers are protected as they move through financial systems.
  On a personal note, I share my home, El Paso, with nearly 50,000 
veterans and am neighbors with more than 45,000 military and civilian 
personnel at Fort Bliss. At Fort Bliss, we also train units from every 
U.S. State and territory, so our amenities end up benefiting many 
outside our immediate community over time.
  Communities like ours deserve to be heard, and my amendment will help 
ensure that that happens.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
though I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North 
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, this amendment will direct the CFPB to 
appoint representatives of the military- and veteran-serving financial 
institutions to advisory committees. It is another step in ensuring 
servicemembers, veterans, and their families have a voice in consumer 
protection.
  Military- and veteran-serving financial institutions are unique and 
can provide the CFPB advisory boards with insights into the biggest 
risks facing veterans, servicemembers, and their families.
  I do concur that there should be more military representation across 
all fronts at the CFPB and across the government.
  Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Chair, I have no further speakers or comments. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment and the underlying 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Neguse

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 40, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 9. REPORT ON SENIOR CONSUMERS.

       Section 1016 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010 (12 U.S.C. 5496) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Report on Senior Consumers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall issue an annual 
     report to Congress containing--
       ``(A) an analysis, in coordination with the Office of 
     Financial Protection for Older Americans, of consumer 
     complaints from older Americans, including a State-by-State 
     breakdown of complaints by type of consumer financial product 
     or service; and
       ``(B) any legislative or regulatory recommendations the 
     Director may have to improve consumer protections for older 
     Americans.
       ``(2) Older americans defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term `older Americans' means individuals who have attained 
     the age of 62 years or more.''.
       Page 40, line 9, strike ``sec. 9'' and insert ``sec. 10''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I first want to join my colleagues in 
thanking Chairwoman Waters for her leadership for so many years and, in 
particular, her leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.
  We are here today to reinstate the powers of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, which have been severely weakened, and it includes 
the curtailing of enforcement of fair lending laws and removing a 
standalone office on student loans. We must ensure, however, that our 
elderly population is included in this debate. We must not leave our 
elderly behind.
  My amendment is simple and straightforward. It will require the 
Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to issue an annual 
report to Congress of consumer complaints from older Americans, 
including a State-by-State breakdown of complaints by type of consumer 
financial product or service.
  Madam Chair, studies show that people 50 and older hold 83 percent of 
the wealth in the United States. However, these same individuals, who 
grew up in a workforce very different than the evolving, 
technologically driven one of today and who are experiencing aging 
health disparities, are prime targets for scammers. This has resulted 
in our seniors losing anywhere from $2.9 billion to $36 billion each 
year from financial exploitation.
  Having served as the director of my State's, Colorado's, Department 
of Regulatory Agencies in the past, I had the honor of working on 
behalf of Coloradans to protect them from unfair, deceptive, and 
fraudulent business practices. We certainly saw many of these practices 
up close.
  While I am proud that our department was able to recover millions of 
dollars for consumers across Colorado, including senior citizens, we 
must do more. In an era of sophisticated targeting of our seniors, we 
must act, and I certainly believe that is the case at the Federal 
level.
  So, in a world in which we continue to hear of calculated financial 
fraud and various data breaches, I believe we

[[Page H4100]]

should be working to protect all consumers, not making it easy for bad 
actors to take advantage of them, in particular, making sure that we 
protect vulnerable populations.
  Madam Chair, that is why I encourage my colleagues to support this 
important amendment, and, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, though I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North 
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, older consumers are undoubtedly at the 
highest risk of becoming the victims of financial crimes. That is the 
unfortunate case that we are facing today.
  That is why, earlier this month, the House passed multiple pieces of 
legislation to highlight the issues of elder financial abuse and the 
mechanisms to combat it.
  The statistics on senior citizens who are exposed to financial 
exploitation are shocking. Older Americans lose approximately $36.5 
billion each year to financial crimes, scams, and abuse. One in five 
seniors have reported being victims of exploitation, and only 1 in 44 
cases of financial abuse are reported.
  The gentleman from Colorado has offered an amendment that will 
require the CFPB to study and report on consumer complaints filed by 
older Americans and recommend legislative or regulatory actions to 
enhance consumer protections to those citizens.
  This amendment would increase transparency and allow the CFPB to 
identify trends in elder financial abuse. Those insights could be used 
and can be used to protect senior citizens.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I thank my 
colleague for offering a good amendment, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member for his remarks, 
for articulating the need for this amendment, and for his support. I 
very much appreciate it.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the 
balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Stevens

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Ms. STEVENS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 36, line 25, strike ``and''.
       Page 37, line 7, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 37, after line 7, insert the following:
       ``(C) seek to appoint individuals involved in the 
     industries affected by the Bureau, including individuals who 
     represent community banks, credit unions, small business 
     owners, or experts in United States economic growth and 
     jobs.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Stevens) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. STEVENS. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an essential agency that 
has protected millions of consumers and put more than $12 billion back 
in Americans' pockets.
  I worked in the Obama administration, in the United States Department 
of the Treasury, when the CFPB was first established in the wake of the 
financial crisis and saw firsthand how this agency has grown to serve 
as a force for accountability, transparency, and fairness on behalf of 
working Americans. That is why it is so important to restore and 
protect the CFPB from the attempts to weaken this critical agency.
  My amendment to the Consumers First Act ensures that community banks, 
credit unions, small business owners, or economic growth experts are 
appointed to serve as members of the Bureau's Consumer Advisory Board.
  The Consumer Advisory Board is a resource for the CFPB, providing the 
agency with expertise, analysis, and recommendations.
  We must keep the channels open to small businesses, smaller banks, 
credit unions, and community advocates. This amendment gives community-
oriented small businesses a seat at the table when it comes to the 
CFPB's decisionmaking, while furthering the goal of ensuring our 
financial system works for everyone.
  We need that on-the-ground information. We need to hear from our 
small businesses.
  In my district, credit unions and community banks offer helpful 
resources to individual borrowers as they look to purchase a home, 
start a small business, or expand a manufacturing order.
  These institutions have invaluable knowledge that we should take 
advantage of as we work to protect consumers from fraud and abuse.
  My district, Michigan 11, is also home to several thousand small 
businesses, including manufacturers and the country's most robust 
automotive supply chain.

                              {time}  1515

  We have got retail, we have got restaurants, and we have the 
capability to continue to unlock the channels of innovation, but we 
need a CFPB that works for us, and we need the voice of the small 
business at the table.
  Our small business owners contribute so much to our communities, and 
they have a finger on the pulse of our economy more than anyone else. 
We should welcome the expertise of these key stakeholders at the CFPB 
as they continue to do incredible work for the American people and our 
economy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from North 
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, the gentlewoman from Michigan has offered 
an amendment that will help ensure the Consumer Advisory Board has a 
balanced perspective by including individuals who represent community 
banks, credit unions, and small business owners, or economic growth 
experts.
  Community banks, credit unions, and small businesses are 
disproportionately affected by heightened regulatory burdens.
  Dodd-Frank imposed 4,000 new Federal regulations on financial 
institutions, including smaller institutions that lack the resources of 
larger ones. As a result of that, we have seen the decline of nearly 
2,000 banks, from about 6,400 banks at the end of 2010, to the end of 
last year, that number was 4,600. This is a significant issue for 
community financial institutions, the weight of regulation.
  The number of credit unions has also declined by nearly 3,000 over a 
similar period of time, down to 5,600.
  While community banking organizations, such as credit unions and 
small community banks, represent 17 percent of all U.S. bank assets, 
they make up nearly half of all small business loans. Small businesses 
account for over half of all U.S. employment, and nearly two-thirds of 
all employment growth over the last decade.
  These institutions fuel our economy and spur job growth. They deserve 
a seat at the table.
  I commend my colleague from Michigan for offering this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. STEVENS. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from North Carolina 
for his celebratory remarks. This is an important day in Congress 
because this is the role that we play; overseeing agencies, 
strengthening their work and delivering for the American people.
  I have got to applaud our chairwoman of Financial Services for the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau work that she has done, 
particularly with this act. It is long overdue.
  We are thrilled to introduce this amendment that will bring the voice 
of small business to the table.

[[Page H4101]]

  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  As I said, small community financial institutions have been 
disproportionately affected by the regulatory burden of Dodd-Frank, 
which has driven small community banks to either merge, or go out of 
business. Likewise, the same for credit unions.
  So for them to have a seat at the table at the CFPB, I think, is 
right, fair, and appropriate. I appreciate my colleague from Michigan 
offering this. I support the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes.''
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. STEVENS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 33, line 15, strike the quotation marks and final 
     period and insert after such line the following:
       ``(5) Collection of student loan servicer data.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Assistant Director and Student Loan 
     Ombudsman shall require each servicer of student loans to 
     submit an annual report to the Assistant Director with 
     information regarding the servicer's loan portfolio, 
     including data regarding the following:
       ``(i) The size of the servicer's portfolio.
       ``(ii) The repayment status of unique accounts.
       ``(iii) Borrower-initiated and servicer-initiated contacts, 
     and the outcome of each such contact.
       ``(iv) Income-driver repayment applications and 
     recertifications.
       ``(v) Any other data the Assistant Director and Student 
     Loan Ombudsman determines necessary to carry out the 
     functions of the Office of Students and Young Consumers.
       ``(B) Report.--The Assistant Director and Student Loan 
     Ombudsman shall include, in each report required under 
     section 1035(d)(1), a description of the information 
     collected under this paragraph, along with any findings or 
     determinations the Assistant Director made with respect to 
     such information.
       ``(C) Guidance.--Not later than 90 days after the enactment 
     of this subsection, the Bureau shall issue guidance to 
     student loan servicers to facilitate the data collection 
     required under this paragraph.''.
       Page 40, line 8, after the second dollar figure insert 
     ``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, first of all, let me recognize the chair 
of the committee, my friend from California, for her steadfast work to 
defend American consumers.
  Madam Chair, students are in a difficult situation nowadays in the 
knowledge-based economy, where we are told over and over again that 
America, to be competitive, has to have an educated workforce, and we 
need more and more young people to go into college and then to graduate 
school; not to say that we don't have needs for people to get out of 
high school and go into career tech.
  But these generations are burdened with unbelievable student loans, 
and they are also burdened with, in urban areas, high housing costs and 
also lower wage expectations. We have to fix this; and one way to fix 
it is to have more oversight and performance standards for those 
companies, those for-profit companies, in particular, that control 93 
percent of the market of Federal student loans.
  Madam Chair, 44 million Americans hold an estimated $1.5 trillion in 
student debt. Over 1 million borrowers defaulted on their student loans 
last year.
  Default is a financially devastating event that affects the 
individuals many times for the rest of their lives, as it affects their 
credit standing and also their ability to get a house, and to get a 
good job. Default is a financially-devastating event, as I said.
  In the past decade, the Federal Government created several repayment 
plans designed to assist borrowers in financial distress, but the 
default rate remains stubbornly high.
  One major reason is the student loan servicing industry. These for-
profit companies operate with little oversight nor accountability.
  Evidence shows that servicers often provide inaccurate information 
and inadequate customer service, making the already complicated process 
of enrolling in the correct repayment plan close to impossible.
  My amendment would simply require the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau to collect and publish data from student loan servicers, 
providing a first-ever look at how these companies perform at serving 
American consumers. That is important.
  These are basic performance standards that I would think all of my 
colleagues across the aisle would want in any business practice--
particularly for-profit companies--they would want performance 
standards for them, if they are publicly-traded they would want them 
for the shareholders and, most importantly, for American consumers and 
students.
  For example, this amendment would show if student loan servicers are 
making it easy for their customers to recertify their incomes for their 
repayment plans. We know that this is a common roadblock to successful 
repayment.
  This amendment would simply require the CFPB to fulfill their 
statutory duty and provide needed oversight and transparency of this 
important industry. Everybody should agree that more information, in 
this instance in particular, is in everyone's interest and everyone's 
interest in the future of this country and future generations.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I am opposed to the amendment. I appreciate 
the gentleman's interest in this issue, but I have concerns with this 
amendment.
  Before I get into the substance of the amendment, I do want to remind 
my colleagues that the Democrat majority, in 2009 and 2010, passed 
through the House and the Senate, and got signed by the President, the 
nationalization of the student loan industry, giving it to the 
Department of Education to administer.
  Knowing their limitations, the Department of Education, at the time, 
contracted with loan servicers that are private enterprises, but under 
the direction and the regulatory enforcement of the Department of 
Education.
  Now, the Democrat majority is unhappy, and the Federal Government is 
crushing an entire generation with debt by the decision they made to 
help pay for the ACA or ObamaCare.
  To get to the substance of the amendment, this amendment would 
require loan servicers to submit considerable data to the CFPB, data 
that they are already submitting to their primary regulator, the 
Department of Education.
  I am troubled by the sheer volume of information that would be 
collected and by the lack of definitive guardrails around what the CFPB 
can and cannot collect.
  We had an amendment before that said we need to have on the Advisory 
Committee a privacy expert. Well, this amendment runs counter to this 
need for us to have enhanced privacy standards for those that are 
seeking loans, and enhanced privacy standards for individuals in 
society, because this would now require a second area of government to 
collect data, sometimes counter to what the Department of Education 
would suggest is the right and proper data to collect.
  The Department of Education has authority over student loan 
servicing, and that work is performed on the Department's behalf under 
its regulation. And the servicers fall under the Department of 
Education's regulatory authority broadly.

[[Page H4102]]

  While I support the spirit of this amendment that was offered, I ask 
my colleagues to oppose it.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, just briefly, while I respect some of 
the issues brought up by my colleague, I do think, if the data is 
already there and they are supplying it for the Department of 
Education, we should make it relatively easy for the Consumer 
Protection Bureau to get that same information and, if needed, 
get more.

  As a former business owner, these are the kind of performance 
standards I would not be afraid to show to my clients; and I would 
think that Congress and the American people, considering the importance 
of this investment, at a minimum, would require these kind of 
performance standards.
  So I would hope that Members on both sides of the aisle would support 
the effort in a spirit of transparency, and performance standards for 
privately-held companies.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, in closing, this amendment is not 
practical. It should be offered when we reauthorize the Department of 
Education. I would support it if it is mandated on the part of the 
Department of Education to collect this data, which is the right 
regulator of this nationalized industry of making student loans.
  Rather than collecting more data, what we need to do is get into the 
action of fixing the problem of student debt. We need to make sure we 
have more choices for students, better communication with students, and 
a better understanding of the consequences of this massive debt load.
  We can collect all the data we want, but the Federal Government will 
eventually have to take responsibility for these bad actions we have 
taken to saddle a generation with student debt that they cannot afford. 
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Tlaib

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 40, line 8, after the second dollar figure insert 
     ``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 40, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 9. REPORT ON PAYDAY LOAN AND CAR-TITLE LOAN 
                   INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

       Section 1016 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010 (12 U.S.C. 5496) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Report on Payday Loan and Car-title Loan 
     Investigations and Enforcement Actions.--The Director shall 
     issue a quarterly report to Congress containing--
       ``(1) the number of investigations opened and closed by the 
     Bureau relating to payday loans and car-title loans;
       ``(2) the number of enforcement actions that have been 
     taken or referred relating to payday loans and car-title 
     loans;
       ``(3) an estimate of the amount of fees customers have paid 
     relating to payday loans and car-title loans;
       ``(4) an estimate of the number of times in the previous 12 
     months a typical payday loan customer has rolled over their 
     loan; and
       ``(5) an estimate of how many car-title loan customers lost 
     their car in the previous 12 months.''.
       Page 40, line 9, strike ``sec. 9'' and insert ``sec. 10''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I am proud to be a supporter of H.R. 1500, 
the Consumers First Act. The act ensures that the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau serves its statutory purpose of protecting consumers 
from unfair, abusive practices, and holding greedy corporations 
accountable when they take advantage of people in our communities.
  The residents of the 13th District in Michigan are charged a whopping 
369 percent APR rate by payday lenders.
  According to the Center for Responsible Lending, payday loans drain 
over $4.1 billion in fees a year from people in 35 States that allow 
triple digit interest rates for payday loans. Car title loans drain 
over $3.8 billion in fees annually from people in 22 States.
  Madam Chair, together, these loans drain nearly $8 billion in fees 
every year, money that should be going to pay rent or buy groceries. 
Instead, it is going to line the pockets of predatory lenders who are 
making record profits.
  Across Michigan, 600 payday lending storefronts each issue 3,000 
loans a year. Most of those loans are used by a borrower to repay their 
prior loans; and 90 percent of these loan borrowers in Michigan re-
borrow within 60 days.
  This is why I am offering an amendment that ensures that our 
residents are protected from predatory lending in the payday and auto 
loan industries. This amendment will provide those of us in Congress 
with the information necessary to know how these industries are 
operating and how our residents are being impacted directly.
  A doctor can't treat a disease without the necessary lab work or 
research. This also applies to our ability, as public servants, to push 
back against these loans being offered in all corners of our 
communities that push our residents more into poverty.

                              {time}  1530

  This payday lending amendment would require the CFPB to report to 
Congress quarterly the number of investigations opened and closed 
relating to payday and car title lenders.
  It requires an oversight report every quarter on the number of 
enforcement actions, an estimate of how much in fees payday or car 
title customers pay, how many times in the previous 12 months payday 
customers rolled over their loans, and how many car title loan 
borrowers lost their cars in the previous 12 months.
  Madam Chair, we have a responsibility to tackle this debt trap crisis 
that is set up for more profits for corporations but leaves the 
American people in financial despair with no escape.
  In Michigan, predatory lenders are looking to squeeze money out of 
low-income people with deceptive and abusive practices and have, 
unfortunately, found a steady stream of business back home in our 
districts.
  Taking advantage of people in difficult situations is immoral, but 
companies continue to stretch and break the law for an extra buck, 
regardless of the human cost.
  In my district, Detroiters with payday loans are more likely to file 
for bankruptcy, be evicted, or face utility shutoffs than any other 
Detroiter without payday loans.
  Madam Chair, I say to my colleagues, these numbers are not unique to 
the State of Michigan. Our constituents are being harmed by these 
abusive, greedy practices, and we have to make sure we have all the 
information we need to take action and protect our families.
  We know that many consumers who are forced to get high-interest, 
high-fees payday loans are targeted low-income families. Many are taken 
advantage of because they have relatively few other places to turn.
  According to the New York Fed, more Americans than ever were at least 
3 months behind on their auto loans, and it said delinquencies were 
worsening among subprime borrowers. Auto debt is now nearing $1.3 
trillion.
  Madam Chair, many of our constituents are a missed payday or a family 
emergency away from being forced to rely on payday loans or missing an 
auto payment. Many are already in that position. It is our job to make 
sure we have the information necessary in this body to protect them.
  Madam Chair, this amendment strengthens consumer protection, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I would ask the author for a point of 
clarification.
  As I read it, the amendment requires quarterly reporting to Congress. 
Is that correct?
  Ms. TLAIB. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H4103]]

  

  Mr. McHENRY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. TLAIB. Yes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Am I to read it correctly that that quarterly report is 
supposed to give 12 months of data?
  Ms. TLAIB. Correct.
  Mr. McHENRY. Okay. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for 
clarifying.
  Madam Chair, looking at this, that means that on a quarterly basis, 
it is an annual report. It is a bit clunky.
  What we already see with the issues of payday and car title lenders, 
we know that those are State-regulated products, but we also know, 
according to the Bureau's 2018 Consumer Response Annual Report, payday 
loans account for 0.7 percent of consumer complaints, title loans 
account for 0.2 percent of consumer complaints. This is less than 1 
percent of the consumer complaints the CFPB already deals with.
  The issues of reporting here, if this were merely an annual report to 
reposition the data that they put out on an annual basis, I would not 
see that as a burden or a major cost to the CFPB, but doing an annual 
report on a quarterly basis would be more costly.
  While I am not opposed to this data being made public--I do think 
that would be additive to the public--the fact that this is a quarterly 
filing for an annual report, I don't think that that is going to be 
quite as sensible as it otherwise could be.
  Moreover, if you look at the Consumer Response Annual Report on the 
consumer complaints to the CFPB, 80 percent of those consumer 
complaints revolve around the credit reporting agencies and credit 
repair firms.
  I think we should be focused on that, as a policy matter. I think 
there is bipartisan consensus that the credit reporting agencies need 
to undergo a change in the law by which they must abide to make sure 
that consumers are protected and their data is protected.
  This is bipartisan work that I hope Chairwoman Waters and I can 
engage in this Congress. We have raised similar concerns about credit 
reporting agencies in the past, and I do think there is an opportunity 
for us to have bipartisan legislating that protects the consumer.
  Madam Chair, I commend my colleague from Michigan for offering this. 
I know this is a major issue in Michigan and a major issue for the 
question of car insurance, the cost of car insurance as well, and a 
number of other issues that I know that she seeks to remedy for her 
constituents.
  Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman raising this concern to us 
as a body, but I respectfully oppose the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I do want to clarify to my good colleague 
that this is not an annual report.
  We want to know, every quarter, changes in payday complaints. So just 
be aware that this is about a quarterly report regarding those changes. 
This is not an annual report.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Chair, I do want to note the burden outweighs the 
cost on our residents back home.
  We need to be able to know exactly what is happening on the ground at 
home in regard to these kinds of practices and abusive behavior by 
payday lenders.
  We as a body need transparency and understanding of what is going 
through the CFPB, and we are not able to remedy these challenges for 
our residents without that information.
  Madam Chair, I hope that we can agree this is a bipartisan issue. 
This would impact a majority of our States across this Nation.
  Madam Chair, again, I hope I can get some support from my good 
colleague, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, in my reading of the bill, I would suggest 
that when it says, ``the Director shall issue a quarterly report to 
Congress containing,'' and then in subsections 4 and 5 it says 12 
months of data, that 12 months is--I don't want to be snarky about it, 
but 12 months is a year.
  So on a quarterly basis, CFPB has to provide 12 months of data. That 
is what I mean by on a quarterly basis CFPB has to provide an annual 
report. Twelve months being a year, a year being annual, filing yearly 
is annual.
  I don't mean to be completely snarky about it, but I think if we 
simply had an annual report, this would be a much better structured 
amendment.
  Madam Chair, while I oppose the amendment, I do so reluctantly.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Green of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 
printed in part A of House Report 116-79.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 31, after line 5, insert the following:
       (g) Restoration of Rule Prohibiting Forced Arbitration in 
     Consumer Contracts.--
       (1) Repeal of joint resolution.--Public Law 115-74 is 
     hereby repealed.
       (2) Restoration of rule.--Not later than the end of the 3-
     day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau shall reissue the 
     final rule of the Bureau specified in Public Law 115-74 
     (relating to ``Arbitration Agreements'') in the same form as 
     such rule existed on the day before the date of enactment of 
     Public Law 115-74, except the Bureau shall specify that the 
     rule takes effect after the end of the 60-day period 
     beginning on the date such rule is reissued.
       Page 40, line 8, after the second dollar figure insert 
     ``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 389, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Green) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I am honored to present amendment 
No. 17, which deals with consumer choice. It deals with whether 
consumers will be forced into arbitration or whether they will have the 
choice of having arbitration or litigation.
  With litigation, the consumer can have the choice of having the case 
presented as one person or as part of a group.
  This amendment is one that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act 
called to our attention by way of a study that was required.
  After performing the study, the CFPB issued a final rule to regulate 
the use of mandatory arbitration clauses. In so doing, it was something 
that we believed would have been beneficial to consumers. Yet, before 
the rule could take effect, it was rescinded by Congress in November 
2017.
  My amendment offers a direct, straightforward solution. It simply 
reinstates the CFPB final rule, a rule that was the product of a 
careful study. It was analyzed properly. It was done by way of 
stakeholder consensus.
  My belief is that this rule will reinstate a law that will give 
consumers choice as opposed to forced administration.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. 
Green) for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Green amendment.
  Madam Chair, to the Members of this House, when we file into this 
room, we file past a three-times-life-size statue of Thomas Jefferson, 
one of our Founders in this Nation. And Jefferson said he considered a 
trial by jury ``as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which 
a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.''
  Trial by jury was that important to Thomas Jefferson that he said it 
was that important.
    Daniel Webster, who is quoted up here on our wall, said, ``The law: 
It has honored us.'' Let us honor it by executing it in its fullest 
severity.
  How do we do that? We allow jury trials for American citizens.
  We teach our children accountability, responsibility, being 
accountable for your actions. The way to do it in America is to allow 
jury trials to decide who is at fault.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett)

[[Page H4104]]

  

  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, I rise only to commend the gentleman from 
Texas for his important work on this arbitration issue.
  There has been a very effective movement to quash the rights of 
consumers. In the financial services area, people are told to deal with 
it.
  Our colleague Hank Johnson has the Forced Arbitration Injustice 
Repeal Act as it relates to nursing homes and employment. Our colleague 
Katherine Clark has a bill to repeal these arbitration restrictions 
with reference to discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual 
harassment in the workplace. Each of these is very important.
  Arbitration is arbitrary. It does not fairly resolve disputes. It is 
biased toward the financial institution, and toward the employer and 
others in other cases. Arbitration is a model that does not work well 
to solve most disputes of this type.
  It has even been suggested, amazingly enough, to bring arbitration 
into the drug price debate now. I don't believe arbitration is a way to 
solve these problems, and it is certainly not a way to get us lower 
drug prices
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, the gentleman's amendment would reinstate a 
bad rule by the CFPB that was repealed.
  The CFPB's own data demonstrates that consumers fare better under 
arbitration than under litigation. On average, plaintiffs' attorneys 
account for approximately 31 percent of payments plaintiffs receive 
from class action settlements. Plaintiffs' attorneys collect, on 
average, $1 million per case; actual plaintiffs receive just $32 each.
  If Members want to be consumer friendly, if Members are about 
consumer protection, let's let the consumers get the benefit if they 
are wronged rather than trial lawyers and the trial bar.
  This is a trial lawyer's dream amendment.
  Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to vote 
``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, who has the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman in opposition, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), has the right to close.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, this is a consumer's dream come true because it gives 
the consumer choice.
  It does not deny the business owner, the credit card company, or the 
bank the opportunity to have arbitration. What it does is it allows the 
consumer to have the choice to either elect to have arbitration or to 
go to litigation, and when litigating, the consumer can litigate as an 
individual.

                              {time}  1545

  When I was a judge of a small claims court, I had many persons who 
were litigating their cases before me. I also understand that there are 
times when people believe that they should have lawyers to represent 
them. It is not unusual for businesses to have lawyers to represent 
them. In fact, businesses have lawyers on call to represent them 24 
hours a day.
  Why can consumers not have the same opportunity to litigate that 
businesses have to litigate? That is what this is all about. My 
colleague, on the other side, would simply have consumers have no 
choice, go to arbitration only, and then, possibly, gain some 
emolument.
  My belief is that consumers ought to have choice. That is what this 
amendment is about.
  Madam Chair, this is part of the reason why consumers are so angry 
with this Congress. We deny them their constitutional rights, the right 
to a trial and the right to make a determination for themselves as to 
whether or not they will engage in arbitration or litigation.
  Consumers should have choices. Businesses have choices. Consumers 
should have no less than what businesses have.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, let me just reiterate: This amendment is for trial 
lawyers. That is what they are trying to reinstate, forcing consumers 
into the hands of trial lawyers. Every million dollars plaintiffs 
receive in attorney's fees, the actual plaintiff, the one who is 
harmed, the one who is wronged, receives, on average, $32. That is not 
fair. That is not equitable. That is not right.
  It is not defending an abstract concept. It is actually defending 
those consumers' right to receive compensation for the harm that they 
have experienced. Also, it allows that consumer to enter into 
contractual agreements with people they seek to.
  This amendment would reinstate a rule that would take that consumer's 
right away from them and put it into the hands of the trial lawyer once 
again. It is a profit center. It certainly is.
  In November last year, the President signed a joint resolution passed 
by Congress disapproving of the arbitration rule under the 
Congressional Review Act. Congress spoke, in the House and in the 
Senate, and we changed the law.
  Pursuant to the joint resolution, the arbitration agreement rule has 
no force or effect. That means, moreover, that a rule similar to that 
can no longer be written going forward. That is under the Congressional 
Review Act.
  This amendment serves as little more than a payday for plaintiffs' 
attorneys.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 
116-79 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Steil of Wisconsin.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Burgess of Texas.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Burgess of Texas.
  Amendment No. 14 by Ms. Stevens of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 17 by Mr. Green of Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Steil

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Steil) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 234, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 222]

                               AYES--190

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer

[[Page H4105]]


     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hern, Kevin
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Radewagen
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--234

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Armstrong
     Hartzler
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Kinzinger
     Lamborn
     Meeks
     Norcross
     Payne
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Turner
     Walker

                              {time}  1619

  Mr. HORSFORD, Ms. SANCHEZ, Messrs. GOTTHEIMER, PHILLIPS, SCOTT of 
Virginia, PANETTA, DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, CONNOLLY, McEACHIN, 
SCHRADER, TAKANO, WELCH, and COHEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. TIPTON, SMUCKER, BURGESS, OLSON, POSEY, ROY, ABRAHAM, WEBSTER 
of Florida, WESTERMAN, and BISHOP of Utah changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Burgess

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 236, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 223]

                               AYES--191

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Radewagen
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--236

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)

[[Page H4106]]


     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Armstrong
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Kaptur
     Kinzinger
     Meeks
     Payne
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Walker


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1629

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Pelosi was allowed to speak out of order.)


                     Honoring USCP Chief Verderosa

  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chair, I am pleased to rise to join our 
distinguished Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy, to honor the dedicated, 
distinguished service of an outstanding public servant, United States 
Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa.
  Madam Chair, throughout 34 years in law enforcement, Police Chief 
Verderosa has proven himself as a leader of the highest patriotism and 
professionalism and has proudly carried forth the Capitol Police's 
nearly two-century history of storied service.
  Chief Verderosa has held seemingly every consequential job in the 
Capitol Police, from the fields of emergency response, to dignitary 
protection, to the highest ranks of leadership.
  Through it all, he has distinguished himself for his strong, steady 
leadership, particularly during some of the most challenging times for 
the Capitol Police force and the Congress.
  That outstanding leadership was on display after the 2017 
congressional baseball shooting, 2 years ago next month. Chief 
Verderosa responded to that attack with courage, vision, and grace, 
bringing help and healing to those affected and to our entire 
congressional community.
  In every day of his tenure, he has led with those same qualities, 
navigating everything from mass protests, to the more than 11 million 
annual visitors to the Capitol Grounds, to multiple Lying in State and 
Lying in Honor ceremonies.
  Chief Verderosa has earned the respect of all: the rank-and-file 
officers of the Capitol Police, Members of Congress, foreign 
dignitaries, and the American people.
  On a personal note, as someone who benefits from the protection of 
the Capitol Police every day and everywhere I go, I want to express my 
gratitude to Chief Verderosa for his hard work and commitment to the 
safety of all Members.
  In his retirement statement, Chief Verderosa said: ``The mission of 
the department is simple. We protect the legislative process.''
  Chief Verderosa, thank you for your relentless dedication to 
protecting the legislative process and this legislative body, ensuring 
that the people's House can do the people's work. We are profoundly 
grateful. We wish you well in your well-earned retirement.
  Madam Chair, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California 
(Mr. McCarthy), who is the Republican leader of the House.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Chair, I thank the Speaker for yielding, and I 
thank her for her words. I want to join the Speaker in thanking the 
chief.
  Three decades, 34 years--it is not a job; it is a way of life when 
you become a police officer. Your job is a little different, and we see 
it each and every day.
  Think of the complexity of being a Capitol Police officer. It is not 
just the safety of the women and men who serve in here; it is the 
thousands of visitors who come every day. But it is also the 
responsibility of keeping a government by the people, for the people, 
and of the people open.
  Every day we see it, and we all have felt it. It is not just 
protecting us when it is inside this building. We saw it just a short 
time ago on a baseball field. We are reminded of the number of Members' 
lives your officers saved that day.
  We are reminded of the number of times, just in a building that the 
majority leader room has, of the officers giving the ultimate sacrifice 
inside these Hallowed Halls to save the others.
  So we thank you for your work, but, more importantly, we thank you 
for the force. We thank you for all the officers.
  We know last week was National Police Week. They were here in the 
Capitol and throughout Washington, D.C. We know every day that we hear 
the other lives that were lost protecting us throughout the Nation.
  We thank you for your service, and on behalf of a very grateful 
Congress, thank you for your decades of service, and we wish you all 
the best in retirement.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Burgess

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 235, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 224]

                               AYES--192

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Radewagen
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--235

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass

[[Page H4107]]


     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Armstrong
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Kinzinger
     Meeks
     Payne
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Walker
     Yarmuth


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1642

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Stevens

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Ms. Stevens) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 418, 
noes 10, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 225]

                               AYES--418

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Allred
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Axne
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Estes
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx (NC)
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Fulcher
     Gabbard
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Haaland
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (AR)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meng
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norman
     Norton
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Olson
     Omar
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radewagen
     Raskin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouda
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                                NOES--10

     Amash
     Biggs
     Ferguson
     Gaetz
     Green (TN)
     Harris
     Hern, Kevin
     King (IA)
     LaMalfa
     McClintock

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Armstrong
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Kinzinger
     Meeks
     Payne
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Walker


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1648

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded


             Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Green of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green) on

[[Page H4108]]

which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 193, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 226]

                               AYES--235

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Steube
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--193

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Radewagen
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Armstrong
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Kinzinger
     Meeks
     Payne
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Walker

                              {time}  1654

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Barragan). There being no further amendments, 
under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Jackson Lee) having assumed the chair, Ms. Barragan, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1500) to require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to meet its 
statutory purpose, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House 
Resolution 389, she reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, 
back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from 
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. STEIL. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Steil moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1500 to the 
     Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 40, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 9. PAYMENTS TO VICTIMS FROM THE CIVIL PENALTY FUND.

       Paragraph (2) of section 1017(d) of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5497(d)(2)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2) Payments to victims.--No funds from the Civil Penalty 
     Fund shall be made available for any purpose other than 
     compensating actual victims of activities for which civil 
     penalties have been imposed under Federal consumer financial 
     laws.''.
       Page 40, line 9, strike ``sec. 9'' and insert ``sec. 10''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It 
will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the 
bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  Madam Speaker, the Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial 
Civil Penalty Fund, into which the Bureau deposits civil penalties it 
collects from wrongdoers.
  Civil penalties should be used exclusively to make victims of 
financial consumer crimes whole. We should track down actual victims of 
fraud. However, current law allows the Bureau to use this account as a 
slush fund.
  We should give the money back to the victims.
  This motion would put an end to the CFPB slush fund. This motion 
requires the CFPB to do the right thing: Give the money to the victims.

[[Page H4109]]

  The CFPB's ability to take away penalty funds and use them in 
unaccountable ways is unparalleled among financial regulators.
  Where does this money go?
  Both the Government Accountability Office and the Federal Reserve's 
Inspector General, which oversees the CFPB, found that the CFPB lacks 
internal procedures. The CFPB lacks accountability. The CFPB lacks 
transparency.
  Where does this money go?
  Let's put an end to the slush fund at the Bureau. Let's redirect 
where this money belongs. Let's give the money to the victims.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today, not just as a new Member of 
Congress, but as someone who has spent my career as a consumer 
protection lawyer studying families pushed to the brink of financial 
ruin.
  I have sat all day long listening to the personal stories of families 
driven to bankruptcy by predatory loans, financial scams, and unlawful 
and immoral debt collectors.
  I rise today as someone who has personally spoken to thousands of 
families in foreclosure; as someone who has had to look into the eyes 
of parents and children and tell them: ``I'm sorry, but the bank is 
going to take your house.''
  These are not experiences that someone can forget. I carry these 
stories of California families with me every day. That is why I ran for 
office. It is why I stand up for a level playing field for families.
  I cannot fathom how the minority, with this amendment, is shrugging 
off the devastation of the 2008 collapse.
  Ten years ago, in 2009, Orange County was coming off a year when home 
prices fell 30 percent. Imagine being a family planning for retirement 
and, all of a sudden, your primary source of security is gone.
  Ten years ago, in May 2009, California had an unemployment rate of 11 
percent.
  Do Members of this body not remember how many of our friends and 
neighbors spent sleepless nights wondering if they could keep a roof 
over their heads?
  The 2008 economic collapse cast a long shadow. One study from the CDC 
found that suicides, spurred by evictions and foreclosures, doubled 
between 2005 and 2010. Those are going to be difficult victims to 
locate.
  Because of this human tragedy, Congress acted and created the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency whose sole focus is to 
ensure that financial services companies and Wall Street megabanks 
could not again cheat families and tank our economy.
  We created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, even though 
special interests were spending $3 million a day to defeat it. Think 
about it; an industry so wealthy that even in its collapse, they had 
$40 million to spend on lobbyists.
  Now these same special interests are, again, attacking the CFPB. This 
amendment is just another effort by the same Members who voted against 
the CFPB's very creation to limit the agency's effectiveness.
  In my nearly 2 decades as a consumer advocate, I have never met a 
single American, Democrat, Republican, or Independent, who likes being 
cheated. If the Members today were listening to their constituents, and 
not special interests, they would support the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.
  I am a proud capitalist, and it is in that deep belief in healthy and 
strong markets, that I rise today in opposition to this motion to 
recommit.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 231, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 227]

                               AYES--191

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--231

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky

[[Page H4110]]


     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Armstrong
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Kinzinger
     Meeks
     Payne
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Walker


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1712

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 191, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 228]

                               AYES--231

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--191

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Armstrong
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Kinzinger
     Meeks
     Payne
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Walker

                              {time}  1724

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table

                          ____________________