[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3543-3560]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 
                                  2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and submit extraneous material on H.R. 3193, the Consumer Financial 
Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2013.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 475 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. 3193.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1441


                     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. 3193) to amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to 
strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council of regulations

[[Page 3544]]

issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Ribble in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered 
read the first time.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are now into the sixth year of the Obama 
administration, and probably the two most common comments I hear from 
my constituents are ``I just can't make ends meet in this economy'' and 
``Washington has become arrogant, unaccountable, and out of touch.'' At 
the apex of these sentiments, lies the newly minted Dodd-Frank 
government agency known as the CFPB. Although many have yet to hear of 
it, the CFPB is perhaps the single most powerful and least accountable 
Federal agency in all of Washington.
  First, let's speak of its power. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to our 
credit cards, our auto loans, our mortgages, the CFPB has unbridled 
discretionary power not only to make them less available and more 
expensive, but to absolutely take them away.
  What does an agency with this kind of power do? It imposes rule like 
the qualified mortgage rule, or QM for short. Mr. Chairman, what does 
QM do? According to Federal Reserve data, because of QM, roughly one-
third of Black and Hispanic borrowers would not meet the requirements 
of a QM loan.
  CoreLogic, which analyzes mortgage data, has said:

       Only half of today's mortgage originations meet QM 
     requirements.

  That is egregiously unfair to hardworking Americans.
  One of my small town community bankers in east Texas told me 
recently:

       Because of QM, I can't tell you the number of times we have 
     had to tell our good low-to-moderate income customers that we 
     can no longer loan them money to purchase a home to live in.

  Mr. Chairman, this is what an agency with too much discretionary 
power does. It can actually abuse consumers, taking away their 
homeownership opportunities. That is unfair.
  Let's look at what happens to an agency that is not held accountable. 
Today, the CFPB is spending $145 million to renovate a $150 million 
headquarters building they don't even own. The renovation rate is three 
times the average Washington, D.C., luxury class A renovation rate. 
Well, what does $145 million buy?
  Well, it is $461 per square foot in office renovations. Mr. Chairman, 
that is more per square foot than was spent to build the Trump World 
Tower. More than the Trump World Tower. At $461 per square foot, that 
was more money than it cost to build the Bellagio hotel and casino in 
Las Vegas, which at the time, I am told, was the most expensive hotel 
ever built. Mr. Chairman, this is more money to renovate a building 
they don't own than Dubai's Burj Khalifa, the single tallest skyscraper 
in the world. Ironically enough, the architectural firm which designed 
the Burj Khalifa in Dubai is the same world renowned architectural firm 
that the CFPB paid over $7 million to design their headquarter 
renovations.
  Now, according to public documents, Mr. Chairman, some of the 
Bureau's renovations include ``a reflective carnelian granite water 
table'' that will ``lure in the curious passerby.'' Also for $145 
million of hard-earned taxpayer money, the Bureau is buying ``a shady 
tree bosque'' to facilitate ``chance interactions in a removed place of 
rest and contemplation.'' I mean, I can't make this up, Mr. Chairman. 
This is how hard-earned money is being squandered. Here it is, the 
architectural drawings which have been filed publicly.
  I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of people in my 
district in east Texas who live in mobile homes. They can't afford 
carnelian granite water tables that apparently the CFPB is going to 
enjoy that my constituents have to pay for, and the only shady tree 
bosque to be found in east Texas in the Fifth District are those where 
hardworking ranchers work their cattle.

                              {time}  1445

  Instead of rest and contemplation to be enjoyed by CFPB's employees, 
because of such blatant waste, my constituents, instead of rest and 
contemplation, lay awake at night wondering how they are going to pay 
the bills and make ends meet.
  Mr. Chairman, this is what an unaccountable Federal Government agency 
does. It squanders the people's money because it is not their own and 
they are not accountable to the people's representatives.
  So that is why we are here today, Mr. Chairman. We are here to pass 
H.R. 3193, the Consumer Financial Freedom and Washington Accountability 
Act, whose primary author, Mr. Duffy of Wisconsin, has done excellent 
work, along with many other members of our committee. This is a 
package, Mr. Chairman, of commonsense reforms designed to make the CFPB 
more accountable and more transparent to the American people.
  This bill replaces the Bureau's single, unaccountable director with a 
bipartisan board. It puts the Bureau's employees--whose compensation 
and benefits average $178,521, it puts them on the civil service pay 
scale. It introduces a safety and soundness check on its regulations 
and gives the American people greater control over the massive, massive 
quantities of personal financial data that the Bureau is collecting and 
maintaining on them at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we do need consumer protection, but consumers just 
don't need to be protected from Wall Street; they need to be protected 
from Washington as well. H.R. 3193 will protect them from the CFPB, and 
the House should pass it without delay today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3193, legislation that 
would gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that has 
been a critical and effective advocate for our Nation's consumers. 
Today's vote is just the latest chapter in a relentless Republican 
attack on consumer protection.
  Since opening its doors in 2011, the CFPB has gone to bat for those 
who have been subject to the deceptive practices of unscrupulous 
financial institutions. Though it has been immensely successful, 
Republicans have tried to undercut it in every way possible.
  Mr. Chairman, in just over 2 years, CFPB's enforcement actions have 
resulted in over $3 billion being directly refunded to more than 9.7 
million consumers and servicemembers.
  The CFPB has ensured that all consumers have fair and transparent 
access to consumer financial products and services. It has written 
important mortgage rules that prevent lenders from engaging in the 
risky and irresponsible practices that led to the collapse of the 
housing market and fueled the 2008 global financial crisis; and it 
continues to go after industries and institutions that, for years, have 
not been held accountable for abusive and deceptive practices.
  The CFPB ensures that the tens of millions of consumers who interact 
with large consumer reporting agencies, debt collectors, payday 
lenders, and nonbanks originating mortgage loans have an advocate in 
their corner.
  In fact, in fiscal year 2013, the CFPB was a party in 13 enforcement 
actions related to deceptive marketing, unlawful debt collection, 
discrimination on the basis of age, unlawful charging of fees, and 
fraudulent mortgage relief schemes, among other violations.
  Since the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau opened its doors, more 
than 269,000 individual consumer complaints have been received, and it 
has stood up for our Nation's Active Duty military who so greatly serve 
us, returning more than $12.5 million to them under the Military 
Lending Act.
  Just yesterday, CFPB announced a lawsuit against a large for-profit 
college chain, accusing it of preying on

[[Page 3545]]

students by pushing them into high-cost loans, very likely to end in 
default.
  But my friends on the other side of the aisle don't believe that we 
should have a consumer advocate in government. They would prefer that 
these unscrupulous actors continue to take advantage of consumers 
without interference.
  The simple fact is that H.R. 3193 would accomplish this goal, 
obstructing the CFPB's ability to protect consumers from deceptive 
marketing, unlawful debt collection, lending discrimination, overcharge 
fees, and other illegal activity. The bill does so by undermining 
CFPB's leadership, ending its autonomy, and tying its funding to 
Congressional appropriations, among other ways.
  In fact, Republicans have brought this bill to the floor claiming a 
cost savings, but they know that the only way a savings is realized is 
by slashing the budget of the CFPB, the sole agency charged with 
consumer financial protections.
  But that is not all. The provisions included in this measure would 
eliminate the position of the CFPB director in favor of some five-
member commission that would increase bureaucracy--encouraging, 
inviting--and encumber its ability to take action on behalf of 
consumers. It would water down the CFPB's rulemaking authority by 
lowering the bar for overturning its rules.
  Many of the amendments offered today would make this bill even worse. 
For example, the measure offered by Congressman DeSantis would repeal 
the Bureau's exclusive rulemaking authority, dispersing responsibility 
for protecting consumers among the same regulators who failed miserably 
in this task in the run-up to the financial crisis.
  It is striking to listen to my friends on the opposite side of the 
aisle talk about the importance of consumer protection and then push a 
measure that is an obvious attempt to completely undermine and obstruct 
the CFPB's ability to protect consumers, students, seniors, and 
servicemembers.
  If holding the Bureau accountable to its mission to protect American 
consumers truly is a Republican's goal, then why are we considering a 
bill which is strongly opposed by more than 100 organizations with long 
records of standing up for the interest of consumers?
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this damaging measure so the 
CFPB can continue its outstanding work.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the distinguished chairman 
of our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee and a 
real leader in preserving consumer opportunity and rights.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of our 
committee for his leadership and for yielding me time this afternoon.
  I would also like to thank my colleagues Mr. Duffy, Mr. Bachus, and 
Mr. Neugebauer for their leadership in drafting the components of this 
bill before us today.
  As we have heard, the debate before us today is not new. We have been 
working for the past 3 years to enact commonsense structural reforms to 
the CFPB. During debate in the last Congress, our friends on the other 
side of the aisle said that it was premature to reform this burgeoning 
agency. They argued that it was too early to tell how the Bureau would 
operate.
  Well, 2\1/2\ years later, this is what we know: The Bureau continues 
to be unresponsive to bipartisan requests for information about their 
operations. For example, last spring, the Bureau released guidance for 
indirect auto lending practices.
  Over the last year, Republican and Democrat Members have requested 
information, both in person and in writing, about the data the Bureau 
used to support their guidance. Despite these requests, the Bureau 
refuses to provide substantive answers to the Members' questions.
  Over the last year, Members--and I have in particular--expressed 
significant concern about the effect the CFPB's new rules will have on 
mortgage availability for low- to moderate-income borrowers. Despite 
this, the CFPB has moved forward with the rules.
  We have also heard that the Bureau is spending over $100 million to 
renovate its headquarters. As we learned, the renovation per square 
foot will cost more than building the Trump World Tower and the 
Bellagio.
  These examples are indicative of an agency that is unaccountable to 
Congress and to the American taxpayers. Moving the Bureau's leadership 
structure to a bipartisan commission will ensure that there is a 
diversity of opinion as the agency crafts new rules, no matter who the 
President is.
  A more diverse leadership structure will result in more balanced 
rules that provide consumers with sufficient transparency to choose the 
financial products that best suits their needs.
  We are also bringing greater accountability to this agency by putting 
the Bureau on the regular appropriations schedule. Budgetary control is 
a critical tool for this Congress, no matter who the President is, to 
ensure the actions of this agency truly benefits consumers.
  I thank the sponsors for their hard work.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), ranking member on the Subcommittee 
on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentlelady for yielding and for her hard work on the Financial Services 
Committee.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3193, which is a blatantly 
partisan assault on the CFPB and on American consumers.
  I think it is telling that just 4 months after the first government 
shutdown in 17 years, the Republicans want to remove the CFPB's 
independent source of funding and subject it to Congress' deeply 
dysfunctional appropriations process.
  It is telling because it exposes the true purpose of this bill. It is 
not to make the CFPB more accountable, but rather to undermine, defund, 
and hinder its ability to act to protect consumers in every possible 
way.
  The dysfunction that led to last year's 16-day shutdown is exactly 
why we gave the CFPB an independent source of funding in Dodd-Frank. We 
wanted to insulate the CFPB from the political games and partisan 
brinksmanship that, unfortunately, became a staple of the 
appropriations process.
  Another key reason for creating the CFPB was to make sure that we 
have at least one regulator whose sole purpose is protecting consumers. 
Prior to the financial crisis, consumer protection had, unfortunately, 
become an afterthought of the banking regulators whose primary mission 
was protecting the safety and soundness of the banks, but not 
consumers.

                              {time}  1500

  When Congress created the CFPB, the whole point was to create a 
regulator whose sole focus would be to protect consumers. The reason 
Congress did this was that, prior to the financial crisis, consumers 
were an afterthought, a secondary thought, a third thought, or usually 
not even thought about at all. So it was a huge step forward to have a 
department that was focused on protecting consumers from new products 
that were harmful and from innovations that were not tested that were 
harmful to the consumers and the economy as a whole, which led to the 
financial crisis.
  This was a huge step forward for consumers when it was created. 
Unfortunately, this bill before us today is a huge step backwards 
because it would give the safety and soundness regulators more 
authority to veto the CFPB's consumer protections in the name of bank 
profits--just like in the old days. Let's remember that, in just its 
first 2\1/2\ years, the CFPB has already made huge strides on a number 
of important consumer protections--from new mortgage protections to 
credit cards to payday lending.

[[Page 3546]]

  An independent source said the credit card bill of rights that was 
supported by the CFPB saves consumers $20 billion a year. That is a 
huge step forward for consumers, and the Bureau has been willing to 
make sensible changes when it has needed to. Last year, the Bureau 
adopted amendments to the CARD Act that would allow stay-at-home 
spouses to take out credit cards in their own names. This was a 
commonsense fix for an unintended problem for stay-at-home spouses who 
were creditworthy, and they made the decision so that they were able to 
get these credit cards. That is a huge step forward, and I worked with 
Mrs. Capito on it from across the aisle. The Bureau continues to work 
hard to develop consumer safeguards in rapidly growing areas, such as 
prepaid cards and overdraft protection, both of which many Members on 
both sides have a keen interest in seeing going forward.
  In short, the CFPB's work has already made the lives of American 
consumers and our constituents better on a day-to-day basis. This bill 
would undermine these results, and it would weaken the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, so I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose 
the bill.
  I would like to place in the Record independent organizations--
literally well over 100--that are in support of the CFPB and that are 
in opposition to this bill. They are good government groups, credit 
groups, individual legislators, and local and State partners, all of 
whom are in opposition to the bill that undermines the work of the 
CFPB, which is there to protect consumers.

     Following Are the Partners of Americans for Financial Reform.

       All the organizations support the overall principles of AFR 
     and are working for an accountable, fair and secure financial 
     system. Not all of these organizations work on all of the 
     issues covered by the coalition or have signed on to every 
     statement.
       AARP; A New Way Forward; AFL-CIO; AFSCME; Alliance For 
     Justice; American Income Life Insurance; American Sustainable 
     Business Council; Americans for Democratic Action, Inc.; 
     Americans United for Change; Campaign for America's Future; 
     Campaign Money; Center for Digital Democracy; Center for 
     Economic and Policy Research; Center for Economic Progress; 
     Center for Media and Democracy; Center for Responsible 
     Lending; Center for Justice and Democracy; Center of Concern; 
     Center for Effective Government; Change to Win; Clean Yield 
     Asset Management.
       Coastal Enterprises Inc.; Color of Change; Common Cause; 
     Communications Workers of America; Community Development 
     Transportation Lending Services; Consumer Action; Consumer 
     Association Council; Consumers for Auto Safety and 
     Reliability; Consumer Federation of America; Consumer 
     Watchdog; Consumers Union; Corporation for Enterprise 
     Development; CREDO Mobile; CTW Investment Group; Demos; 
     Economic Policy Institute; Essential Action; Green America; 
     Greenlining Institute; Good Business International; HNMA 
     Funding Company.
       Home Actions; Housing Counseling Services; Home Defender's 
     League; Information Press; Institute for Agriculture and 
     Trade Policy; Institute for Global Communications; Institute 
     for Policy Studies: Global Economy Project; International 
     Brotherhood of Teamsters; Institute of Women's Policy 
     Research; Krull & Company; Laborers' International Union of 
     North America; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; 
     Main Street Alliance; Move On; NAACP; NASCAT; National 
     Association of Consumer Advocates; National Association of 
     Neighborhoods; National Community Reinvestment Coalition; 
     National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income 
     clients); National Consumers League.
       National Council of La Raza; National Council of Women's 
     Organizations; National Fair Housing Alliance; National 
     Federation of Community Development Credit Unions; National 
     Housing Resource Center; National Housing Trust; National 
     Housing Trust Community Development Fund; National 
     NeighborWorks Association; National Nurses United; National 
     People's Action; National Urban League; Next Step; 
     OpenTheGovernment.org; Opportunity Finance Network; Partners 
     for the Common Good; PICO National Network; Progress Now 
     Action; Progressive States Network; Poverty and Race Research 
     Action Council; Public Citizen; Sargent Shriver Center on 
     Poverty Law.
       SEIU; State Voices; Taxpayer's for Common Sense; The 
     Association for Housing and Neighborhood Development; The 
     Fuel Savers Club; The Leadership Conference on Civil and 
     Human Rights; The Seminal; TICAS; U.S. Public Interest 
     Research Group; UNITE HERE; United Food and Commercial 
     Workers; United States Student Association; USAction; Veris 
     Wealth Partners; Western States Center; We the People Now; 
     Woodstock Institute; World Privacy Forum; UNET; Union Plus; 
     Unitarian Universalist for a Just Economic Community.

                    List of State and Local Partners

       Alaska PIRG; Arizona PIRG; Arizona Advocacy Network; 
     Arizonans For Responsible Lending; Association for 
     Neighborhood and Housing Development NY; Audubon Partnership 
     for Economic Development LDC, New York NY; BAC Funding 
     Consortium Inc., Miami FL; Beech Capital Venture Corporation, 
     Philadelphia PA; California PIRG; California Reinvestment 
     Coalition; Century Housing Corporation, Culver City CA; 
     CHANGER NY; Chautauqua Home Rehabilitation and Improvement 
     Corporation (NY); Chicago Community Loan Fund, Chicago IL; 
     Chicago Community Ventures, Chicago IL; Chicago Consumer 
     Coalition; Citizen Potawatomi CDC, Shawnee OK; Colorado PIRG; 
     Coalition on Homeless Housing in Ohio; Community Capital 
     Fund, Bridgeport CT; Community Capital of Maryland, Baltimore 
     MD; Community Development Financial Institution of the Tohono 
     O'odham Nation, Sells AZ.
       Community Redevelopment Loan and Investment Fund, Atlanta 
     GA; Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina; 
     Community Resource Group, Fayetteville A; Connecticut PIRG; 
     Consumer Assistance Council; Cooper Square Committee (NYC); 
     Cooperative Fund of New England, Wilmington NC; Corporacion 
     de Desarrollo Economico de Ceiba, Ceiba PR; Delta Foundation, 
     Inc., Greenville MS; Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF), 
     Philadelphia PA; Empire Justice Center NY; Empowering and 
     Strengthening Ohio's People (ESOP), Cleveland OH; 
     Enterprises, Inc., Berea KY; Fair Housing Contact Service OH; 
     Federation of Appalachian Housing; Fitness and Praise Youth 
     Development, Inc., Baton Rouge LA; Florida Consumer Action 
     Network; Florida PIRG; Funding Partners for Housing 
     Solutions, Ft. Collins CO; Georgia PIRG; Grow Iowa 
     Foundation, Greenfield IA; Homewise, Inc., Santa Fe NM.
       Idaho Nevada CDFI, Pocatello ID; Idaho Chapter, National 
     Association of Social Workers; Illinois PIRG; Impact Capital, 
     Seattle WA; Indiana PIRG; Iowa PIRG; Iowa Citizens for 
     Community Improvement; JobStart Chautauqua, Inc., Mayville 
     NY; La Casa Federal Credit Union, Newark NJ; Low Income 
     Investment Fund, San Francisco CA; Long Island Housing 
     Services NY; MaineStream Finance, Bangor ME; Maryland PIRG; 
     Massachusetts Consumers' Coalition; MASSPIRG; Massachusetts 
     Fair Housing Center; Michigan PIRG; Midland Community 
     Development Corporation, Midland TX; Midwest Minnesota 
     Community Development Corporation, Detroit Lakes MN; Mile 
     High Community Loan Fund, Denver CO; Missouri PIRG; Mortgage 
     Recovery Service Center of L.A.
       Montana Community Development Corporation, Missoula MT; 
     Montana PIRG; New Economy Project; New Hampshire PIRG; New 
     Jersey Community Capital, Trenton NJ; New Jersey Citizen 
     Action; New Jersey PIRG; New Mexico PIRG; New York PIRG; New 
     York City Aids Housing Network; New Yorkers for Responsible 
     Lending; NOAH Community Development Fund, Inc., Boston MA; 
     Nonprofit Finance Fund, New York NY; Nonprofits Assistance 
     Fund, Minneapolis MN; North Carolina PIRG; Northside 
     Community Development Fund, Pittsburgh PA; Ohio Capital 
     Corporation for Housing, Columbus OH; Ohio PIRG; 
     OligarchyUSA; Oregon State PIRG; Our Oregon; PennPIRG; 
     Piedmont Housing Alliance, Charlottesville VA; Michigan PIRG; 
     Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, CO; Rhode Island 
     PIRG.
       Rural Community Assistance Corporation, West Sacramento CA; 
     Rural Organizing Project OR; San Francisco Municipal 
     Transportation Authority; Seattle Economic Development Fund; 
     Community Capital Development; TexPIRG; The Fair Housing 
     Council of Central New York; The Loan Fund, Albuquerque NM; 
     Third Reconstruction Institute NC; Vermont PIRG; Village 
     Capital Corporation, Cleveland OH; Virginia Citizens Consumer 
     Council; Virginia Poverty Law Center; War on Poverty--
     Florida; WashPIRG; Westchester Residential Opportunities 
     Inc.; Wigamig Owners Loan Fund, Inc., Lac du Flambeau WI; 
     WISPIRG.

                            Small Businesses

       Blu; Bowden-Gill Environmental; Community MedPAC; 
     Diversified Environmental Planning; Hayden & Craig, PLLC; Mid 
     City Animal Hospital, Phoenix AZ; UNET.

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished majority 
leader, who has been a tireless advocate for consumer choice and 
freedom throughout this debate on this unaccountable Bureau and who has 
led our Congress' effort to bring bills to the floor to stop government 
abuse.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank both gentlemen from Texas for their leadership on 
this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Consumer Financial 
Freedom and Washington Accountability Act.
  Our constituents deserve an open government that can easily be held 
accountable. We in the House have got to

[[Page 3547]]

be focused on reforming this government so we can create an America 
that works again. The Founders of our country created this democratic 
system to include a series of checks and balances to prevent any 
institution from becoming too powerful, and, today, it is as important 
as ever to keep those checks and balances strong.
  Right now, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an independent 
agency within the Federal Reserve System that is full of unelected 
bureaucrats who enjoy an unprecedented amount of power with a serious 
lack of accountability to any of the three branches of government.
  American consumers should not have to fear Federal bureaucrats who 
can eliminate access to their credit options, collect information on 
their personal finances without their knowledge or consent, or limit 
the availability of a mortgage due to the onerous Qualified Mortgage 
rule that the CFPB put in place last month.
  Working families who are struggling to make ends meet during these 
hard economic times should also not have to worry about their hard-
earned tax dollars being spent so recklessly and irresponsibly by 
government agencies. We have recently learned that the Federal 
Reserve's inspector general opened up an investigation to find out why 
a renovation to the CFPB's headquarters skyrocketed from $55 million to 
$145 million in under 2 years. This reckless waste is one of the most 
dangerous kinds of government abuses. The American workers' pocketbooks 
are not Washington's ATM machine.
  The bill before us today provides solutions to these problems with 
important structural changes that will place the levers of power in a 
bipartisan panel, as opposed to a single director, while subjecting the 
CFPB to the regular appropriations and oversight processes, 
guaranteeing more accountability.
  This is an opportunity for us to show the American people that we are 
committed to restoring trust in government. By passing these 
commonsense reforms in a bipartisan fashion, we can hold Washington 
more accountable to the people we are supposed to protect. So let's 
pass this bill and take one step closer to stopping government abuse.
  Again, I would like to thank Chairman Hensarling, Chairman 
Neugebauer, Representatives Duffy, Bachus, Westmoreland, and Fincher, 
and the rest of the Financial Services Committee for their hard work on 
this issue. I urge my colleagues in the House to support this 
legislation so we can begin to make America work again for everybody.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Representative Lynch, who is a member of the Financial 
Services Committee and who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census.
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her work on 
behalf of American consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3193, the so-called 
Consumer Financial Protection and Soundness Improvement Act.
  Let's be clear about what my friends on the other side of the aisle 
are trying to do here today.
  They would really like to completely repeal the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. Many of the sponsors of this act are the ones who 
tried to defeat the creation and empowerment of the CFPB to begin with. 
To be mindful, this is the only financial regulator solely responsible 
for protecting American consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive 
financial products. My friends on the other side of the aisle would 
like to destroy it, so they are trying to pass off this ``death by a 
thousand cuts'' approach as improvements to the Bureau's structure.
  This bill will bog down the consumer bureau in bureaucratic and 
congressional red tape. It will make it more difficult for the Bureau 
to seek out and retain qualified employees. It will also allow the 
companies that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is supposed to 
be regulating to have more information, better information--more 
accurate information, more extensive information--about consumers than 
the CFPB that is responsible for protecting them will have.
  In sum, it will make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a 
second-class and ineffective regulator, sending the signal to bad 
actors in our financial markets that we are not really serious about 
consumer protections, and this bill will do nothing to make consumers 
safer.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on H.R. 3193.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the chairman of 
the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee, who is a key coauthor of this 
bill, ensuring that the CFPB is accountable through the congressional 
appropriations process, and who is a real champion of preserving 
housing opportunities from Washington bureaucrats.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank Chairman Hensarling.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is kind of interesting that my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle seem to want to justify this ``spending 
gone wild'' agency, an agency that last year alone had a budget 
overreach of nearly $100 million.
  That is the reason that I introduced title II of this bill, which 
really says two things: one, that we take this agency out of the Fed 
and make it a stand-alone entity; and two, that we put it on budget, a 
normal appropriations process, where Members of Congress can begin to 
sit down and look at the budget that is presented to them by the 
agency--how you are going to spend their money. Maybe we would have 
prevented some of these overreaches that happened.
  I don't think that anybody thinks that government should just have an 
unlimited purse, and this is what this agency basically has. If they 
run out of money--spend too much money--they just reach over into the 
Fed and take that money out. No other agency that I know of in the 
government has that, and I think the hardworking American people and 
the hardworking people of the 19th District feel like agencies ought to 
come and bring their budgets, like in other areas of government, and 
explain and prove why they need that money.
  Interestingly enough, the CFPB has 1,500 employees, 60 percent of 
them making over $100,000 and 5 percent of those making more than 
Cabinet secretaries. Mr. Chairman, again, we think there needs to be 
more accountability here.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. This agency can draw up to $500 million each year, 
really. In fact, some of the requests for transfer were done on small 
pieces of paper.
  Can you imagine a three-line paragraph saying, ``Please send over 
$150 million. We have run out of money''?
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3193 begins to bring the accountability that the 
American taxpayers not only deserve but desire.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington, Representative Heck, who is a member of the Financial 
Services Committee and who has paid a lot of attention to this issue.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the ranking member very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I am from Washington State, and I am about to commit a 
sacrilege. We could have saved a lot of trees and a lot of time if we 
had had a one-sentence bill that simply said: ``End the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau.''
  We could have had an honest debate then about whether we should have 
any government agency with the mandate to protect consumers from 
deceptive financial marketing and abusive financial practices. We could 
have had a discussion about what the CFPB has accomplished thus far and 
whether it is accessible to Americans, whether its proposed streamlined 
forms are more effective at educating Americans, whether its rules are 
thoroughly researched and revised after comments

[[Page 3548]]

from all sides. Instead, we are having a debate over reorganizing and 
defunding and subordinating and other matters of process and 
organization that are all, frankly, designed to kill CFPB by a thousand 
cuts.
  I think the proposition here is fairly straightforward and remains a 
mystery to me. If one desires to do away with the CFPB, why not have 
the courage to introduce that bill straightforwardly?
  Ordinarily, I don't assign motives or characterize intent on the part 
of people who advance legislation. The fact of the matter is many of 
those who are advocating for this bill's passage opposed the creation 
of the agency flat out. The fact of the matter is that a companion 
bill--granted, one not in this--even re-titled the agency and took the 
words ``consumer protection'' out. The fact of the matter is, if there 
were more credible arguments in support of this legislation, I think we 
would be a little more careful with the facts.
  Here is a fact: there isn't a penny of taxpayer dollars that supports 
CFPB. It is fee-based. Here is a fact omitted: more than 60 percent of 
the costs associated with the alleged remodel budget, which is an 
estimate--a fact omitted--is associated with upgrading to code. Now, I 
know for another fact that the people who are making that argument do 
not want civil servants to occupy unsafe and unhealthy buildings.

                              {time}  1515

  But most importantly--this is the part that really gets me--we are 
going to spend a lot of time on this today and in committee, and we are 
going to pass it to the Senate, and we all know what its fate is going 
to be, right down into the ground. Well, that is fine. People have the 
right to make their point, but what is the opportunity cost of making 
that point in committee and on the floor? At least one of the 
opportunity costs is getting to work on actual regulatory relief.
  We have several bipartisan bills for regulatory relief. Some form of 
the CLEAR Act, not all the Members on my side support it, but some do. 
We could actually get to work on regulatory relief if we would set 
aside our efforts for this messaging and exercise.
  As for me, no matter what the form, I am going to vote ``no'' on any 
bill that kills the CFPB, any bill. I will vote ``no'' because of the 
work the CFPB does on behalf of my constituents.
  I will vote to preserve the Office of Servicemember Affairs and the 
great work that Holly Petraeus is doing. They have a special mandate to 
protect the men and women in uniform. I have the privilege to represent 
Joint Base Lewis-McChord, tens of thousands of uniformed personnel. If 
you ever talk to anybody--I don't see how anybody who has a military 
base even near their district can support this legislation.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chair, I don't see how anybody who has a 
military base anywhere near their district can support this 
legislation.
  I will vote to protect the experts who are laying the groundwork for 
the first national consumer protection rules on payday loans and other 
short-term, high-interest loans. I will vote to defend the Bureau's 
work protecting students from high-interest-rate loans and creating a 
uniform set of borrower rights and protections for all student loans, 
public or private. If we really want a stable, predictable business 
environment, we wouldn't be going down this path.
  At the end of the day, again, the proposition is very 
straightforward. If you support consumer protection, you will vote 
``no'' on this legislation. If you oppose consumer protection, you will 
vote ``yes.'' But I entreat you, I plead with you, to please vote 
``no.''
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds to encourage 
the gentleman from Washington to read section 1017 of the Dodd-Frank 
Act, and he would discover that the CFPB is funded by the Federal 
Reserve, which happens to be taxpayer money.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the vice chairman of our 
Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have done a good job of 
listing some of the problems of CFPB. I would like to give you an 
example of some of the overreach of this new agency already.
  A small community bank in my district, they purchased a small lending 
company. With that lending company comes the lease of the building that 
they are operating their office out of. The CFPB comes in and says the 
lease is $300 per month over the course of 9 months over what the rate 
should be for that area. They go in and tell the bank that they are 
going to fine them $107,000 for this lease, which is nothing the bank 
made. It doesn't impact consumers, yet they are fined $107,000. The 
bank eventually settles for $80--plus $30,000 in attorneys' fees.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an example already of this new agency's 
overreach. It has got to stop. H.R. 3193 does that. I urge support for 
that bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I am waiting for additional speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the chairman of 
our Capital Markets and GSE Subcommittee.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Financial Protection claims 
unlimited power to define and regulate every conceivable financial 
transaction in the country, and yet it claims to be unaccountable to no 
one. So I find it disturbing that the Bureau collects private credit 
card data on Americans and does so without the knowledge of those 
Americans. Its effort is so vast that the Bureau collects information 
on over 990 million credit card accounts.
  According to Dr. Thomas Stratmann, Professor of Economics and Law at 
George Mason University:

       There are costs and potential harms to collecting and 
     maintaining massive databases of personal financial 
     information; including the potential for abuse, or violation 
     of consumer privacy, and security concerns in the event of a 
     data breach.

  Mr. Chairman, the Bureau believes that actions must go unquestioned, 
and now it wants your credit card information, too. This legislation 
before us protects citizens by protecting and prohibiting the Bureau 
from collecting Americans' nonpublic personal financial information 
without first receiving the express permission of the consumer.
  I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to respect the 
financial privacy of all Americans and support this legislation.
  Ms. WATERS. I continue to reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the 
chairman of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleagues for their 
leadership on this important legislation.
  I rise in support of it to bring some balance to an otherwise 
unaccountable bureaucratic agency, perhaps the most powerful agency in 
government with the least amount of public accountability. It has no 
accountability to the administration, very little to Congress, and even 
less to the American people. As a result, it should come as no surprise 
that this Bureau has operated with less transparency and less concern 
for fiscal discipline than even a very low bar and low standard we hold 
for our Federal tax dollars.
  Due to this lack of accountability, certain expenditures have been 
called into question; in fact, their building expenditures, which is a 
beautiful release of a $150 million plan to renovate a building that 
they are leasing. Now, it is a very rare thing and pretty silly in real 
estate to do an enormous upfit for a building that costs $153 million--
that is the appraised value--and to put $150 million at $461 a square 
foot into that building. It makes no sense unless you understand that 
these are your tax dollars at work to build luxury a couple of blocks 
from the White House.
  These buildings are just another example of why this agency needs to 
be

[[Page 3549]]

held accountable to not just the American people and the taxpayers, but 
to the taxpaying public and those of us who care about having access to 
good financial products while protecting.
  So that is why I support this legislation.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I am now happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), the vice chairman of our Capital 
Markets and GSE Subcommittee.
  Mr. HURT. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue. I 
thank him for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Consumer Financial 
Freedom and Washington Accountability Act.
  As I travel across our Virginia's Fifth District, I continue to hear 
troubling stories about the impacts of the CFPB. I have heard from 
consumers, community banks, and credit unions about how the unchecked 
authority of the CFPB is restricting consumer choice, creating an 
atmosphere of economic uncertainty, and increasing costs.
  Real consumer protection requires that we shift power from Washington 
bureaucrats to American consumers by providing access to competitive 
markets with choice, information, and accountability. This bill would 
help achieve that goal by adding much-needed oversight and transparency 
to this far-reaching new government agency without weakening consumer 
protection.
  These bipartisan checks and balances will protect our community banks 
and credit unions who play a critical role in providing capital to our 
small businesses and working families. At a time when too many 
Americans remain out of work, it is critical that we continue to 
support policies that will help restore certainty to the marketplace, 
create jobs, and protect our consumers.
  I urge support of this good bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), the chief deputy whip who also 
serves on the Financial Services Committee and is cochair of the 
Progressive Caucus.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me thank our ranking member for the 
time.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3193 today. It is a bad bill, and it is 
bad for consumers, bad for Americans.
  As I listened to my colleagues, one of them mentioned the CFPB offers 
uncertainty. Well, here is some certainty for you. You cannot cheat 
consumers. That is certainty enough for me. Another one said, well, you 
know, the CFPB doesn't offer choice. Here is a choice. You can offer 
any product that is fair and transparent to consumers.
  That is exactly what my friends on the other side of the aisle object 
to. They don't want average Americans to be able to get a financial 
services product that is fair, that is balanced, and that makes sense 
in the marketplace.
  You have nothing to fear from the CFPB if you do not offer a product 
that is designed to bilk consumers. If you do, I can see why you might 
be quite upset at the activity of the CFPB.
  The bottom line is this is a bad bill. It will set our country back, 
and in fact, I believe consumer protection is at the very heart of the 
recession that we just went through.
  Now, of course, we have heard ad nauseam that it was the housing 
goals and it was the other sort of measures that caused the recession, 
but the fact is the recession was caused because large numbers of home 
buyers were bilked into mortgages that they couldn't afford, that were 
difficult to understand, with high pressure tactics and were 
incentivized, even to be guided and steered to products that were more 
high cost than the ones they qualified for.
  Then we packaged these things into mortgage-backed securities that 
were unsound to begin with. The rating agencies said they were fine, 
took out a form of insurance on them, and then when the house of cards 
fell, the whole economy went with it.
  Consumer protection is at the heart of the problem. Consumer 
protection is the solution to this problem, and so this effort to 
undermine the CFPB today under the guise of H.R. 3193 is wrong.
  Mr. Chair, we are at a whose side are you on moment. Are you on the 
side of Mom and Pop, of the small business owner, of the consumer 
trying to get a house loan or other form of credit? Or are you on 
someone else's side who is not in favor of a fair product?
  I have said to my community bankers, look, your opponents before the 
crash didn't have the regulator; now, everyone has one. The CFPB offers 
a level playing field for all. Now everybody offering mortgage products 
has a degree of accountability. This is good for the financial services 
sector, not bad.
  Since the CFPB was created following the financial crisis, it has 
received, Mr. Chair, more than 250,000 consumer complaints. Mr. Chair, 
who are these 250,000 complaints supposed to be directed to but for an 
agency that is responsive to them? Who would my friends on the other 
side of the aisle have these people go to to try to get their problems 
solved? We know that they weren't being listened to before the CFPB.
  Now that the CFPB exists, a quarter of a million complaints and 
untold numbers of complainants have come forward to say, Please help 
me. Half of these complaints have been in the mortgage servicing area 
alone. Of the 3,135 complaints from my own State of Minnesota, 1,320 
have been related to mortgage issues. This bill threatens to turn off 
access to these consumers, and I will not stand silently by while they 
do this.
  This is a bad bill.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. Among the CFPB's many 
accomplishments, they have refunded more than $3 billion--billion with 
a ``b''--to more than 9 million consumers. That is good fiscal 
stewardship.
  Now, the CFPB oversees industries that previously were not regulated 
by the Federal government, including credit reporting agencies, nonbank 
mortgage providers, debt collection agencies and payday lenders. All of 
that consumer protection would end if this bad piece of legislation 
were to pass.
  Say no, resoundingly. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Consumer 
Financial Freedom and Washington Accountability Act. I thank 
Congressman Duffy and Chairman Hensarling for their leadership on this 
issue.
  The CFPB is disgracefully unaccountable to the American people. 
Richard Cordray and future directors of the Bureau are virtually 
unchecked by Congress and the President.
  We have seen what happens when bureaucrats so powerful are left so 
unaccountable. In its 3 short years, the CFPB has burned through its 
budgets and riffled through the private financial data of millions of 
Americans.
  Hoosiers deserve consumer protections, but they also deserve 
integrity and accountability. After talking with families, small 
businesses, community banks, and credit unions back home, I am proud to 
support the commonsense reforms before the House today.
  Let's replace the CFPB's Director with a five-member commission to 
ensure healthy discussion and bring more seats to the table. Let's rein 
in the CFPB's budget so that the Members of Congress from both parties 
can protect their constituents. Let's prohibit government bureaucrats 
from using private personal information without the consumers' consent.
  Mr. Chairman, let's protect and empower American consumers, not 
Washington bureaucrats.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.

[[Page 3550]]


  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire whether the gentlelady 
has any more speakers?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, we have one speaker on the way.
  Mr. HENSARLING. We have plenty of speakers here, Mr. Chairman. I 
would be glad to lend the gentlelady a few if she needs some people to 
speak.
  Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3193 
which, amongst many other things, replaces the single Director with a 
five-member commission.
  I would remind my friends across the aisle that this brings the bill 
into the original spirit of Dodd-Frank, which, when it left this House 
several years ago, had eventually a five-member commission. All we are 
trying to do is get back to that original intention.
  Further, during the discussions in committee, we focused on the 
membership of that commission and how it would be a decent idea to have 
people who are on the commission who actually knew something about the 
industries that they were regulating.
  For example, the CFPB regulates insured banks, non-depository 
financial institutions, credit unions, all of which are very unique. 
Wouldn't it be nice to actually have folks regulating those industries 
who knew something about them?
  This is not rare in the world of regulation. The FDIC, which oversees 
State banks, has been required to have someone on its commission for 
years who actually has experience regulating State banks. It has not 
been a problem for the FDIC, and it would not be a problem for the 
CFPB.
  We need to pass this bill for a variety of reasons but, first and 
foremost, we need to replace the single Director with a five-man 
commission, and for that, I hope that we pass the bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member.
  I only rise for one simple point, and that is to correct the Record 
when it comes to this claim that the CFPB engages in massive, excessive 
data collection of consumers' information. It is not true.
  Anyone listening to this debate, Mr. Chairman, should know that the 
CFPB does not monitor the accounts of particular consumers and does not 
track the financial behavior or activities of any individual customer.
  The CFPB is already prohibited by law from collecting personally 
identifiable information in the course of its market-monitoring 
responsibility. Although the Bureau does collect certain information as 
part of its responsibility to identify and monitor market trends and 
proactively address emerging consumer credit issues, this information 
is deliberately depersonalized and aggregated to ensure consumers' 
sensitive information is protected.
  Now, this is critically important because speaker after speaker is 
trying to scare consumers into believing that somebody is looking at 
their personal data. It is not true. It is not true, and I think it is 
important for people listening to this debate to know that.
  Requiring the Bureau to seek consent on an individual level in order 
for it to access aggregated or anonymous data is not only a hindrance 
to the CFPB's core mission of regulating the entities that offer 
consumer financial products or services, but it is a burdensome 
requirement and, of course, intended simply to slow down, gum up, 
undermine, and break down the institution itself.
  It is not true. People's data is safe. Looking for aggregate trends 
and proactively addressing emerging problems, as would have been very 
helpful as we got closer to the financial foreclosure crisis just a few 
years ago, is what the CFPB is doing.
  It is doing what it is supposed to do. It is doing it well, and I 
don't know why any fair-minded person would be against that.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that 
the CFPB is building a database containing full credit report data on 
53 million borrowers who took out mortgages since 1998. The project 
manager said: ``It is easy to reverse-engineer and identify the people 
in our database.''
  CFPB has a credit card database of at least 991 million credit cards 
and approximately 136 million Americans. The Bureau is collecting a 
database of credit reports on 8.6 million Americans. They continue to 
collect personalized data from Americans without their permission. It 
is unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is 
one of the largest Federal undertakings in recent history, created by 
Congress yet unaccountable to Congress. One man is tasked with 
oversight of essentially the entire financial services industry.
  Director Cordray works hard for consumers, but no single individual 
can have sufficient expertise to make determinations that impact low-
income families, community banks, mortgage lending, auto lending, 
credit card users and students.
  A real estate lawyer in my district who represents clients who 
specialize in lending to low-income people, whose clients have a 
foreclosure rate of less than 5 percent, commented:

       The only way these folks can own a home is to finance the 
     purchase from an unconventional source. My clients get 
     financial information from the prospective buyers relating to 
     their ability to pay, but it does not meet the thresholds 
     established to qualify as a Qualified Mortgage.

  This year, that lawyer advised all his clients to discontinue 
lending. This is the same story we are receiving from our community 
banks.
  These are the results of an unaccountable agency with insular focus. 
H.R. 3193 would bring much-needed accountability and ensure that enough 
experts are at the decision table that American families are actually 
protected by Federal regulations, not harmed by unintended 
consequences, a situation we have seen all too often in recent months.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time 
is remaining on each side.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentlewoman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me 
time. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Duffy) for his leadership on this important issue and for standing up 
on behalf of hardworking American families.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3193 and urge its passage by this 
House.
  The Financial Services Committee has, on multiple occasions, asked 
the question ``Who protects consumers from the Bureau of Consumer 
Financial Protection?''
  Unfortunately, the answer for the last 3\1/2\ years has been nobody. 
Today, this House has an opportunity to change that.
  The underlying bill includes a number of provisions to ensure that 
the very basic principles of good government apply to the Bureau, and 
it puts an end to the special treatment granted to the Bureau under 
Dodd-Frank.
  These are commonsense, pro-consumer provisions that will help protect 
hardworking American families and taxpayers from yet another Washington 
bureaucracy that thinks it knows what is in their best interest.
  I urge the passage of this bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is about holding Washington 
accountable. The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is one of the 
most powerful and unaccountable agencies in the entire Federal 
Government. Unfortunately, the Bureau reaches deeply into the everyday 
lives of Kentuckians.

[[Page 3551]]

  In following its partisan agenda, the Bureau makes it harder for 
small businesses on Main Street to get a loan to grow their business. 
The Bureau makes it harder for families in Kentucky to obtain a 
mortgage to purchase a home, including for manufactured homes. The 
Bureau even makes it harder to get financing discounts that help 
Kentuckians purchase their car or truck.
  The Bureau is so out of touch that it even regulates Bath County, in 
my district, one of the most rural counties in America, as ``non-
rural.''
  These concerns are not only voiced inside of Washington. Just last 
week I was in Powell County, and a small business owner raised his hand 
during my public event to talk about how the Bureau's rules are harming 
his ability to do business in his community.
  This avalanche of red tape coming out of the Bureau is making life 
harder for millions of Americans, which is why we need to pass this 
legislation that will reform the Bureau in a way that reins in the 
misguided rules that stem from its partisan excesses and unaccountable 
culture.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the ranking member of the Oversight and 
Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished ranking member 
and my friend from California.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this latest Republican assault on the 
CFPB. It is truly baffling to see my colleagues' continued attempts to 
undermine the only Federal regulator created to protect American 
consumers.
  Contrary to the talking points of the other side, this mash-up of 
bills will only burden the CFPB with more bureaucracy, not less. For 
example, the bill would replace the Director, who has been on the job 
for just 6 months, after the Senate Republicans held up his 
confirmation for 2 years, with a cumbersome five-person commission.
  The bill also seeks to take the CFPB out of the Federal Reserve and 
make it subject to annual congressional appropriations. My Republican 
colleagues claim this is to provide tougher oversight, but that is a 
ruse. They have already stated they would defund CFPB altogether if 
they could.
  As ranking member of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Government 
Operations, I firmly believe in accountability, but I would note that 
Director Cordray has been before this Congress 46 times since CFPB was 
created. I would call that pretty responsive oversight.
  After the 2008 Wall Street meltdown, safeguarding our financial 
system ought to be a primary concern, but this bill would, once again, 
place the interest of banks over those of consumers. As we saw during 
the financial crisis, innovation led to a wave of untested and 
sophisticated financial products, allowing dishonest actors to take 
advantage of many Americans.
  Dodd-Frank, which my Republican friends fought against tooth-and-
nail, remains Congress' sole substantive response to the greatest 
financial meltdown since the Great Depression.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle found it necessary not 
only to fight against any attempt at regulating Wall Street, but waged 
much of the battle against the CFPB itself. Republicans in the Senate 
waged a 700-day battle to prevent a confirmation of CFPB's Director--
700 days.
  In just a short amount of time, since his confirmation, CFPB has 
become an effective champion for all Americans. It has fielded more 
than 280,000 consumer complaints.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. This bill is a bad idea. It is an anti-consumer bill. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, much more accountability and transparency 
is needed in Washington, especially at the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.
  The Bureau wields broad and unchecked power over our economy, from 
banks to businesses to anyone who uses credit or payment plans. Abuses 
of that power, enabled by a lack of accountability and transparency, 
harms families and businesses up and down Main Streets in Pennsylvania 
and across the Nation.
  That is why I rise today in strong support of the Consumer Financial 
Freedom and Washington Accountability Act. Importantly, this 
commonsense legislation better protects consumers by prohibiting the 
Bureau from using personal and private financial information without 
their knowledge and consent.
  It also makes the Bureau subject to the regular authorization and 
appropriations process. This increases the American people's ability to 
demand accountability through their elected representatives.
  The legislation will also replace a single and unaccountable director 
with a bipartisan five-member commission and establish more reasonable 
thresholds for reviewing and repealing regulations.
  These changes will help rein in the regulatory overreach coming from 
Washington, D.C., elites. It will ensure a diversity of viewpoints is 
represented whenever the Bureau makes decisions that will directly 
impact families and businesses across the Nation.
  These very reasonable reforms will protect consumers and our Nation's 
financial system by providing for more rigorous oversight of the 
powerful and unaccountable Bureau.
  I urge my colleagues to support this good-government legislation.
  Ms. WATERS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I am now especially pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), who is the vice 
chairman of our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee 
and the chief author of the legislation of which we debate today.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for all the work that 
he has put in on this consumer financial protection reform bill. This 
is really a bill about accountability and transparency.
  As has been discussed today, the CFPB is collecting information on 
almost 1 billion credit cards--1 billion credit cards--which means if 
you are an American and you have a credit card, the CFPB is collecting 
and monitoring your transactions.
  So what we have done is said: Listen, if you are here to protect a 
consumer, why don't you ask the consumer for permission and consent to 
take their information?
  If we care about the American citizenry--if we care about consumers 
and don't care about Big Government and the information they have on 
us, let's give them the power. Let's ask them. That is all we do. 
Empower the American citizenry.
  Again, let's empower Congress and the American people as well. When 
we don't fund agencies through this institution, we lose authority; we 
lose oversight.
  Let's take that power and control back into Congress, and let's 
actually put the power back in the hands of the people; but if you 
empower the Fed to fund this agency, you have taken the control away 
from this institution. That is wrong.
  One of the most important reform parts of this bill is meaningful to 
me because I come from rural America; and the way that the law is 
structured is that if a bad rule comes from the CFPB, it can be 
overturned.
  You can go to FSOC and say: Listen, this rule is going to create 
systemic risk; meaning, it is going to have a negative impact on our 
economy. It should be overturned.
  Now think about what kind of financial institutions can go to FSOC 
and say: This rule is bad; overturn it.
  Is it the small community bank? Is it the credit union in rural 
America? Heck, no. But if you are a big Wall Street bank, you have been 
given a voice in the way my friends across the aisle have structured 
this law.
  Big banks on Wall Street who created the crisis are given a voice to 
have

[[Page 3552]]

rules from the CFPB overturned, but you have left the small banks and 
credit unions in my district voiceless to say: this rule is going to 
hurt us.
  That is wrong.
  Listen, we want to talk about protecting consumers, giving a voice to 
consumers, making sure Big Government isn't breathing down their backs.
  Want to know who protects consumers and finance? Our credit unions, 
our small community banks. And guess what? The Credit Union National 
Association, they endorse and support our bill. The National 
Association of Federal Credit Unions endorsed and support this bill. 
The Independent Community Bankers endorsed and support this bill.
  This is the right thing to do. Let's empower Congress and empower the 
American people. Let's reform the CFPB and actually make it work.
  Ms. WATERS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hensarling for the time 
and for allowing me to speak on this important issue; and I also thank 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) for his the leadership on this 
legislation.
  This legislation is absolutely necessary to bring pragmatic reforms 
to CFPB. The CFPB needs transparency. It needs accountability. It needs 
privacy reforms.
  The first main goal of this legislation is to replace the single all-
powerful director with a five-person independent commission. This will 
allow for a healthy debate and to bring rules and regulations that are 
proposed at this agency.
  It would put CFPB on a regular budgetary cycle with annual 
appropriations. This will shield the very American taxpayer from 
wasteful spending and allow Congress the proper oversight that this 
agency absolutely needs.
  One of the key provisions of this bill prohibits CFPB from accessing, 
collecting, and analyzing the American people's personal financial data 
without their express permission.
  In the wake of the regulation tsunami coming from D.C., it is time 
that Congress exercise its authority to help rein in government 
bureaucrats and help provide the clarity to business owners across the 
country.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. WATERS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 3193.
  I am an automobile dealer, and my family has been in the business for 
63 years.
  CFPB is kind of interesting because what we have done now, we have 
absolutely abandoned the rulemaking process, and we have gone to 
another type of influencing people; and the relationship that car 
dealers have with their customers is sometimes to navigate a very 
difficult financial system to get their loans arranged.
  But no, we want to do it a different way. We want to do it with 
guidance. Here is the way it kind of works. It is like the policeman 
walking his beat and pulling out his billy club and tapping it on his 
hand and saying: I strongly suggest you follow my guidance.
  There is no oversight on this. This group of people are going to make 
decisions by not even consulting us, the people. We do represent the 
people, and I would like to think that we can come together once in a 
while to do what is in the best interest of the people that we 
represent, not a Republican issue, not a Democratic issue, but an 
American issue.
  We have to do these things. Again, strong suggestions that you follow 
my guidance, as opposed to letting people sit down and negotiate 
themselves, that is not the way the American system works.
  It never has, never will. It never should have happened. CFPB should 
have never come to the light of day.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to, once again, reiterate my strong opposition 
to this harmful legislation which will weaken the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, an agency created to protect consumers and defend 
them against bad actors and practices throughout our financial system.
  Just in case we are losing sight of what this Bureau is all about, we 
have many citizens out there who are the victims of false advertising. 
People advertise something. They advertise a price. They advertise a 
product. They go to buy the product. It is not there. It costs more 
money.
  Debt collectors, how many of our citizens have been harassed by debt 
collectors, calling them in the middle of the night, asking for 
information, and charging them with things they have never been 
involved in?
  Don't forget those payday loans. Poor people run out of money, go to 
a payday lender, get charged 500 percent for a payday loan.
  What about those private postsecondary schools where all of those 
students who are trying to get an education are forced into getting 
loans, are encouraged to get loans, get ripped off, don't learn 
anything, can't get a job?
  What about those mortgage lenders who tricked all of those people 
into mortgage loans and they end up losing their homes? What about 
discrimination against the aged? What about what they did to our good 
men and women who served in different branches of the military for all 
of us and got ripped off by payday lenders?
  This is what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is all about. I 
don't know how anyone could think that we shouldn't have protection for 
our consumers. Our consumers are finding out that, finally, we have 
something.
  They are calling our telephone number, (855) 411-2372, to get some 
help. They are going to our Web site, www.consumerfinance.gov. Over 
289,000 citizens have gone to this www.consumerfinance.gov Web site. 
They have called this telephone number, (855) 411-2372, because, 
finally, they have a bureau that is paying attention to all of the rip-
offs, all of the fraudulent advertising, all of the overcharging of 
fees, all of what they did not have protection from in the past.
  We realized, at some point in time, that all of our regulatory 
agencies that were supposed to be paying attention were not. Now, we 
have protection.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  To protect consumers, you first need to make sure they have the power 
to consume; and under the Obama administration economic policies, tens 
of millions of our fellow citizens are either unemployed or 
underemployed. They don't have the income to consume. That is not 
consumer protection.
  Part of the problem is the CFPB because true consumer protection, Mr. 
Chairman, empowers consumers in innovative, transparent, competitive 
markets; and it respects the intelligence and the dignity of the 
American citizen; and it preserves their economic liberty to choose the 
mortgages, the credit cards, and, yes, even the payday loans that they 
choose to consume.
  But instead, Mr. Chairman, many of my friends on the other side of 
the aisle would love to take away ``In God we trust'' and put up there 
``In government we trust.''
  The American people are tired of unaccountable, arrogant Washington 
bureaucrats, the unaccountable, the unelected who are taking away their 
homeownership opportunities, taking away their credit cards, and 
insulting them by saying: I am from Washington. I am smarter than you. 
I am better than you. I know what is best.
  It is time for us to pass the Consumer Financial Freedom and 
Washington Accountability Act; and I particularly thank Messrs. Duffy, 
Bachus, and Neugebauer for authoring this key piece of legislation. I 
urge its passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
(CFPB), which is

[[Page 3553]]

a cornerstone of the Dodd-Frank Act, has already proven invaluable in 
ensuring that financial products offered to American consumers comply 
with federal law and are not abusive or misleading.
  The CFPB has brought transparency, accountability and clarity to our 
markets.
  Because of the CFPB's work, our residential mortgage lending system 
is now governed by standards that cap the points and fees a lender may 
charge, limit risky loan products, and prohibit loans with terms longer 
than 30 years.
  CFPB has also enacted new rules to end the abuses in the mortgage 
servicing process that were so common before the financial crisis. 
These rules require servicers to credit payments the day they are 
received and to respond to customer inquiries in a timely manner.
  They also limit ``dual tracking'' to ensure borrowers are not 
foreclosed on while they wait to see if they qualify for a loan 
modification.
  And through its enforcement actions, CFPB has already recovered 
approximately $3 billion for consumers who have been the victims of 
abuse. As of this month, the CFPB has received and is processing more 
than nine thousand complaints from residents of Maryland alone.
  Unfortunately, rather than ensuring the CFPB has all of the resources 
it needs to help consumers, Republicans in the House have routinely 
sought to undermine the CFPB and the bill before us today simply 
continues that attack.
  The only way to protect our constituents from entities that would 
take advantage of them is to vote against this bill and oppose all 
efforts to roll back the consumer protections enacted in the Dodd-Frank 
legislation.
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act, 
H.R. 3193.
  As designed by Dodd-Frank, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--
CFPB--is the only agency whose final rules can be overruled by a vote 
of other financial regulators.
  This was explicitly included in Dodd-Frank to ensure that CFPB 
guidelines do not unduly jeopardize the safe functioning of the U.S. 
financial system.
  However, the inaptly named H.R. 3193 is yet another transparent 
attempt by Members of the majority to weaken the authority of the only 
federal agency responsible for protecting consumers in their financial 
dealings.
  If enacted, H.R. 3193 would not only broaden the ability to overturn 
CFPB rules, but would also lower the threshold required to do so.
  This would make it more difficult for the CFPB to meet its mission of 
creating and enforcing federal consumer financial laws, and would be a 
significant step backward in the effort to improve oversight and 
supervision of our nation's financial institutions.
  It is repugnant to me that after millions of Americans had their 
financial security imperiled by the predatory practices of mortgage 
lenders, originators and servicers, that Members of this House would 
consider this bill designed to weaken the one financial regulator 
focused on returning temperance to deals where there was once greed, 
and prudence to markets where there was previously ``irrational 
exuberance.''
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for the American people by voting 
``no'' on H.R. 3193.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, H.R. 3193 is a clear attempt to undermine 
the independence and effectiveness of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau. As such, I oppose passage of this legislation.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created by the 
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Bill in response to widespread market 
abuses that helped precipitate the financial crisis and is the first 
ever independent watchdog charged with the sole task of protecting the 
financial lives of America's families. Since its inception, the CFPB 
has handled nearly 270,000 consumer complaints and secured more than $3 
billion in relief for almost 10 million consumers through enforcement 
actions against bad actors who were violating the law. It has 
established important oversight for industries ranging from payday 
lenders to debt collectors to credit reporting agencies. And it has 
generally received high marks from industry leaders and consumer 
advocates alike for the openness and evenhandedness of its operations. 
Not surprisingly, the Senate confirmed the CFPB's first director 
Richard Cordray by a bipartisan vote of 66-34 in the summer of last 
year.
  Rather than building on this track record of success, H.R. 3193 would 
weaken the CFPB by bureaucratizing its structure, placing additional 
constraints on its operations, slashing its funding and subjecting that 
funding to the political pressures of the annual appropriations 
process. If the majority really believed the annual appropriations 
process was necessary to ensure the proper oversight of our federal 
banking regulators, this legislation would be recommending similar 
treatment for the Federal Reserve, or the Office of the Comptroller of 
the Currency. It doesn't--which tells you all you need to know about 
the consistency of the conviction underlying this bill.
  In my judgment, the CFPB is succeeding at its job of protecting 
consumers in a fair and transparent marketplace. Accordingly, I urge a 
no vote.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I would like to express my 
opposition to H.R. 3193, the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and 
Soundness Improvement Act of 2013. This legislation would strip 
essential mandates from an agency that was created to protect consumers 
from risky practices that caused the financial crisis.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has successfully 
refunded over $3 billion to consumers who were financially harmed by 
deceptive practices. The vital protections the CFPB provides must not 
be overlooked; without its oversight, consumers will be exposed to 
greater risk in financial markets.
  Since its creation in 2011, the CFPB has collected over $80 million 
in civil penalties from financial institutions that harmed consumers. 
They also have handled more than 269,900 complaints from consumers. 
Thirty million consumers would not be subject to federal protections 
from improper debt collections if the CFPB did not exist.
  Additionally, without the presence of the CFPB, twelve million 
consumers that use pay day lending would not be protected by federal 
supervision, and 200 million consumer credit reports would not be 
protected from unscrupulous behavior. The CFPB should be applauded for 
its efforts to end harmful practices in the marketplace. Rather than 
abrogate this successful agency, the CFPB should retain its current 
structure and mandate so that it can continue to be an exemplary model 
for other bank regulators.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-36 
modified by the amendment printed in part A of House Report 113-350. 
That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 3193

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Financial Freedom 
     and Washington Accountability Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINANCIAL PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--Section 1011 of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5491) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 1011. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FINANCIAL PRODUCT SAFETY 
                   COMMISSION.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established an independent 
     commission to be known as the `Financial Product Safety 
     Commission' (hereinafter referred to in this section as the 
     `Commission'), which shall regulate the offering and 
     provision of consumer financial products or services under 
     the Federal consumer financial laws. The Commission shall be 
     considered an Executive agency, as defined in section 105 of 
     title 5, United States Code. Except as otherwise provided 
     expressly by law, all Federal laws dealing with public or 
     Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, 
     budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 
     7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of 
     the Commission.
       ``(b) Authority to Prescribe Regulations.--The Commission 
     may prescribe such regulations and issue such orders in 
     accordance with this title as the Commission may determine to 
     be necessary for carrying out this title and all other laws 
     within the Commission's jurisdiction and shall exercise any 
     authorities granted under this title and all other laws 
     within the Commission's jurisdiction.
       ``(c) Composition of the Commission.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of the 
     Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Federal Reserve System 
     and 4 additional members who shall be appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
     from among individuals who--
       ``(A) are citizens of the United States; and
       ``(B) have strong competencies and experiences related to 
     consumer financial protection.
       ``(2) Staggering.--The members of the Commission appointed 
     under paragraph (1) shall

[[Page 3554]]

     serve staggered terms, which initially shall be established 
     by the President for terms of 1, 2, 4, and 5 years, 
     respectively.
       ``(3) Terms.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each member of the Commission appointed 
     under paragraph (1), including the Chair, shall serve for a 
     term of 5 years.
       ``(B) Removal.--The President may remove any member of the 
     Commission appointed under paragraph (1).
       ``(C) Vacancies.--Any member of the Commission appointed 
     under paragraph (1) appointed to fill a vacancy occurring 
     before the expiration of the term to which that member's 
     predecessor was appointed (including the Chair) shall be 
     appointed only for the remainder of the term.
       ``(D) Continuation of service.--Each member of the 
     Commission appointed under paragraph (1) may continue to 
     serve after the expiration of the term of office to which 
     that member was appointed until a successor has been 
     appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, 
     except that a member may not continue to serve more than 1 
     year after the date on which that member's term would 
     otherwise expire.
       ``(E) Other employment prohibited.--No member of the 
     Commission appointed under paragraph (1) shall engage in any 
     other business, vocation, or employment.
       ``(d) Affiliation.--With respect to members appointed 
     pursuant to subsection (c)(1), not more than 2 shall be 
     members of any one political party.
       ``(e) Chair of the Commission.--
       ``(1) Appointment.--The Chair of the Commission shall be 
     appointed by the President from among the members of the 
     Commission appointed under subsection (c)(1).
       ``(2) Authority.--The Chair shall be the principal 
     executive officer of the Commission, and shall exercise all 
     of the executive and administrative functions of the 
     Commission, including with respect to--
       ``(A) the appointment and supervision of personnel employed 
     under the Commission (other than personnel employed regularly 
     and full time in the immediate offices of members of the 
     Commission other than the Chair);
       ``(B) the distribution of business among personnel 
     appointed and supervised by the Chair and among 
     administrative units of the Commission; and
       ``(C) the use and expenditure of funds.
       ``(3) Limitation.--In carrying out any of the Chair's 
     functions under the provisions of this subsection the Chair 
     shall be governed by general policies of the Commission and 
     by such regulatory decisions, findings, and determinations as 
     the Commission may by law be authorized to make.
       ``(4) Requests or estimates related to appropriations.--
     Requests or estimates for regular, supplemental, or 
     deficiency appropriations on behalf of the Commission may not 
     be submitted by the Chair without the prior approval of the 
     Commission.
       ``(f) No Impairment by Reason of Vacancies.--No vacancy in 
     the members of the Commission shall impair the right of the 
     remaining members of the Commission to exercise all the 
     powers of the Commission. Three members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, 
     except that if there are only 3 members serving on the 
     Commission because of vacancies in the Commission, 2 members 
     of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the 
     transaction of business. If there are only 2 members serving 
     on the Commission because of vacancies in the Commission, 2 
     members shall constitute a quorum for the 6-month period 
     beginning on the date of the vacancy which caused the number 
     of Commission members to decline to 2.
       ``(g) Seal.--The Commission shall have an official seal.
       ``(h) Compensation.--
       ``(1) Chair.--The Chair shall receive compensation at the 
     rate prescribed for level I of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5313 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(2) Other members of the commission.--The 3 other members 
     of the Commission appointed under subsection (c)(1) shall 
     each receive compensation at the rate prescribed for level II 
     of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       ``(i) Initial Quorum Established.--During any time period 
     prior to the confirmation of at least two members of the 
     Commission, one member of the Commission shall constitute a 
     quorum for the transaction of business. Following the 
     confirmation of at least 2 additional commissioners, the 
     quorum requirements of subsection (f) shall apply.
       ``(j) Offices.--The principal office of the Commission 
     shall be in the District of Columbia. The Commission may 
     establish regional offices of the Commission in order to 
     carry out the responsibilities assigned to the Commission 
     under the Federal consumer financial laws.''.
       (b) Bringing the Commission 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 carry out this title $300,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2014 and 2015.''; and
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).
       (c) Ensuring the Independence of the Commission.--The 
     Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 is amended--
       (1) in section 1012(c), (12 U.S.C. 5492 (c)) by striking 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5); and
       (2) in section 1014(b), (12 U.S.C. 5494(b)) by striking 
     ``Not fewer than 6 members shall be appointed upon the 
     recommendation of the regional Federal Reserve Bank 
     Presidents, on a rotating basis.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Consumer financial protection act of 2010.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph (B), 
     the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5481 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``Director of the'' each place such term 
     appears, other than where such term is used to refer to a 
     Director other than the Director of the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection;
       (ii) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``Financial Product Safety Commission'', other 
     than where such term is used to refer to a Director other 
     than the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
     Protection; and
       (iii) in section 1002 (12 U.S.C. 5481), by striking 
     paragraph (10).
       (B) Exceptions.--The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010 is amended--
       (i) in section 1012(c)(4) (12 U.S.C. 5492 (c) (4)), by 
     striking ``Director'' each place such term appears and 
     inserting ``Financial Product Safety Commission'';
       (ii) in section 1013(c)(3) (12 U.S.C. 5493 (c) (3))--

       (I) by striking ``Assistant Director of the Bureau for'' 
     and inserting ``Head of the Office of''; and
       (II) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``Assistant 
     Director'' and inserting ``Head of the Office'';

       (iii) in section 1013(g)(2) (12 U.S.C. 5493(g)(2))--

       (I) by striking ``Assistant director'' and inserting ``Head 
     of the office''; and
       (II) by striking ``an assistant director'' and inserting 
     ``a Head of the Office of Financial Protection for Older 
     Americans'';

       (iv) in section 1016(a) (12 U.S.C. 5496(a)), by striking 
     ``Director of the Bureau'' and inserting ``Chair of the 
     Commission''; and
       (v) in section 1066(a) (12 U.S.C. 5586(a)), by striking 
     ``Director of the Bureau is'' and inserting ``first member of 
     the Commission is''.
       (2) Dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection 
     act.--The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in the table of contents for such Act by amending the 
     item relating to section 1011 to read as follows:

``Sec. 1011. Establishment of the Financial Product Safety 
              Commission.'';
       (B) in section 111(b)(1)(D) (12 U.S.C. 5321(b)(1)(D)), by 
     striking ``Director'' and inserting ``Chair of the Financial 
     Product Safety Commission''; and
       (C) in section 1447 (12 U.S.C. 1701p-2), by striking 
     ``Director of the Bureau'' each place such term appears and 
     inserting ``Financial Product Safety Commission''.
       (3) Electronic fund transfer act.--Section 920(a)(4)(C) of 
     the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693o-
     2(a)(4)(C)), as added by section 1075(a)(2) of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended by striking 
     ``Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection'' 
     and inserting ``Financial Product Safety Commission''.
       (4) Expedited funds availability act.--The Expedited Funds 
     Availability Act (12 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), as amended by 
     section 1086 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010, is amended by striking ``Director of the Bureau'' each 
     place such term appears and inserting ``Financial Product 
     Safety Commission''.
       (5) Federal deposit insurance act.--Section 2 of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1812), as amended by 
     section 336(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
     Consumer Protection Act, is amended by striking ``Director of 
     the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau'' each place such 
     term appears and inserting ``Chair of the Financial Product 
     Safety Commission''.
       (6) Federal financial institutions examination council act 
     of 1978.--Section 1004(a)(4) of the Federal Financial 
     Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 
     3303(a)(4)), as amended by section 1091 of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended by striking 
     ``Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau'' and 
     inserting ``Chair of the Financial Product Safety 
     Commission''.
       (7) Financial literacy and education improvement act.--
     Section 513 of the Financial Literacy and Education 
     Improvement Act (20 U.S.C. 9702), as amended by section 
     1013(d)(5) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 
     is amended by striking ``Director'' each place such term 
     appears and inserting ``Chair of the Commission''.
       (8) Home mortgage disclosure act of 1975.--Section 307 of 
     the Home Mortgage Disclosure

[[Page 3555]]

     Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2806), as amended by section 1094(6) 
     of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended 
     by striking ``Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
     Protection'' each place such term appears and inserting 
     ``Financial Product Safety Commission''.
       (9) Interstate land sales full disclosure act.--The 
     Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 1701 et 
     seq), as amended by section 1098A of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Act of 2010, is amended--
       (A) by amending section 1402(1) (15 U.S.C. 1701(1)) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(1) `Chair' means the Chair of the Financial Product 
     Safety Commission;''; and
       (B) in section 1416(a) (15 U.S.C. 1715(a)), by striking 
     ``Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection'' 
     and inserting ``Chair''.
       (10) Real estate settlement procedures act of 1974.--
     Section 5 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 
     1974 (12 U.S.C. 2604), as amended by section 1450 of the 
     Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``The Director of the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection (hereafter in this section referred to 
     as the `Director')'' and inserting ``The Financial Product 
     Safety Commission''; and
       (B) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``Financial Product Safety Commission''.
       (11) S.A.F.E. mortgage licensing act of 2008.--The S.A.F.E. 
     Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), as 
     amended by section 1100 of the Consumer Financial Protection 
     Act of 2010, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears 
     in headings and text, other than where such term is used in 
     the context of the Director of the Office of Thrift 
     Supervision, and inserting ``Financial Product Safety 
     Commission''; and
       (B) in section 1503 (12 U.S.C. 5102), by striking paragraph 
     (10).
       (12) Title 44, united states code.--Section 3513(c) of 
     title 44, United States Code, as amended by section 1100D(b) 
     of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, is amended 
     by striking ``Director of the Bureau'' and inserting 
     ``Financial Product Safety Commission''.
       (e) Deeming of Names.--
       (1) Bureau of consumer financial protection.--Any reference 
     in a law, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the 
     United States to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 
     shall be deemed a reference to the Financial Product Safety 
     Commission.
       (2) Director.--Any reference in a law, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection shall 
     be deemed a reference to the Chair of the Financial Product 
     Safety Commission.

     SEC. 3. RATE OF PAY FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE FINANCIAL PRODUCT 
                   SAFETY COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 1013(a)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
     Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 
     5493(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Compensation.--The rates of basic pay for all 
     employees of the Financial Product Safety Commission shall be 
     set and adjusted in accordance with the General Schedule set 
     forth in section 5332 of title 5, United States Code.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to service by an employee of the Financial 
     Product Safety Commission following the 90-day period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. CONSUMER RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY.

       (a) Requirement of the Financial Product Safety Commission 
     to Obtain Permission Before Collecting Nonpublic Personal 
     Information.--
       (1) Required notification and permission.--Section 
     1022(c)(9)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
     Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5512(c)(9)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``may not obtain from a covered person or 
     service provider'' and inserting ``may not request, obtain, 
     access, collect, use, retain, or disclose'';
       (B) by striking ``personally identifiable financial'' and 
     inserting ``nonpublic personal''; and
       (C) by striking ``from the financial records'' and all that 
     follows through the period at the end and inserting 
     ``unless--
       ``(i) the Financial Product Safety Commission clearly and 
     conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in an 
     electronic form, what information will be requested, 
     obtained, accessed, collected, used, retained, or disclosed; 
     and
       ``(ii) before such information is requested, obtained, 
     accessed, collected, used, retained, or disclosed, the 
     consumer informs the Financial Product Safety Commission that 
     such information may be requested, obtained, accessed, 
     collected, used, retained, or disclosed.''.
       (2) Application of requirement to contractors of the 
     financial product safety commission.--Section 1022(c)(9)(B) 
     of such Act (12 U.S.C. 5512(c)(9)(B)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) Application of requirement to contractors of the 
     financial product safety commission.--Subparagraph (A) shall 
     apply to any person directed or engaged by the Financial 
     Product Safety Commission to collect information to the 
     extent such information is being collected on behalf of the 
     Financial Product Safety Commission.''.
       (3) Definition of nonpublic personal information.--Section 
     1022(c)(9) of such Act (12 U.S.C. 5512(c)(9)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Definition of nonpublic personal information.--In 
     this paragraph, the term `nonpublic personal information' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 509 of the Gramm-Leach-
     Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6809).''.
       (b) Removal of Exemption for the Financial Product Safety 
     Commission From the Right to Financial Privacy Act.--Section 
     1113 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 
     3413) is amended by striking subsection (r).

     SEC. 5. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS 
                   IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Council Voting Procedure.--Section 1023(c)(3)(A) of the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 
     5513(c)(3)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``\2/3\'' and inserting ``a majority''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, 
     excluding the Chair of the Financial Product Safety 
     Commission''.
       (b) Review Authority of the Council.--Section 1023 of the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5513) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''; and
       (B) by striking ``regulation or provision would put the 
     safety and soundness of the United States banking system or 
     the stability of the financial system of the United States at 
     risk'' and inserting ``regulation which is the subject of the 
     petition is inconsistent with the safe and sound operations 
     of United States financial institutions''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (3)(B)(ii), by striking ``would put the 
     safety and soundness of the United States banking system or 
     the stability of the financial system of the United States at 
     risk'' and inserting ``is inconsistent with the safe and 
     sound operations of United States financial institutions'';
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);
       (C) by striking paragraph (5); and
       (D) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) as 
     paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively.
       (c) Safety and Soundness Check.--Section 1022(b)(2)(A) of 
     the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 
     5512(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) the impact of such rule on the financial safety or 
     soundness of an insured depository institution;''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 113-350. Each such 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 Mr. Rigell

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 113-350.
  Mr. RIGELL. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 6. ANALYSIS OF REGULATIONS.

       Section 1022 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010 (12 U.S.C. 5512) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Analysis of Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each time the Commission proposes a new 
     rule or regulation, the Commission shall--
       ``(A) carry out an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
     for such proposed rule or regulation, which shall be carried 
     out as closely as possible to those initial regulatory 
     flexibility analyses required under section 603 of title 5, 
     United States Code, but which shall analyze the financial 
     impact of the proposed rule or regulation on covered persons, 
     regardless of size; and
       ``(B) carry out an analysis of whether the proposed rule or 
     regulation will impair the ability of individuals and small 
     businesses to have access to credit.
       ``(2) Report.--The Commission shall issue a report to the 
     Council on each analysis carried out under paragraph (1), and 
     make such analysis available to the public.
       ``(3) Use of existing resources.--The Commission shall use 
     existing resources to carry out the requirements of this 
     subsection.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 475, the gentleman from 
Virginia

[[Page 3556]]

(Mr. Rigell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague 
from Texas, Chairman Hensarling, and all of those who worked on this 
underlying legislation, H.R. 3193.
  My amendment strengthens that legislation, and I really respect how 
it was crafted, the legislation that underlies my amendment. It really 
is much needed.

                              {time}  1600

  My amendment is focused on one of the most critical ingredients that 
is necessary for those that are trying to start a new business or to 
grow an existing business, and that is access to credit. Now, I offer 
my amendment based on my own real-world experience. It is about 22 
years ago that I started my business, and I was able to start it and to 
grow it and to say these wonderful words to so many fellow Americans in 
Virginia's Second Congressional District, ``You are hired.'' I was able 
to say those words because one of the ingredients I had available to me 
was access to credit.
  I offer my amendment today based, as well, on the clear, united, and 
truly rational voice that is being articulated by Virginia's Second 
Congressional District, and that is that the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau is truly and irrefutably, in their view and in mine, 
damaging and harming their ability to have access to credit.
  Common ground is something that I come to work every day seeking to 
advance. I am convinced, absolutely, that it is here and it can be 
found. In fact, this gridlock that we so often experience truly is 
hurting our country. But as I listen to my colleagues so often on the 
other side--and I have been up here and had the privilege of serving in 
this institution 3 years--quite frankly, when I hear statements like we 
don't care about consumers, I take offense at this. And I have listened 
to it for 3 years, and I think that it does a disservice to this House 
and to the American people to continually claim that we don't care 
about the American consumer or that we don't care about the environment 
or the poor or the aged. Indeed we do. And this represents my best 
judgment, and the best judgment of so many, that this underlying 
legislation in my particular amendment would help consumers. I am 
convinced of this.
  What my amendment does is it requires the Bureau to simply do this: 
to consider and to calculate in a very careful way exactly how the 
impact--the adverse impact that these regulations that are being put 
forth by this organization--would affect credit. Now, indeed, isn't 
this common ground? It is really common sense. Before you take any 
action to do something, you ought to take a moment to consider what 
that action might do in inhibiting individual Americans and businesses 
from accessing credit.
  I think it is critical, too, that we look at the organization itself. 
This is an organization that is really outside of the scope of 
accountability that we really should be requiring of each and every 
agency in the Federal Government. It is largely outside the 
accountability and the influence of Congress. And this is quite 
striking: it is largely out of the influence of the President. In a 
unique way, and I think in a harmful way, it is largely outside of the 
accountability of the court system.
  Look, common sense will just tell you that is not a good idea for any 
agency to be outside of accountability. Each Member here is accountable 
to our own district. The actions that have been taken by this 
organization already, sure, we can find a few that have been helpful 
and I think ought to continue--taking care of our military and making 
sure that businesses operate in an ethical manner--but, overwhelmingly, 
what we are seeing is this: that the sum of all things is it is hurting 
the American consumer, and it is hurting our ability of fellow 
Americans to access credit. That is why I urge support for the 
underlying legislation and my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Marchant). The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I will take a moment just 
to respond to the gentleman from Virginia who seemed a little bit 
disturbed that we would claim that they do not care about consumers. 
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, sir, and because of the way 
that the Republicans have opposed the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, the manner in which we have described today that you have 
attempted to dismantle this Bureau, the way that you have tried to deny 
it having a strong Director, for all of those reasons, it is absolutely 
clear that you do not wish to have a Bureau that protects our 
consumers.
  And so when we make these charges, we make them because we have 
proof. We have the information, we have the actions, and we have all 
that you have done to demonstrate that you really don't want a Bureau 
to protect the consumers of this country.
  The fact is that Americans want banks to be regulated in order to 
prevent the kind of economic catastrophe that we are recovering from to 
this day. Because Republicans haven't been able to repeal the Dodd-
Frank Act, you have focused on making it impossible for the agencies to 
enact the rules required by the Wall Street reform bill. Your new 
strategy is to prevent our regulators from functioning by saddling them 
with burdensome and duplicative cost-benefit requirements.
  Let's take a moment to talk about the cost of the financial crisis. 
The United States Department of the Treasury measured the cost of the 
financial crisis at $19.2 trillion in loss of household wealth and 8.8 
million in lost jobs. Communities of color were hit particularly hard, 
losing over 50 percent of their household wealth. Millions of borrowers 
have been foreclosed upon, and millions more remain underwater and 
struggling to stay in their homes to this day.
  A report by the Government Accountability Office on the cost-benefit 
analysis of the Dodd-Frank Act stated:

       If the cost of a future crisis is expected to be in the 
     trillions of dollars, then the act likely would need to 
     reduce the probability of a future financial crisis by only a 
     small percent for its expected benefit to equal the act's 
     expected cost.

  Beyond all of this, this amendment is a solution in search of a 
problem. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is already required 
to perform cost-benefit analysis on its rules and evaluate impacts on 
small businesses. The CFPB has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment 
to minimizing the impact of its rules on small banking institutions and 
small businesses.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, tell me how much time is remaining, please.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's remarks. I 
still hold the view that the sum of all things that I have heard in our 
district is that the Bureau is doing more harm than good.
  I urge, again, my colleagues to vote for the underlying legislation 
and my amendment which would help protect individual Americans and 
businesses in their ability to seek credit, which is an essential part 
to keeping our economy growing and creating more jobs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 2 will not be offered.

[[Page 3557]]




                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. DeSantis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 113-350.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chair, I offer my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 6. REPEAL OF EXCLUSIVE RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.

       Section 1022(b) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010 (12 U.S.C. 5512(b)) is amended by striking paragraph 
     (4).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 475, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, James Madison told us in the Federalist 
Papers:

       If men were angels, no government would be necessary. And 
     if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal 
     controls on government would be necessary.

  And so as I look at this agency which lacks all the traditional 
measures for constitutional accountability, I am reminded by that 
insight. The Founding Fathers understood human nature, and they 
understood that people in positions of power will eventually, at some 
point, abuse that power. That is just inherent in the nature of man, 
and so they built a government to have checks and balances.
  As I look at this consumer financial protection agency, I am wowed by 
the amount of power that has been invested in this: very limited 
executive accountability, the CFPB Director is essentially the 
financial czar of the country, and no budget oversight by Congress. I 
know we are trying to change that in this bill, but Madison said that 
the most effectual check that we have in Congress is the power of the 
purse.
  There is this huge amount of deference in terms of what judicial 
review is allowed to be done. The courts are instructed to defer to the 
CFPB. The problem with that is that there are a lot of novel concepts 
in this bill. Terms are introduced that don't necessarily have a 
definition in other regulatory history, and the CFPB is basically going 
to be given carte blanche to go forward on that. And when asked about 
some of these terms, the CFPB Director said, well, you kind of figure 
it out when you see it, and it is a puzzle that we are putting 
together.
  Well, that is not acceptable, and I think the American people need to 
have recourse to the courts. So what my amendment does is it 
reinstitutes judicial review, and it removes this excessive deference 
that has been granted to the CFPB.
  I hear reports about all this data that is being collected on 
American citizens--credit card transactions and debit card 
transactions, millions of these things are being done. Are we just 
supposed to say that the people should have no recourse in case that is 
abused? We are just supposed to trust the CFPB in terms of how they use 
that data?
  The bottom line is you have an agency that is combining legislative 
power, executive power, and judicial power. That is contrary to our 
constitutional structure and contrary to the separation of powers 
doctrine, and I don't think most Americans have confidence that some 
far, distant Bureau should just be left to their own devices and that 
somehow they will be able to make all these decisions better for 
individual Americans than they can make for themselves.
  So I urge the adoption of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was designed with one goal 
in mind: we were giving consumers a fair shake in the marketplace by 
making sure they finally had a regulator who was on their side. The 
CFPB is the only agency with the expertise and the mission to focus on 
developing trends in the consumer finance marketplace, identify abuses, 
and stop them before they lead borrowers into financial ruin.
  Prior to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, consumer financial laws 
were supposed to be enforced by cooperation amongst all of the 
regulators. But as we now know all too well, safety and soundness 
concerns time and again trumped those of consumer protection, leading 
to the system where all of the regulators were responsible and none of 
them were accountable.
  It was precisely this inattention to consumer protection that allowed 
the crisis to boil up under regulators' noses, leaving American 
families to foot the bill. Fortunately, Congress learned the lesson 
that strong protections for consumers are essential to maintaining a 
stable and sound economic foundation.
  Upon passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, this House finally had put a cop 
on the beat with exclusive authority to issue sensible rules that 
protect every American. We are confident that the CFPB will continue to 
work diligently with prudential regulators to make sure their rules are 
consistent with the safe and sound operations of banks, ensuring that 
both rulemaking and enforcement authorities reside exclusively with the 
CFPB and will increase confidence in consumer markets and also ensure 
certainty for businesses and financial institutions.
  Returning to the broken model that existed before the crisis just 
doesn't make good sense. So I would urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this 
amendment. The notion that somehow we are just going to put all this 
trust in the CFPB and why you can't have the ability to go into court 
and have the courts review some of their actions to me just doesn't cut 
it. I would much rather err on the side of having protections for the 
American people from government agencies that have too much power than 
err on the side of giving the agency an excessive amount of power and 
just hoping that they exercise that in a prudent fashion.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment. I applaud the other Members who have been involved in 
crafting this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman and Members, we have had discussions with 
Members on the opposite side of the aisle about protection for our 
consumers. We have heard them tell us everything about people should 
have choices. They can go and hire their own lawyers, they can go into 
court. They can do all of these things. The fact of the matter is, 
government does have the responsibility to protect consumers. This is a 
government of laws and rules that we put together for businesses. We 
allow businesses to operate in certain ways, but we cannot allow them 
to run roughshod over consumers.
  Like I said, prior to Dodd-Frank, that is, the reform, we had nobody 
looking out for consumers. We had our financial services agencies of 
government saying that their real job was for safety and soundness, not 
for consumer protection. So we have had news media, we have had 
nonprofit agencies, we have had groups getting together trying to 
address all of these abuses, all of these problems all by themselves. 
Well, guess what? Now we have a cop on the block. It is your 
government. This consumerfinance.gov Web site is there for all of our 
citizens. This telephone number, (855) 411-2372, is there for our 
consumers to call, and while you are calling the Bureau, call your 
elected officials also and ask them why they don't stand up for you, 
why they are on the floor of Congress advocating against your right to 
have protection from all of these kinds of abuses. Enough is enough.
  Americans consumers are losing dollars every day because of crooks 
and

[[Page 3558]]

schemes and thieves and on and on and on, and now you get rid of the 
very agency that would protect them from all of these schemes? I am so 
happy that we have reform. I am so happy that now the American people 
can rely on their government to come to their aid.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, 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 Florida will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 113-350.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. 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:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 6. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) ``The Congress acknowledges and honors the tremendous 
     work of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection in 
     protecting and providing relief to consumers from instances 
     of unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices in financial 
     markets.
       (2) The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection has 
     refunded over $3 billion to approximately 9.7 million victims 
     of deceptive or abusive practices in financial markets since 
     its inception.
       (3) The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection has 
     continued to engage with consumers, industry, Congress, and 
     other regulators to promulgate rules making U.S. financial 
     markets the fairest, safest, and most robust in the world.
       (4) Changes to the current management, oversight, or 
     funding of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would 
     undermine the mission of the Bureau.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the Congress--
       (1) acknowledges the meritorious work of the Bureau of 
     Consumer Financial Protection; and
       (2) supports the Bureau's ongoing mission by preserving the 
     current management, oversight, and funding structure of the 
     Bureau.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 475, the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It simply 
provides a sense of Congress that acknowledges the tremendous work done 
by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as it was originally 
conceived in Dodd-Frank and how it has been operating to this point.
  The agency, Mr. Chair, has refunded $3 billion to 9.7 million victims 
of unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices in financial markets. The 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has helped people, and fraud has 
been curtailed. The message has been sent to the next generation of 
financial hustlers that there is a dedicated cop on the beat in 
financial markets.
  The singular and dedicated mission of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau is to protect consumers of financial products from 
schemes, and it inspires trust in our markets that attracts capital and 
promotes allocations of that capital to productive, legitimate 
endeavors.
  My amendment affirms that the current management, oversight, and 
funding source, as enshrined in Dodd-Frank, are the best way to 
preserve the integrity and independence of the agency, and to ensure 
that we don't return to the bad old days and bad old ways that put the 
ox in the ditch by creating the 2008 financial crisis and the $700 
billion bailout.
  Now, H.R. 3193 openly acknowledges that it would alter and neuter the 
agency's mission because H.R. 3193 would rename the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau to the Financial Product Safety Commission, removing, 
Mr. Chairman, consumers from the equation, both in name and function. 
It would subject the agency's funding to protect consumers to the 
unwieldy appropriations process, sequester, defunding amendments, 
instead of the outside independent funding vis-a-vis these powerful 
financial institutions.
  Now, whether intentional or not, Republicans, Mr. Chair, have shown 
their hand with the omission of consumers in H.R. 3193, and despite the 
euphemistic name of the bill as written, this bill would alter the 
mission and cripple the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by 
focusing on protecting financial products rather than consumers. 
Whatever the intent, Mr. Chairman, consumers would be thrown under the 
bus by removing the cop from the Wall Street beat.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I find this to be a most curious 
amendment from the gentlelady from Wisconsin, and we do enjoy her 
participation on the committee, but it is a curious amendment because 
if it is accepted, and I believe the House is going to pass it, then it 
says the House is on record as saying we are going to do something but 
we just didn't feel really good about it. In other words, her amendment 
does nothing to the underlying bill except a sentiment that says we 
shouldn't have passed it in the first place. So it is a curious, 
curious amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  I personally, and I don't think the House, want to be on record as 
saying that the CFPB has given us the fairest, safest, and most robust 
capital markets in the world. I have no doubt there are many good men 
and women who work there. They have done some important work. But fair? 
Fair, Mr. Chairman? An agency in the name of consumer protection that 
would deny one-third of current Black and Hispanic homeowners the 
opportunity to own a home? This is fair? It is just incredible.
  We have brought this up several times in this debate, Mr. Chairman, 
and we hear crickets chirping on the other side of the aisle. Now if a 
private company did that, there would be riots in the street, but it is 
okay if government has a disparate impact on minorities. I don't know 
if that is fair. We have had testimony in our committee that literally 
half--half--of the mortgages today, according to CoreLogic, wouldn't 
qualify under the QM rule promulgated by the CFPB. I am not going to go 
on record saying that is fair; that it is somehow fair that half of 
Americans who otherwise would have qualified for a mortgage can no 
longer have it?
  To say that somehow the current oversight is adequate to this agency, 
an agency that sets its own budget, an agency that is spending $145 
million to renovate a $150 million building they don't even own, to 
give us a tree bosque, to give us granite water features? This is 
somehow a good use of the taxpayer money, a reflective carnelian 
granite water table, triple the renovation rate of class A luxury space 
in Washington?
  If there was ever an agency, Mr. Chairman, that demands 
accountability to the American people, this is it. You do not protect 
consumers by taking away their rights, their freedoms, their ability to 
shop in competitive and transparent markets, and you do not protect 
them by taking away their income and spending it on a lavish palace for 
unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy the chairman of the Financial 
Services Committee and his lavish explanations.
  I just want to clear up some of the confusion and bewilderment that 
he seems to be under with regard to minority and Latin borrowers. He 
has said over and over and over again, he has talked about and referred 
to the Qualified Mortgage standards under the new rules. The new 
standards have just taken place, and I think that minorities will find 
that 95 percent of the mortgages today will fall within the Qualified 
Mortgage standards.

[[Page 3559]]

  Now having said that, I will just say that the chairman should look 
at something other than the PATH Act toward restoring the GSEs, if he 
is very concerned about minorities, and I would join him in that to be 
able to get mortgages.
  I would say that to clear up his bewilderment here, I just want to 
congratulate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because it is a 
fact that they have supported the refund of $3 billion to 9.7 million 
victims of unfair practices.
  I agree with him: the purpose of this bill and the reason that they 
won't accept this amendment is because they don't want to go on record 
that they support consumers over all of these very, very lucrative 
financial products that are out there, and they want no regulation, 
which is why we saw the 2008 meltdown, the no rules of the road. They 
want to return to the days when there was an ability to drive the 
economy over the cliff and to deceive consumers to the point that they 
could and would become victims. So I can understand the chairman's 
reluctance to accept this language.
  Mr. Chairman, I enter into the Record our defense of our claims, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.

 Response to CoreLogic Analysis of Qualified Mortgage (QM) Standards, 
                   CRL Issue Brief; February 20, 2013

       The recently released CoreLogic report ``The Mortgage 
     Market Impact of Qualified Mortgage Regulation'' has received 
     a lot of attention due to its finding that 48 percent of the 
     mortgage market would not qualify as a ``safe loan'' under 
     new Qualified Mortgage (QM) guidelines.
       Corelogic uses a ``waterfall'' analysis to estimate the 
     proportion of 2010 mortgage originations that do not meet one 
     or more of the QM criteria. While a waterfall approach is a 
     reasonable methodology for estimating the proportion of 
     recent originations that fall outside of QM standards, there 
     are problems both with the specifics of CoreLogic's model and 
     its assumptions about the expiration of the GSE exemption 
     that significantly undercut the usefulness of its estimates 
     of the impact of the QM rule.
       Removes Loans with Credit Scores less than 640: As part of 
     estimating the impact of QM, CoreLogic included a restriction 
     on credit scores. Specifically, the waterfall analysis first 
     removes loans with credit scores below 640 ``because they 
     resemble subprime loans.'' In fact, five percent of 
     originations are removed solely based on this criterion. This 
     exclusion is not warranted because the QM guidelines do not 
     place any restrictions on a borrower credit score.
       Assumes that borrowers who received loan products with 
     prohibited QM features would not be able to access QM-
     eligible loan products in the future: The other waterfall 
     layers used to estimate the QM impact are: total debt-to-
     income (DTI) ratio over 43 percent; whether the loan was 
     negatively amortizing, balloon or interest only; low- or no-
     documentation; and loan terms of greater than 30 years. These 
     restrictions result in exclusions of 24 percent, 1 percent, 
     16 percent, and 2 percent respectively. Based on this 
     analysis, while it might be reasonable for the report to 
     estimate that 43 percent of 2010 originations did not meet 
     these new QM guidelines, it is not reasonable to infer that 
     none of these borrowers could have received QM loans if the 
     rule had been in place in 2010. While having a high DTI may 
     be a difficult barrier that many borrowers cannot overcome, 
     the disqualifying loan terms, such as negative amortization 
     options or terms of greater than 30- years, can easily be 
     avoided in most cases by simply
       Re-structuring the loans into amortizing 30 year loans. 
     Similarly, most borrowers who received no-doc or low-doc 
     loans in 2010, the origination year analyzed in the report, 
     likely could have documented their incomes. Therefore, the 
     inference that none of the 19 percent of borrowers that had 
     disqualifying loan products could have received QM loans is 
     unwarranted.
       Assumes the GSE exemption expires: As the report 
     recognizes, most of the 24 percent of loans to borrowers with 
     high DTIs are currently being made by GSEs or insured by FHA 
     and these loans automatically qualify as QM under a temporary 
     exemption (up to seven years). Indeed, the report 
     acknowledges that the impact of the QM rule on loans 
     currently being made would be'' minor''. Given the 
     uncertainties concerning GSE reform and mortgage finance that 
     will need to be resolved over the next seven years, it is not 
     at all clear that the temporary exemption will in fact end in 
     seven years.
                                  ____


                 [From the Housingwire, Oct. 28, 2013]

      It's Okay To Lend Outside QM: CFPB Director Richard Cordray

                         (By Kerri Ann Panchuk)

       It's likely mortgage bankers attending the Mortgage Bankers 
     Association 100th Annual Convention & Expo in Washington, 
     D.C., eagerly awaited the arrival of Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray.
       After all, the regulatory landscape stemming from the 2010 
     Dodd-Frank Act has left the lending industry shell-shocked by 
     not only the CFPB's new enforcement authority, but by all the 
     lending/servicing rules slated to take effect in January.
       If bankers are worried about this new CFPB-era, Cordray 
     told the crowd: Don't be.
       In his speech, the CFPB director basically asserted that in 
     many cases, non-qualified mortgages with the right 
     underwriting are perfectly fine even if they fall outside the 
     QM boundaries. This mirrors past statements in which Cordray 
     said he doesn't anticipate an outbreak of QM-related 
     litigation.
       Where he stops short--or simply doesn't go--is in 
     explaining how lenders know at the beginning of the 
     origination cycle that what they've done outside QM in terms 
     of underwriting is sufficient enough to protect them later on 
     if someone were to perhaps raise an ability-to-repay claim.
       Lawyers up for litigation love gray lines, but those 
     wanting to prevent future ability-to-repay litigation are 
     likely to prefer black and white rules. Cordray shows 
     optimism around the idea that responsible lenders are still 
     safe outside QM, but no specifics were given on how the CFPB 
     would address non-QM lending decisions down the road if a 
     default were to occur. Yet, he seems to be saying don't over 
     worry as long as standards are in place.
       And when it comes to the 3% points-and-fee threshold, 
     Cordray has another strong viewpoint, saying ``though no data 
     is available to model the precise impact of the three-percent 
     threshold for points and fees mandated by the statute, that 
     threshold is more than three times the average lender 
     origination fees reported by Bankrate.com in its most recent 
     annual survey, and our rule provides an even higher threshold 
     for smaller loans.''
       He added that the definition of a qualified mortgage 
     already covers most of the loans made today. And even loans 
     not covered by QM can still be generated as long as lenders 
     use ``sound underwriting standards and routinely perform well 
     over time,'' the director told the MBA crowd. Again, what 
     does `perform well over time' mean? That part is not as 
     clear.
       As an example, Cordray told the audience, he is aware of 
     borrowers who may possess considerable other assets, but who 
     remain stifled by high debt-to-income ratios that force them 
     outside the QM standards. As long as lenders ensure the best 
     underwriting standards, they should be fine, Cordray said.
       ``Lenders that have long upheld such standards have little 
     to fear from the ability-to-repay rule; the strong 
     performance of their loans over time demonstrates the care 
     they have taken in underwriting to ensure that borrowers have 
     the ability to repay,'' Cordray added.
       ``Nothing about their traditional lending model has 
     changed, and they should continue to offer the same kinds of 
     mortgages to borrowers whom they evaluate as posing 
     reasonable credit risk--whether or not they meet the criteria 
     to be classified as qualified mortgages.''
       Cordray further noted that lenders who refuse to lend 
     outside QM will be at no greater risk, absent other factors, 
     of facing fair lending allegations.
       The CFPB director once again cited data from Mark Zandi, 
     chief economist for Moody's Analytics, noting that 95% of the 
     mortgages made today fall within the qualified mortgage 
     standard.
       ``Some, such as CoreLogic, have put out much lower figures, 
     but by their own admission, those figures were not intended 
     to take account of the expanded definition of QM that will 
     actually take effect in January but instead were offered as 
     projections of a distant future when the temporary expansion 
     expires,'' Cordray explained.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friends on the 
other side of the aisle--and the gentlelady from Wisconsin, I would 
draw her attention to the Federal Reserve bulletin, November 2013, 
Volume 99, No. 4, page 37, that clearly shows, again, according to the 
Federal Reserve, that 34 percent of Blacks and 32 percent of Hispanics 
would not meet the new QM standard based upon the 43 percent debt-to-
income requirement.
  Now, this is Federal Reserve data. If the gentlelady or any other 
Member on the other side of the aisle wishes to refute this data from 
the Federal Reserve, they are certainly free to do so on their time.
  But again, I am not going to go on record saying this is fair. I 
haven't heard anybody rebut what CoreLogic has said, that when fully 
implemented, half of today's mortgages would not qualify under the QM 
rule. This is not fair.
  Mr. Chairman, somebody has to protect consumers from the CFPB. 
Consumers, yes, they have to be protected

[[Page 3560]]

from Wall Street, but they have to be protected from Washington as 
well.
  You do not protect consumers by having unelected, unaccountable 
bureaucrats in Washington whose average salary is over $175,000--salary 
and benefits--to somehow say: I am from Washington. I am smarter than 
you. I will decide whether or not you get a mortgage.
  It is arrogant; it is unfair; it is abusive. It must stop. We should 
reject the gentlelady's amendment, and we should adopt the underlying 
legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, 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 Wisconsin 
will be postponed.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Holding) having assumed the chair, Mr. Marchant, 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. 3193) to 
amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to strengthen the 
review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of 
regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________