[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 198 (Friday, December 1, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H6055-H6062]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
 BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO ``SMALL BUSINESS 
    LENDING UNDER THE EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT (REGULATION B)''

  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
891, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 32) providing for 
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States 
Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection relating to ``Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit 
Opportunity Act (Regulation B)'', and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 32

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection relating to ``Small Business Lending 
     Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)'' (88 
     Fed. Reg. 35150 (May 31, 2023)), and such rule shall have no 
     force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their 
respective designees.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H6056]]

  

  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this joint resolution of 
disapproval. We must overturn the CFPB's small business lending rule to 
ensure small businesses across America, which are the backbone of our 
country, have continued access to affordable credit to support and grow 
our economy.
  Access to affordable credit is key to ensuring communities across 
America remain vibrant. Unfortunately, the CFPB's small business 
lending rule undermines the goal of affordable and available credit, 
which I think we all should share.
  Here is why. First, the CFPB's rule is overly broad. It will require 
lenders to collect massive amounts of data whenever a small business 
owner applies for credit. Most of the information is unnecessary to 
make a fair, equitable, safe, and sound loan. Requiring lenders to 
provide the information infringes on small business owners' rights to 
privacy about their personal and business information when applying for 
credit.
  Second, the CFPB's rule is burdensome. Community banks and credit 
unions across America account for the majority of small business 
lending. They are doing their part. Despite claims from my colleagues 
across the aisle, this rule does not go after big banks. It will have 
the biggest impact on the small community financial institutions 
already operating under the thinnest of margins because of runaway 
inflation and increased interest rates through the Federal Reserve--in 
general, the Biden economy.
  The rule also discourages banks and credit unions from expanding 
their lending portfolios. They might simply decide that the droves of 
new compliance officers they would have to hire to comply with this 
onerous rule would simply not be worth it, and Main Street is hammered 
again.
  The CFPB Director says he is trying to be sensitive to the needs of 
small community financial institutions, oftentimes advocating for 
relationship banking. However, in the rule, CFPB sets the transaction 
threshold at an incredibly low 100 loans in the preceding 2 calendar 
years. This means the smallest of banks, small businesses, and their 
owners will be the ones to bear the brunt of the unnecessary data 
collection, and Main Street is hammered again.
  Third, the rule will be difficult to implement. The rule itself is 
nearly 900 pages and requires lenders to report 81 data fields. 
Developing compliance systems to achieve this will be extremely costly 
for firms, which takes resources away from actually lending to small 
businesses, and Main Street is hammered again.
  The timeline for implementation is also insufficient for lenders to 
develop the necessary systems to comply with such a complex and 
burdensome regulation. Each hour a lender spends on the overly broad 
data collection demanded by the rule is an hour not devoted to ensuring 
credit is available and affordable for small businesses, and Main 
Street is hammered again.
  Finally, it is unclear what the Bureau intends to do with its 
exceedingly expansive data demands. What we do know is the CFPB plans 
to post the data publicly on the CFPB's website. This is concerning, 
given the Bureau's alarming record of facilitating the naming and 
shaming of companies whose business activities progressive activists 
want to attack, adding to the concerns of the CFPB's abysmal track 
record of protecting the highly sensitive data it already collects.
  In fact, back in February of this year, there was a major 
unauthorized data breach by a CFPB employee, which included personally 
identifiable information and confidential supervisory information. 
Therefore, why should we ever trust them to protect sensitive 
information of small business owners this time around?
  To sum it up, the rule is backward-looking, anti-small business, 
anti-capitalism, anti-competition, anti-free markets, and anti-risk and 
reward.
  It is critical that we pass this resolution to overturn this reckless 
CFPB rule to protect small business access to the credit needed to 
continue to innovate and grow our economy. A new idea while we are at 
it: Let's put people back to work again.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, S.J. Res. 32 would repeal the CFPB's small business 
lending rule, which was required by Congress in section 1071 of the 
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The CFPB's 
rule would simply require lenders to collect and report data on small 
business lending. This data will help drive competition in the market, 
lowering small business costs, and help combat discrimination.
  I worked closely with my colleague, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, 
who is the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, to ensure 
that this provision was included in the Dodd-Frank Act because we both 
knew how critical this data would be to helping small businesses.
  Access to capital is a key challenge that many small businesses face. 
For example, Goldman Sachs found that over 75 percent of small 
businesses they surveyed were concerned about access to capital. 
Research has also shown that minority-, women-, and LGBTQ+-owned 
businesses are more likely to be denied loans and pay steeper interest 
rates.

  Access to capital is an issue for many family farms, which don't have 
the same access that larger agricultural corporations have. In 
addition, access to capital is an issue for our young people working in 
the gig economy seeking to start a business of their own but too often 
told ``no'' by banks.
  Unfortunately, section 1071 of Dodd-Frank was not implemented for 13 
years. In fact, small business owners had to sue the CFPB under the 
Trump administration to force implementation of this rule.
  One of the small business owners who sued the CFPB was ReShonda 
Young, a Black woman who founded Popcorn Heaven, a small business 
selling gourmet popcorn in Waterloo, Iowa. Ms. Young explained that she 
was a victim of discriminatory lending practices, saying: ``In several 
instances, there was just blatant discrimination, and in other cases, I 
found out about it later on. And it wasn't just me.''
  She further explained: ``I had a regular hourly income. My personal 
expenses were pretty low, so it wasn't like I couldn't cash infuse from 
my personal [income] if I needed to. My credit score was good, but I 
couldn't get what I needed. . . . Enough of the disrespect. Enough with 
the blatant disrespect. When a bank says, `We don't want your business 
for any good reason. Why don't you move your account elsewhere?' it was 
at that point, okay, something has to be done.''
  The CFPB, under the leadership of a Trump appointee, settled the case 
and agreed to a court-supervised timeline, resulting in the final rule 
that the CFPB issued this year.
  Now that the CFPB's rule has been finalized after all of these years, 
so many other small businesses in Iowa, North Carolina, Texas, 
California, and all across the country will be able to reap the 
benefits of a more transparent lending marketplace that Ms. Young 
should have had.
  Specifically, the CFPB rule will allow small businesses to comparison 
shop between lenders and see how much other small businesses are being 
charged for their loans. This price transparency is essential to a 
competitive and fair marketplace.
  In designing the rule, the CFPB was mindful of its impact on 
community financial institutions. For example, the rule completely 
exempts lenders that originated fewer than 100 small business loans in 
each of the 2 preceding years. This fully exempts more than 80 percent 
of depository institutions, including 98 percent of credit unions. For 
lenders that originated more than 100 loans, they would have more than 
2 years before they would need to begin to comply with the rule in 
2026.
  Make no mistake, S.J. Res. 32 is just another part of Republicans' 
relentless attack on the CFPB. They have erroneously claimed that the 
CFPB is unconstitutional and unaccountable and have even gone so far as 
to attempt to eliminate the agency altogether.

                              {time}  0930

  Our constituents disagree. A recent bipartisan poll found that 82 
percent of

[[Page H6057]]

Americans, including 77 percent of Republicans, support the CFPB and 
its mission.
  I will highlight three main points about the CFPB small business 
lending rule that this resolution would repeal. First, the data 
collected under the rule is very similar to data collected under the 
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act or HMDA.
  This data collection under HMDA has been going on for decades, 
successfully bringing much needed transparency to the mortgage market. 
Despite misleading claims by Republicans, I want to be very clear that 
small businesses are not--are not--are not required to provide 
demographic information about their ownership under the rule. It is 
completely voluntary.
  I have to repeat that because too many on the opposite side of the 
aisle are telling people that it is a mandate. It is not. It is 
voluntary.
  Second, this rule will help all small businesses thrive by providing 
greater transparency that will drive competition in the small business 
lending market ultimately increasing access to credit and lowering 
interest rates for small businesses.
  Third, as I mentioned earlier, we have seen how HMDA data from 
mortgages have been instrumental to identifying discriminatory trends 
like modern-day redlining. The CFPB's rule would similarly help prevent 
discrimination in the small business lending market, giving our 
regulators and the public another tool to identify discriminatory 
trends.
  Many of us also recall the challenges that too many small businesses 
faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, when Congress 
stepped in to provide relief through the Paycheck Protection Program, 
or PPP, the big banks that were tasked with implementing the program 
chose to prioritize their concierge clients, including some Members of 
Congress, leaving small businesses, especially those owned by people of 
color, out in the cold.
  It is perhaps not a coincidence that the same big banks who misused 
PPP to the detriment of small businesses during the early stages of the 
pandemic are now pushing for the passage of this Senate Joint 
Resolution 32 opposing the CFPB, which would help them continue to 
operate with a lack of transparency and avoid accountability.
  However, the big banks are alone in their support for this misguided 
resolution. In fact, more than 230 organizations representing small 
businesses, family farmers, community leaders, and others strongly 
oppose S.J. Res. 32.
  There is a lot of talk in Congress about how we love small 
businesses, how we support small businesses, but the proof of the 
pudding is in the eating. Therefore, I urge Members on both sides of 
the aisle to actually do something to help small businesses.
  Stop talking about how you support small businesses when you know 
they need access to capital that they don't have. We want to do 
something real for small businesses. If you do, vote down this harmful 
resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from the great State of Texas (Ms. De La Cruz).
  Ms. De LA CRUZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today to express my strong support for S.J. Res. 32, a 
resolution disproving of the CFPB's overreaching and burdensome rule 
under section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
  This rule is nearly 900 pages long. It imposes onerous data 
collection requirements on small business lenders in places like south 
Texas.
  This regulatory overreach is not just impractical; it directly 
threatens the lifeline of America's economy--our great small 
businesses.
  Mom-and-pop shops are the backbone of our communities and need access 
to create, to grow, and to thrive. This rule, with its misaligned 
definitions and excessive demands, will only hinder their access to the 
necessary financial resources.
  By supporting this resolution, we stand for common sense, for small 
businesses, for community banks, for local families, and for a 
regulatory environment that fosters economic growth.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution to 
safeguard the health of our Nation's economy.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of 
the Small Business Committee who has been working on the Small Business 
Committee for over 30 years and served as the chair before the last 
election and who has been fighting for small businesses all of her 
career.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Waters for 
yielding.
  I rise today in strong opposition to this resolution. As one of the 
central architects of section 1071, I understand better than most what 
this provision does and doesn't do.
  During my time as ranking member of the Small Business Committee and 
as a senior member of the Financial Services Committee, I have seen 
women- and minority-owned small businesses struggle to access capital 
due to the lack of data and transparency related to small business 
lending.
  The scant data that does exist continues to show these businesses 
lack the same access to financing compared to White-owned firms.
  Section 1071 attempts to remedy this by requiring financial 
institutions to collect and report on the demographics of small 
business owners applying for financing.
  Doing so facilitates the enforcement of fair lending laws and 
identifies businesses and community development needs.
  Supporters of this resolution claim it will excessively burden 
smaller institutions. However, CFPB Director Chopra recently testified 
that approximately 2,000 banks will be exempted from the rule's 
reporting requirements.

  Others claim the rule is too intrusive. Yet, safeguards like 
voluntary reporting--and you are going to hear time and again that this 
is a mandate even when I took the text in the manual and read it to the 
Members. It is voluntary. It is not a mandate. Unique identifiers are 
included in the rule. Without this information, discriminatory lending 
will continue.
  When crafting this rule, the CFPB conducted considerable outreach to 
small firms and considered thousands of public comments from 
entrepreneurs.
  During a recent Small Business Committee hearing, we received 
testimony that this rule will help the market better address both the 
lack of access to affordable capital and the rise of irresponsible 
lending.
  Mr. MEUSER. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I will not yield.
  It will allow lenders to help tailor their products and services to 
meet their borrower's needs and spur additional investment in small 
businesses without creating another government program.
  If you are for smaller government spending, look right here. Let's 
remedy this situation where we have empirical data that minority women, 
small businesses, female-owned businesses, and rural businesses do not 
have the same access to affordable capital.
  It has been 13 long years. We cannot reverse course now. To do so 
would be an insult to the minority-owned businesses that are counting 
on our support.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
resolution.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from the great State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).
  Mr. MEUSER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 32, 
which would repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) 
1071 rule, which mandates burdensome personal data collection from 
small businesses when they apply for loans from financial institutions.
  I very much thank Mr. Williams, the chairman of the Small Business 
Committee, for introducing a similar resolution here in the House for 
which I am a cosponsor.
  Madam Speaker, we are hearing some information that should be of 
great interest to us all, that there is no need for small businesses to 
comply with the 1071 rule if, in fact, what we just heard is accurate.
  I will take it a little bit further here. It is clear in Dodd-Frank 
at section

[[Page H6058]]

1071 that any applicant for credit may refuse to provide any 
information requested pursuant to subsection B in connection with any 
application for credit.
  However, the CFPB 1071 rule says a low response rate to this rule may 
indicate a failure to comply. Therefore, the CFPB gets the statute 
wrong, and this is another example of their overreach. If the statute 
is clear that any applicant may refuse, then how can refusal somehow be 
a sign that a lender is not complying with the statute? Lenders know 
and are rightfully concerned that failing to get a high response rate 
will likely result in running afoul of the CFPB or being publicly named 
and shamed by progressive activists. Regulating to generate fear among 
law-abiding businesses is terrible public policy, Madam Speaker.
  I urge us to be real here, to deal with the real world, to actually 
engage small businesses as the CFPB should do along with consumers, 
along with homeowners, along with small businesses.
  We need to support this resolution, and I urge all Members of this 
House, as well as President Biden, to stand with small businesses.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial 
Institutions.
  Mrs. BEATTY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in fierce opposition to this 
resolution of disapproval.
  For the record, I was a former small business owner for decades. Let 
me also thank Ranking Member Waters for clearly clarifying the 
language.
  The CFPB rule seeks to increase transparency in small business 
lending to increase competition, to lower borrowing costs for small 
businesses, and to detect and deter lending discrimination and create 
new lending opportunities, particularly for small businesses owned by 
women, by people of color, LGBTQ individuals, and rural businessowners.
  This rulemaking is long overdue, as we heard. By requiring lenders to 
provide information about loan applications, including whether they 
were approved or denied, as well as pricing data in applicant 
demographics, the rule will enhance accountability, which we talked 
about, and ensure financial institutions are meeting the needs of the 
entire community.

  Wouldn't we want to know if we had a loan that was denied?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Mrs. BEATTY. Madam Speaker, I think it is very important. I can't 
imagine any one of us applying for a loan and getting it denied that 
would not call that lender and say, tell me why my loan was denied. 
That is a part of this, Madam Speaker.
  Lastly, this transparency will not only benefit small businesses but 
also family farms, financial institutions, and the economy overall. I 
strongly recommend that we support this and go back and re-read the 
language.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from the great State of Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, of course, I rise in favor of S.J. Res. 32, 
a joint resolution to disapprove this dumb idea from the CFPB.
  I am proud to stand with our chairman of the Small Business Committee 
who is a humble small business man from Texas.
  I know the ranking member of the full committee knows that Mr. 
Williams, being a humble small business person, knows how to borrow 
money, knows how to be turned down for a loan, have a loan accepted, 
and he knows that banks tell him and explain that to him. I am proud to 
stand here.
  I think it is so interesting that I have heard from the opposition 
today, Madam Speaker, well, this is a voluntary thing.
  Well, if it is voluntary, then you should vote for this resolution 
because it is obviously unnecessary because it is voluntary.
  Mr. Meuser makes a very good point, because he says that a sign that 
a bank has constant small business lending where they don't report 
because every customer for that bank voluntarily said they don't want 
to provide that data, it will be a sign of noncompliance. The bank will 
be out of compliance. They will be in trouble. They will have an exam. 
They will fail that exam.
  This rule, Madam Speaker, is not the right approach.

                              {time}  0945

  I have spent 30 years of my 40-year career lending money to small 
businesses, raising equity capital for small businesses.
  We want every loan we can make and the bank made. We are in the 
business to make loans. We are not in the business to turn down loans. 
We want them for Black people, White people, LGBTQ people--all people--
banking in our bank, helping us make a profit, helping us serve the 
community.
  This is overdoing bureaucracy. It is applying a set of rules to 
collect a bunch of data that is not going to make small business loans 
more affordable or more available in this country. It is not.
  Madam Speaker, Republicans are standing here and in the Senate. 
Democrats in the Senate voted for this resolution. They know this is 
governmental overreach. It shouldn't be imposed on the private sector. 
It is going to hurt small business, raise the cost of small business. 
This body stands on the side of those community lenders and those 
borrowers who want available capital at a reasonable cost to bring 
their idea, their dream to life.
  So five Democratic Senators joined with Republicans to say: Bad idea, 
send it back to the drawing board.
  We are standing on this side of the aisle asking our friends on the 
other side of the aisle: Bad idea, send it back to the drawing board.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this 
resolution.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman, your 
arguments show that you are here to support the big banks who do not 
want small business in the banks. They don't want to be bothered. As a 
matter of fact, you try to be convincing that it is not voluntary, but 
it is voluntary.
  They are asked: Do you want to give this information? It is 
voluntary, and you can't get away from that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Garcia), who is also the vice ranking member of the Committee on 
Financial Services.
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, the beginning of so many great 
American stories is built around starting a small business in your 
family name, becoming a foundation in your local community--making it 
in America.
  Small businesses are major drivers of wealth creation in our overall 
economy. They account for two-thirds of net new jobs and nearly half of 
our U.S. economic activity.
  For many of them, that dream starts with going to a bank and getting 
a small business loan. For many Americans, the sound of their name, the 
color of their skin, the language that they speak or who they love can 
doom that dream if a bank says that they are at risk.
  This isn't hypothetical. I, too, was born and raised in south Texas. 
I can tell you that when I go home and I see some businesses that have 
closed, I ask my family whether it was due to the pandemic, or no 
demand for the cost of services that they had. I am told that they just 
had trouble with finances and they couldn't get a loan.
  In some small rural areas, because I did grow up in rural south 
Texas, there aren't credit unions everywhere like there are in the city 
of Houston where I live now. In the city of Houston, many small 
businesses during the pandemic in round one couldn't even get a PPP 
loan. We had to go in and do a carve-out to literally force the banks 
to provide loans to small businesses.
  I am glad that one of my colleagues was openhearted and gave people a 
lot of loans. I just hope that that included some to minority small 
businesses.
  Madam Speaker, this is real. It is not hypothetical. We know that 
minority-owned small businesses were less likely to receive a loan 
during the pandemic compared to White firms.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

[[Page H6059]]

  

  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Regrettably, Madam Speaker, racism and 
discrimination flourish in the darkness. We need to shine a light and 
allow the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to make lending more 
transparent.
  Madam Speaker, a transparent market will be a competitive market. 
With transparency in lending, banks are driven to compete and offer 
better terms.
  With this resolution, extreme MAGA Republicans are protecting the 
secret discriminatory practice of banks and lenders. Repealing this 
rule would harm all those who stand to benefit.
  We want to put profits over people. We want to put light over 
darkness.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from the great State of Nebraska (Mr. Flood).
  Mr. FLOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 32 providing 
congressional disapproval of the CFPB's Small Business Collection Rule.
  I am a businessman myself, and I am proud to say that I have made a 
payroll every 2 weeks since I was 24 years old.
  I will tell you what happens in a situation like this. I am also a 
borrower. I am a borrower of small community banks across the State of 
Nebraska.
  If you pass something like this, if you go from 7 statutory data 
points to 81 data points, I am going to have to pay an accountant to 
sit down and sift through all of our business data to put this together 
for my bank, my lender, and hope that I get it right so that on the 
next bank exam, they are not calling me wanting a whole bunch more 
information.
  That is the real cost to small business. That is the real cost to 
businesses in this Nation. That is what people in this town forget. It 
is small businesses. It is small-town employers that make this country 
run, that make the money work, so that people can wake up and have cash 
in their pocket.

  I will say this: If you go from 7 points to 81 points, this is just 
another example where the CFPB has expanded the scope of the rule as 
far as possible.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Tlaib), the vice ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Housing and Insurance, who has been working on this issue for a long 
time.
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I thank our ranking member for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the resolution that they are attempting to use to 
overturn this rule is about small business lending.
  We know that, but what is the problem?
  We are now afraid of data? We don't want to collect data? This is 
even voluntary.
  You are opposing a process that would help create more transparency, 
more information gathering, competitiveness, and a fair marketplace for 
lenders and small businesses. It is voluntary.
  We are scared now? We are scared of voluntarily collecting data?
  Section 1071 allows lenders to collect and report lending data, 
including voluntarily self-reported by businessowners. This rule does 
help small business, and I will give you some examples, particularly 
those owned by women, people of color.
  We are even going to collect data, especially in my district, of 
veterans, many of them Black men and women, who have started businesses 
after they served our country. They are all lacking access to credit 
that they need to build up their businesses.
  Study after study has documented that small business owners, 
especially the small business owners in my district, continue to face 
discriminatory practices by banks.
  We already know for a fact that Black-owned business are less likely 
to obtain financing and are offered smaller loans.
  Section 1071 will make it easier to eliminate such practices and 
enforce our fair lending laws--again, to enforce our fair lending laws. 
Maybe that is why. Maybe that is why the banks are crying about this 
voluntary process. They are scared. Why?
  Had the CFPB Small Business Lending Rule been in place during the 
Paycheck Protection Program, Madam Speaker, the transparency required 
by this rule would likely have reduced the racial disparity in lending 
outcomes that we saw.
  There is also a clear precedent for what such a rule can accomplish. 
These are real people--and folks can laugh. They can think that this is 
not real. These are people that are literally putting their whole life 
savings into a small business, and hoping and praying that they have 
the investment from the Federal Government.
  When the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act established reporting processes 
for mortgage lenders that are similar to those in the CFPB rule, did 
you all know that lending to Black borrowers for conventional home 
purchases increased by 70 percent in 3 years? In 3 years we increased 
Black homeownership.
  All Americans, not just some, deserve access and fairness, especially 
when we continue to bail out these banks for their continued failure 
and their discriminatory practices.
  Section 1071 promotes transparency, competition, and fairness. 
Overturning this is a disservice to our small business owners 
everywhere.
  I thank our ranking member and others that continue to advocate for 
this. This is the right thing to do. This is how we make sure that all 
Americans have access.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my good friend 
and colleague, the small business owner from Texas, Congressman 
Williams, and I support his resolution under the Congressional Review 
Act to nullify the CFPB Small Business Lending Rule, or section 1071 of 
the Dodd-Frank Act.
  The small business lending rule that was finalized in March is 
incredibly onerous. It imposes massive burdens on financial 
institutions. It will be misleading and confusing for borrowers. It 
will ultimately harm the very small business owners, the minority- and 
women-owned small business owners, that they say they want to help 
because those are the businesses that will not have access to capital--
certainly not affordable capital.
  While the Dodd-Frank Act does charge the Bureau with adopting rules 
regarding small business lending, Director Chopra's rule goes far 
beyond Congressional intent. By requiring the collection of 81 data 
fields, it greatly exceeds what is mandated by statute.
  As has been said very eloquently, it will be extremely burdensome on 
financial institutions, leading to increased costs and less 
availability of credit for millions of Main Street borrowers and 
entrepreneurs.

  I have to address this absurd argument about the voluntary nature of 
the disclosures here. If this is really voluntary--and I want the CFPB 
to hear this, the advocate of this rule, I want them to hear.
  If this is totally voluntary, when my constituents do not provide the 
CFPB with this information, I want the CFPB to go back and watch the 
tape, because I don't want my constituents to then be punished by the 
CFPB when they are not given the information they want. I am going to 
tell my constituents who are being harassed by this bureaucracy to go 
back and listen to the ranking member because she said it is voluntary. 
I want them to quote the ranking member to CFPB when the CFPB harasses 
them for bureaucracy.
  Then, I want everyone here in this Chamber to recognize that this 
week, in the Committee on Financial Services, I asked Director Chopra 
if he recognizes that if a small business owner fails to understand why 
demographic information--irrelevant, by the way, to creditworthiness of 
the borrower--demographic data is being collected, it could lead to 
confusion and misunderstanding and potential liability for the 
financial institution.
  For example, the rule requires small business owners to disclose 
their race, their ethnicity, and their gender or sexual orientation 
when applying for that loan. They have to give this information prior 
to underwriting. If that loan is denied, the applicant could be 
reasonably led to believe that that demographic information was the 
basis for the denial and not the myriad of other legitimate factors 
which play into lending decisions.

[[Page H6060]]

  Madam Speaker, Director Chopra agreed with me that this could be 
confusing to the borrower.
  Clearly, there are a lot of important factors that were not been 
properly considered prior to the finalization of this rule.
  Does this make sense?
  I thought we got to a point in the country where race was not 
supposed to matter, but the other side of the aisle thinks race is the 
only thing that matters, and that is wrong. That is wrong.
  This rule's requirement will force many community banks and credit 
unions across the country to exit small business lending altogether. 
That is what my constituents tell me.
  Small banks across Central/Eastern Kentucky tell me this is so 
burdensome; the requirements are so ridiculous that they are just going 
to exit small business lending altogether.
  Now, how does that help the minority-owned small business on Main 
Street USA? It hurts them.
  This is absurd that we would actually hurt minority-and women-owned 
small businesses by burdening them with massive amounts of red tape.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, finally, I want to address this ridiculous 
argument from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who 
constantly cite this poll that they keep talking about, which Democrats 
wanted. They say, oh, the American people love the CFPB because it 
describes the CFPB as the Salvation Army or something.
  The truth of the matter is, if the poll was asked with the truthful 
information--that this agency drives up the cost and decreases the 
availability of credit, increases regulatory costs for small 
businesses, increases interest costs for Americans for their credit 
cards when they pay on time, decreases access to consumer credit, and 
is completely exempt from the appropriations process and totally 
unaccountable--if you ask the question the truthful way, the American 
people overwhelmingly say the CFPB is a failure.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, we have these Members on the opposite side of the 
aisle spending all of this time supporting the biggest, most profitable 
banks in the country, yet these Members won't stand up for small 
business lending. They don't want the data so that we can understand 
what is going on and why people in this country, minorities in 
particular, farmers, small farmers, family farmers, et cetera, can't 
get loans.
  In the last decade, these megabanks made so much money: J.P. Morgan, 
$215 billion; Wells Fargo, $197 billion; Bank of America, $105 billion; 
Citigroup, $93 billion. They repeatedly broke the law, even though they 
were making all of this money. I want you to know they consider this 
just the cost of doing business.
  We have even more here when we take a look at some of the other banks 
that paid fines instead of lending money. They would rather pay fines 
instead of lending to small businesses. What kind of fines are we 
talking about here? We fined them for all kinds of fraudulent activity.
  In the last decade, megabanks made so much money, and then they 
repeatedly paid fines. For example, the Bank of America paid $66 
billion in fines. They could have been lending this to small 
businesses. J.P. Morgan paid $43 billion in fines. They could have been 
lending this to small businesses. Citigroup paid $19 billion in fines. 
They could have been lending this to small businesses. Wells Fargo paid 
$12 billion in fines.
  Some of our Members want to say that we just want to shame these big 
banks. Yes, I do because it is a shame that they are so profitable that 
they do not want to spend time with small businesses. It takes up too 
much time. Small businesses don't earn as much money for the bank, et 
cetera. They don't even want them in their banks, and we have to do 
something about that.
  We are shining a light on the existing practices of lenders, and if 
those lenders are charging minorities and small family farmers, et 
cetera, exorbitant interest rates, there is no reason that we should 
not get the transparency that we need to stop this.
  I will tell you, one of the reasons you hear us being so passionate 
over here is because the big banks don't need you to defend them. They 
don't need you to stand up for them. You should be putting your time 
and effort into what you can do about the small businesses.
  I am not going to go into a lot of information. We have Members on 
the opposite side of the aisle who felt they needed capital. When we 
did PPP, they came to the government, competing with real small 
businesses that could not get capital. Not only did they take out the 
money, but they have been forgiven for it. They didn't have to pay it 
back.
  I am not going to talk about everybody, but I am going to mention 
Marjorie Taylor Greene because she is everywhere talking about 
everybody, claiming she is for small business. She took out $180,000, 
and she has been forgiven.
  I am not going to talk about the rest of them, some of my friends 
over there, but I have a whole list of Members on the opposite side of 
the aisle who took out PPP money and didn't need it, some of them as 
rich as cream. They took this money, and they are not paying it back. 
Then, they come in here and talk about why we should not have 
transparency and do everything that we can for these small businesses 
that are desperate for capital.
  You can sing the song that you love small business all that you want. 
You can have the Small Business Saturday with a big, fake kind of 
operation on small business lending in your community, but it doesn't 
do any good if they don't get the capital. They need the money. They 
need to be treated fairly.
  Yes, I want to shame the big banks. I want to shame them. You have 
one of these banks that even took out false accounts, made up accounts, 
and we had to stop them. We fined them, but do you know what? They are 
too big to fail, and they keep doing what we are fining them for.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, small businesses are the lifeblood of the 
American economy. When you burden small business, you limit job growth, 
economic gain, economic opportunity, and American growth. With more 
regulation on businesses, it drives up the cost of doing business.
  I commend the chair of the Small Business Committee for this 
resolution that we have on the House floor today that is in support of 
American small business. This resolution would stop the CFPB's small 
business data collection rule, which is onerous, overly complex, and 
difficult to implement. All American businesses would be burdened by 
it--disproportionately, the small businesses that create most of the 
jobs in America.
  This rule would stifle American businesses' access to affordable 
credit, and it will facilitate the naming and shaming of lenders whose 
business practices are legal, nondiscriminatory, and safe and sound.
  The progressive activists on the left want to use that database so 
they can call out the things that they don't like for political 
activism. I don't think that is responsible. I don't think that is in 
the interest of the American economy, and it surely is not in the 
interest of consumer protection.
  Madam Speaker, let's support this resolution. Let's oppose the rule. 
Let's support small business.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Yes, I am a political activist. I am an activist for the people who 
send us here to represent them. I am an activist for the least of 
these. I am an activist for small business. I am an activist for 
veterans. I am an activist for children. I am an activist for 
education, for better healthcare, and I am very proud of it.
  I tell you, it is shameful for us to continue to be dominated and 
controlled by the biggest banks in America, taking time on the floor of 
the people's House to defend them and to vote

[[Page H6061]]

against the very people who send you to this House to represent them. 
It is absolutely shameful.
  It is time to get out from under the influence and control of the 
biggest banks in America and stand up for the people who really need to 
make these banks do what they should be doing rather than saying: No, 
we are not going to comply with the law, and yes, we will pay the fines 
because we are rich. We have so much money we can do that.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 13\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).
  Mrs. KIM of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
S.J. Res. 32. This is a CRA resolution to rescind the final rule 
implementing section 1071 of Dodd-Frank. I thank Chairman Williams and 
Senator Kennedy for their leadership to rescind the CFPB's harmful 
proposal.
  The rule is nearly 900 pages and requires lenders to report 81 data 
fields. If the CFPB's proposal is enacted, small financial institutions 
will be forced to devote more of their time to comply with burdensome 
regulations rather than focusing on providing loans for small business 
owners.
  With credit tightening for small businesses due to persistent 
inflation, higher interest rates, and an uncertain economic 
environment, the CFPB's 1071 rule would impose higher costs for small 
businesses and lead to a decrease in lending to small, minority-owned, 
and women-owned businesses.
  Earlier this year, the CFPB suffered a major data breach when an 
employee forwarded consumer information of more than a quarter million 
to a personal email account. How can we trust the CFPB to properly 
manage the collection of additional data when it cannot efficiently 
safeguard existing data?
  I urge Director Chopra to go back to the drawing board on section 
1071 and issue a rule that gets it right without punishing small banks 
and small credit unions with higher compliance costs and burdensome 
requirements.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution and access to credit for small businesses by voting in favor 
of this resolution.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for 
closing.
  When we started this debate, I mentioned ReShonda Young, who happens 
to be a young, Black woman from Waterloo who had many challenges 
getting a small business loan and sued the CFPB to complete the section 
1071 rule. After CFPB settled the case with her, Ms. Young said: ``I am 
just humbled to be part of the process. Sometimes we feel so small, but 
this is one of those things that shows if we are willing to speak up, 
we actually can make a difference.''
  Ms. Young has since sold her business and is now working with other 
investors to try to open up the first minority bank in Iowa, with the 
goal of being certified as a CDFI, offering the kind of small business 
loans to others that she had such a time obtaining.
  Let me just tell you something. We support CDFIs, the community 
development financial institutions. Why do we support them? Because 
they could not get loans from the banks in America. Here we are, the 
taxpayers, further trying to help small businesses by supporting these 
community development financial institutions. They were developed 
because small businesses couldn't get loans.
  Then, on the opposite side of the aisle, we have people who are 
opposing how we can support these small businesses by getting the 
transparency that we need to have done. They would rather support the 
biggest banks in America and have the taxpayers try to do something 
about small businesses with CDFIs than give their small businesses an 
opportunity.
  I tell you, I don't know how they are going to vote on the other 
side, but this issue is not going to go away. I tell you that the 
constituents are going to learn in this country who is supporting small 
businesses. All of this talk and this rhetoric about ``I love small 
businesses,'' ``I support small businesses,'' will not continue to 
work.
  The fact of the matter is, small businesses are shutting down, 
closing, because they don't have access to capital.
  For all those Members on the opposite side of the aisle who took out 
PPP loans that have been forgiven, you ought to be ashamed and not 
oppose the CFPB from trying to protect these small banks, as the courts 
have told them to do.

                              {time}  1015

  Madam Speaker, there is a lot more that can be said. We are going to 
continue to unveil this information about who is simply spouting 
rhetoric and who is actually doing something for small businesses.
  It is unfortunate that we have to fight this hard. We have to do 
everything that we possibly can because the banks don't want them in 
their banks. They don't want to be bothered with them. They are too 
small.
  We have small businesses who only need $50,000 or $75,000 to improve 
their technology to take their businesses to a place where they can 
earn more money.
  We can't even start to talk about startup capital. None of them get 
startup capital. If they are able to convince anybody for a little 
capital to expand their businesses, they will do that. Otherwise, small 
businesses do not have the support of the Republicans in the House of 
Representatives as it is seen here today.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, as my colleagues and I have 
stated today, my biggest fear is that many lenders may decide to fully 
exit small business lending due to the overly burdensome collection 
requirements, or because they don't want to put their small business 
customers in an uncomfortable situation.
  I do not believe this is the outcome Congress, or the CFPB, intended 
with the implementation of this section of Dodd-Frank. However, I know, 
as a small business owner myself, that if this rule goes into effect it 
will not bode well for small businesses seeking the credit needed to 
grow and support their communities. That is the bottom line.
  We need to help small businesses. We need to help them create jobs 
but also to create net worth among their employees.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint 
resolution.
  The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of the joint resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 878.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 202, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 690]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Case
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards

[[Page H6062]]


     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Golden (ME)
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Maloy
     Mann
     Manning
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Peltola
     Pence
     Perez
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NAYS--202

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amo
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norcross
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Santos
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Crawford
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (OH)
     Kelly (PA)
     McCarthy
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Pelosi
     Phillips
     Rodgers (WA)
     Trone

                              {time}  1047

  Mr. GOMEZ, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Mr. VICENTE GONZALEZ of Texas, and 
Ms. OMAR changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WEBER of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________