Consumers First Act

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. John W. Rose), a new member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would commend to the House that, when someone gets into fundamental issues of a 5-year term that the only way the Director can be fired is for cause. The Democrats have created an unaccountable bureau of government.

Now, I think what we have today is a bit of buyer's remorse by my Democratic colleagues who created the CFPB in order to be this unaccountable bureau, but headed by a Democrat or a Democratic Presidential appointee. Now that we have a Republican appointee in the CFPB, they want to reorder how the Director has her staff report to her.

That is what a big chunk of this bill does. They want to micromanage the Bureau because they don't like what the current Director is doing.

If we seek to actually have long-term consumer protection within our financial regulators, I think we need a bipartisan board to oversee an agency like this. I think it is a fundamentally different agency when you have a bipartisan board and it looks and acts more like the Securities and Exchange Commission that has long-term, lasting buy-in by both parties and by the American public for the enforcement actions that they take and gives investors confidence in that area.

On this side of the ledger, what we said on the Republican side during the Dodd-Frank debate and we have said consistently since then is, if you want a lasting Bureau, you need to have a bipartisan board. And funny enough, I think that was originally a bipartisan idea, and it has now become mostly a Republican idea.

What I would commend is, if we want to get into issues of reforming the Bureau, we need to get into the structural reforms about appropriations and a bipartisan board and inspector general to oversee an agency such as this rather than tinkering around the edges about reporting structures within the Bureau or the naming of the Bureau.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I inquire from Chairwoman Waters if she is prepared to close.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What I would say, Madam Chair, is that this bill does nothing to protect consumers. This is all about the reporting structure, the organization chart within the CFPB. In fact, in 21 pages of findings in this bill, the next 21 pages of legislative text does nothing to answer the fundamental questions raised in the first 21 pages.

Moreover, the reforms that are necessary weren't even considered by the Democrat majority. So we want to protect consumers. I think we all want to protect consumers. Where there is malfeasance and where there is wrongdoing, we will seek it out and we will have bipartisan cooperation for that proper oversight by this branch of government.

One area where we can have bipartisan work is the Military Lending Act. We want to make sure that those who are serving in the Armed Forces are protected by those who seek to do financial wrongdoing and perpetrate financial wrongdoing. This is an area where Congressman Andy Barr of Kentucky has authored a bill. He offered it as an amendment-- and it was rejected by the Rules Committee--that would have made this otherwise subpar bill much better in effect, and it would have actually had a positive impact on the people whom we all seek to protect.

I think it is important that our colleagues understand part of the reason why we should oppose this bill. I am prepared to close, but I will wait for the majority to finish with their speakers before I will do so, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, let me close by saying what I said briefly in debate. This bill is about buyer's remorse.

I would say to my colleague from Massachusetts who raised the issue about Wells Fargo, there was a bipartisan hearing. Chairwoman Waters called the hearing. We had bipartisan questioning of the Wells Fargo CEO. We have taken bipartisan work on the oversight of regulators and the regulated when it came to malfeasance by Wells Fargo and some of the employees who were within that firm. There was a bipartisan level of cooperation there.

I would also highlight, to my colleague from Massachusetts, that it was not the regulators who found the malfeasance of Wells Fargo, it was the good and wise reporting of the Los Angeles Times. Through investigative journalism, they found the malfeasance, the bad actors, and the bad policies within Wells Fargo--not the regulators. That is a failure of the regulators. It is a failure of the CFPB. We have yet to have a hearing about those failures.

Let me say from the outset about this bill; it proves what Republicans have said since the passage of Dodd-Frank: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unaccountable.

We hear my Democrat colleagues complain about the actions of a legal overseer of the Bureau, Mick Mulvaney, and now the complaints about the Republican-appointed Director, Kathy Kraninger. We are here today because Democrats regret that during Dodd-Frank they didn't go far enough by mandating outcomes by this Bureau, because they didn't consider that a Republican could actually be a leader of that Bureau and they may not like the action of that unaccountable Director.

They have buyer's remorse, and, unfortunately, they have decided to advance legislation that does nothing to create a more responsible CFPB over the long term. Instead of taking this opportunity to work together, to bring transparency and accountability to the CFPB, the majority is moving a bill that does little more than advance their political agenda and micromanage the Bureau.

H.R. 1500 codifies and recreates offices inside the CFPB, some of which are given more authority and some of which, like the Office of Cost Benefit Analysis, are given less.

H.R. 1500 actually directs what Bureau staff can refer to the Bureau as in public. Now, let me explain: if it is called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under this bill, it is okay. If it is called the CFPB, that is okay. If it is referred to as the Bureau, a law has actually been broken under this bill.

That is one of the more substantive changes in the bill, actually. I don't think it is wise legislating by Congress.

That represents the policy side of the legislation. One look at this bill's findings is enough to tell Members what H.R. 1500 is really about.

There are more pages of findings than there are of actual legislative text. The issues they raise in the findings sections, however, are not remedied in the legislative text part of the bill.

In a series of disparaging statements, former Acting Director Mick Mulvaney, a former colleague of ours here in the House and member of the Financial Services Committee, and Director Kathy Kraninger are vilified as irresponsible zealots.

Specifically, the text describes former Acting Director Mulvaney as ``anticonsumer,'' ``destructive,'' and ``inane,'' only working ``to hamstring the good work, passion, and the capacity of dedicated staff.''

The findings also opine that ``the appointment of Mr. Mulvaney aimed to diminish and undermine the mission of the Consumer Bureau.''

This is a highly suspect section of legislation before this House. I don't think it is becoming of this House to opine in this way.

While Mick Mulvaney may be many things, he is not inane nor is he anticonsumer. Now, I may say, jokingly, that I find him destructive, probably destructive with his humor, but not destructive in the work that he achieves in public policy. I think he is a good public servant, serving our country admirably; and, with the work that he did at the Bureau, he was trying to achieve the best results possible for consumers, for institutions, for financial safety and soundness, and for the economy at large. He did good work.

With that context in mind, we know that this bill is not about helping consumers. This bill is about constraining Republican Directors from making decisions they believe are in the best interest of the agency.

In the Financial Services Committee markup, Republicans offered amendments that would have made responsible changes to the Bureau. Had those amendments been adopted, the majority would have a much better bill.

An inspector general would have provided oversight of the Director, ensuring the mission of the agency is not undermined. That is important for all branches of government.

Subjecting the Bureau to annual appropriations would have also ensured congressional oversight of the CFPB, or the Bureau, and a voice in the prioritization of Bureau functions.

A GAO study examining the efficacy in which the Bureau meets its statutory obligations would have actually yielded insight into the workings of the otherwise opaque Bureau.

But those amendments were not adopted. The choice was made to move forward with a partisan declaration instead of meaningful bipartisan legislation. That is unfortunate.

Thankfully, there will be a Senate, and the Senate has a different view on this. It is my hope that this bill does not become law.

Unfortunately, we can't improve this legislation through a meaningful amendment process because of the nature of the rule passed by the Rules Committee.

We are merely adding more political fodder for press releases as a result of this bill. H.R. 1500 will pass the House and will go nowhere in the Senate.

The Financial Services Committee will then turn to the next issue. Hopefully, it is bipartisan legislating, where Chairwoman Waters and I have had success in the past, and I hope we have success in the future.

But, to the American people, I say that the Financial Services Committee Republicans remain committed to bettering this organization of the CFPB. We will protect consumers, while maximizing financial choice. We will work to advance solutions, not sound bites. It is my sincere hope that we can do that with cooperation from the majority.

I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1500, legislation that puts politics first, not consumers.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this bill, this amendment, reinstates an older form of regulation of HMDA data. This is the data that is collected when you have a home mortgage. It is required data.

Under the old regulation, there were 48 pieces of data that had to be collected. Under the new regulation, it is 23. That is a modest change that was agreed upon by a bipartisan vote of this House and the Senate and signed into law last Congress under S. 2155. A changed regulatory structure, still collecting the data.

The most important thing this bill does, however, is it subjects small credit unions and small banks to a higher level of regulation than contemplated under the new regulations and the new law.

We are rolling back to an older form, whereby community institutions, small banks, and small credit unions have been disproportionately disadvantaged in the mortgage marketplace. They have been given a higher regulatory burden, a higher cost structure, which means that they are out of the home mortgage game.

The net effect of this amendment is that you will have small credit unions and small banks not being able to participate as fully as under existing regulations in home mortgage making, and I think that is one of the deep flaws of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. This rolls back to an older form of regulation, not a new, modern form of regulation.

We still collect very important data from mortgage makers, those that are actually in the mortgage marketplace. What we did was right-size our regulation so that small financial institutions like community banks and credit unions could be in the mortgage marketplace once again.

This amendment rolls back those reforms and hurts small community banks and hurts small credit unions in a way that this body, I don't think, wants to support.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I think the gentleman from Wisconsin has authored a very good amendment. It is a constructive amendment in this legislative process to make a bad bill less bad.

It strikes the findings sections, not the legislation contained therein. It is the egregious findings and the personalities in the first 21 pages that the gentleman removes and says we should use the arm of Congress to look at those findings of fact and to get a report from the General Accountability Office on those matters raised in the findings section.

I urge my colleagues to support this very good amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from North Carolina for raising this issue of student loans. It is a very important issue for a whole generation of Americans.

But let's rewind and understand why we are in the position we are in with student loans. In 2009 and 2010, there was a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate that, in order to pass ObamaCare, they needed pay-fors to pass the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, the formal name of what we commonly call ObamaCare.

One of the major pay-fors was the nationalization of student lending. So now we have a generation of American students that have a crushing debt burden because of a government program. Ninety percent of student loans are done through the Federal Government.

So let's get to the fundamentals of this reform, so that consumers can have choice, students can have choice.

This amendment doesn't do that.

The memorandum of understanding between the CFPB and the U.S. Department of Education outlines the parameters to share student loan information. The Department of Education was clear in its letter terminating the memorandum of understanding, stating:

It takes exception to the CFPB unilaterally expanding its oversight role to include the Department's contracted Federal student loan servicers. The Department has full oversight responsibility for Federal student loans under Federal law.

The Department letter also expressed concern that:

CFPB's intervention in this area adds confusion to borrowers who now hear conflicting guidance related to Title IV of student loan services for which the Department is responsible.

So the memorandum of understanding was terminated because the two separate departments, the CFPB and the Department of Education, were sending information to students who were trying to make payments, some were trying to catch up on payments, and they are getting two different pieces of guidance.

So to reinstate this provides more confusion for the very people that are being crushed by a generation of debt. So it is a deeply problematic amendment, not because it has an ill intent.

The very issue that we are trying to confront here is a very real one to these students, to their families, and to the lost prosperity and economic opportunities that they are experiencing because of the structure of this debt load and because of this Federalized approach to student lending.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, let me state this clearly. Dodd-Frank conferred authority over private student lending to the CFPB. It did not grant the CFPB a role in Federal student lending that is overseen by the Department of Education.

So this amendment is a counterpoint to what is existing law. The memorandum of understanding was terminated for good reason.

This amendment is nothing more than an attempt to undo another Federal agency's action without understanding the context in which it was terminated.

I think the fundamental issue here is consumer choice, student choice. We lack that currently.

When 90 percent of student lending is run by the Federal Government, we have a problem. That is a nationalized set of lending.

With more consumer choice, with better technology, with real innovation, we can give students better opportunities and better choices. Those things are happening in the private sector, but in a limited way, because the Federal Government is so deeply involved in student lending.

Let's fix that issue of student lending with good reforms, with proper innovation, with more choices.

Madam Chair, this amendment does not achieve those things, sadly, and I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I believe this amendment will divert important resources away from pursuing fair lending violations. I know that is not my colleague's intent.

We currently have an annual report requirement under this very provision. I do not think a monthly report would give added clarity to Members of Congress.

Moreover, when it comes to Federal regulatory agencies under the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee, I know of no other monthly reporting requirement we impose upon regulators, and so this would be inconsistent with other pieces of financial regulation and the law that we currently have.

If Congress wants to control more of how the CFPB is using its resources, we should bring them under the annual appropriations process. That is a fundamental reform which is not included in the underlying bill.

Madam Chair, I would say that while my colleague has a very important issue he is raising here and trying to clarify on the actions of the CFPB and ensuring that fair lending is enforced reasonably, I concur with him that that is an important and good thing, but a monthly reporting requirement will provide no additional clarity for us as public policymakers.

Madam Chair, I stand in opposition to the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, in closing, I want to commend the author of this amendment, who is using this opportunity to highlight his support of fair lending enforcement by the CFPB. I commend him for that. I commend my colleague for that. I believe he is a thoughtful legislator.

I reluctantly oppose this amendment, given the fact that we have already provided in law and regulation an annual report of this same data, and I believe that resources would be better spent on protecting consumers directly around fair lending violations rather than reporting on a monthly basis what they do on an annual basis.

Madam Chair, while I oppose this bill, I certainly commend my colleague for his passion, his care for consumer protection.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

I am opposed to the amendment.

I would ask the amendment's author, if I am reading this correctly, that on a quarterly basis they will disclose the previous 12 months' action.

Am I reading the legislative text?

I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for clarifying.

Madam Chair, I would say that having a quarterly requirement for an annual report doesn't seem like the right approach. We currently have an annual report, so what this amendment does is simply say, on a quarterly basis, they must provide an annual report rather than have an actual annual report annually. So this is really about micromanaging the Bureau.

The Bureau currently reports on an annual basis, as the Congresswoman from Massachusetts outlined. Moreover, it not only changes that, it also changes what is currently in the middle of a 90-day public comment period, which is the regulations put forward on May 7 by the Bureau on fair debt collection practices.

What this amendment does is simply say that, for debt collection purposes, you can't text or email a consumer. That is what this amendment does. That is not modern. That is not the nature of how we communicate with our smartphones in today's environment.

What this amendment would do is drive up the cost of healthcare, of collecting on student loans. By not being able to communicate with consumers in a modern way, they will not have the follow-up necessary so that consumers will have some knowledge that perhaps they owe money that they didn't otherwise know about.

And simply saying snail mail is the way to go does not seem like what this amendment should be about nor what we should be about as a Congress. We should be using all elements of technology to make sure that our financial institutions, our government can actually communicate with people in the way that they see fit. This amendment limits that.

I think this amendment is unproductive. The public should have the right to opine on the proposal put forward by the CFPB, and the public should also have the right to be communicated with by their financial service providers in a way that they see fit.

So, with that, I do ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am prepared to close.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to say to the author of this legislation, I understand your intention. We have a rule that is out for comment right now to get the public feedback on this.

Moreover, I would say, under existing law, harassment by debt collectors is not permitted, period, under current law. What is prevented, though, is somebody who is trying to collect debts from actually texting someone. That is a problem.

I don't think that is the intention of this amendment, but that is the net effect, because the regulations put forward say that you can text, you can email, something that the Debt Collection Act, written before email, written before text messaging, did not contemplate. We are updating this so that people can be communicated with in a modern way.

There is nothing more annoying than finding on your voice mail some random voice mail from somebody you have never heard of, and you are supposed to call this random person and provide them information. How about a text, right?

When I got a text from my pharmacy that said, ``Do you want to reorder your prescription?'' and I texted back, ``Yes,'' that saved me a phone call. I liked it.

When talking about student debt, if somebody doesn't even know that they have missed a payment and the debt collector calls and they have got a full voice mail, they may never know that they missed a payment. If they got a text or if they got an email, that may be the way that they actually want to be communicated with.

What we are talking about is innovation; what we are talking about is modern communication; and what we are talking about is reasonable regulation to ensure that consumers, especially students, are able to be communicated with in the way that they seek and the way that they like.

This amendment is premature because there is notice and comment out under the rule that this seeks to undo, and this amendment is unproductive because it limits the rights of individuals to be communicated with in the way that they seek. That is what I would say.

To Members of Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I would also say that they are going back to an old system. If they don't want modernization under the current rule so that people can be communicated with in the way that they seek, I would tell Members of Congress to not text or email their constituents but only mail them through the U.S. Postal Service.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

There is landmark legislation in the 1990s that required a free credit report. The underlying components of a free credit report are given directly by the agencies to the people. What this would require is the CFPB to go purchase the FICO, or take the FICO score, which is derived from the underlying credit reports.

The underlying credit reports are much more meaningful in terms of the value they provide to consumers. The flaws that they have in them, consumers can remedy.

We currently have existing law that does the right thing here. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this, while a thoughtful idea, a bad idea in how it is constructed.

Madam Chair, it is insulting to hear a colleague say that the other party does not care about the consumer. That is absolutely wrong. It is not becoming to the House, and it is not becoming to the debate on this House floor.

We care about consumers; we all do. It is about how we take care of them and how we defend them.

This is a bad amendment, badly constructed. We already have a free credit report. We don't need the CFPB to get between consumers and their free credit report. This amendment does that, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Chairwoman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Madam Chair, this is a reasonable amendment that highlights the issues facing young borrowers.

As I said in previous amendment debate, in 2009 and 2010, the student loan industry was nationalized. Ninety percent of student loans are government loans. It is the government that is putting and saddling a generation of students in unsustainable debt. That is deeply problematic.

As a result of the pay-for of the ACA and as a result of the pay-for under ObamaCare, that industry is now 90 percent government. That is problematic.

This amendment doesn't deal with the substance of that, though it does deal with the risk factors associated with young consumers and student borrowers. I think it is important that we highlight the needs of young borrowers, the needs of students, and this amendment will provide that type of data on an annual basis. I think it is a good amendment.

I appreciate the author for her willingness to engage in this debate, but also highlighting the need for us to think more thoughtfully here in Congress, think more deeply around financial literacy.

We passed a bipartisan resolution a month ago that highlighted the National Endowment for Financial Education and the needs of financial literacy, the basic understanding of interest rates, the time value of money, and basic fundamentals of financial literacy that young people need to be aware of and the population needs to be aware of more generally. This amendment gets to that subject matter that is a bipartisan concern and is a bipartisan approach to that bipartisan concern.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the Congresswoman for offering it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, I want to close by reminding Congress and reminding my colleagues that in 2009 and 2010 the Democrat House, Democrat Senate, and Democrat President nationalized the student lending industry. Ninety percent of student loans last year were done by the government. Only 10 percent were done by the private sector.

That is deeply problematic. It is government that is saddling a generation of students with debt that is unsustainable for them. The lost economic potential as a result of that is

deeply problematic for our Nation and for the individuals who are affected here.

To highlight the risk factors facing young consumers and student borrowers is the right thing. For our Congress to have that proper data is important, but do remember the nature of what is happening in the student loan industry is being driven by a proactive decision of Congress to nationalize that area of student lending. That is problematic. We need to resolve that issue. It is an issue I want to continue to highlight in any debate that we have around student lending.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Madam Chair, this amendment would ensure at least one member of the Consumer Advisory Board is an expert in consumer privacy. I think Congress has a proper role that they can exert in the make-up of boards, advisory boards, or make-up of commissions, and I think this is reasonable legislating around that.

We constantly hear from both financial firms and their regulators that cybersecurity and insufficient data privacy standards are significant threats to consumers and financial stability.

Moreover, as employees of the Federal Government, we know of Federal Government data breaches of Federal employees. We have to do more to make sure that we stop that and stop malicious state actors from these cyberattacks.

Billions of people were impacted by data breaches and cyberattacks in 2018 alone. The problem is only growing, and the threats are becoming much more sophisticated. Given the importance of this conversation, ensuring that one individual on the Consumer Advisory Board has consumer privacy expertise offers a reasonable solution.

Madam Chair, I commend my colleague from Hawaii for offering this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

I commend my colleague for offering this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. It is a reasonable step for Congress to say, clearly, that data breaches, cybersecurity, and personal privacy matter. As a matter of public policy, we need to be interested in it.

I would also urge my colleagues and reach out to the other side of the aisle for us to have a deeper conversation about cyber data and privacy. We need to legislate in these areas.

Without our taking action, we are allowing the Europeans to set the global standard, and we are allowing the European Union to set the standard for our data and privacy here in the United States. That is not appropriate. As American policymakers, we should be interested in legislating in a bipartisan way to achieve that type of data privacy and cybersecurity that is necessary for the American economy, not just in the short run, not just for the next election, but for the next generation to make sure that they are safe and secure.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I commend my colleague for raising this important issue, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this amendment will help ensure that servicemembers, veterans, and their families have representation on the CFPB's Consumer Advisory Board.

As I stated with the previous amendment, I think it is fair and just for Congress to make the decision on who should be members of the advisory boards, various agencies, and the make-up of boards and commissions as well as for government.

Congress' action in the past ensures that men and women serving our Nation do not fall victim to fraud and unscrupulous lenders, and this amendment is consistent with those efforts.

Moreover, I think there is a missed opportunity in this bill. Mr. Barr, my colleague from Kentucky, offered an amendment before the Rules Committee to this bill to say that the Military Lending Act gives explicit authority to the CFPB. That amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee. I think it was a bad decision.

If my colleague supports defending those in the military from unscrupulous action, I would encourage him to cosponsor Mr. Barr's amendment because it is conforming with his very concern about making sure that military families and veterans are protected. The Military Lending Act and the supervisory authority to the CFPB is just the way to do that.

I am supportive of that measure. It should have bipartisan support and should have been made in order under this amendment.

So, both sides of the aisle have these concerns. I am grateful that the gentleman from Maine and the gentleman from Texas have offered a good amendment.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, though I am not opposed.

Madam Chair, this amendment will direct the CFPB to appoint representatives of the military- and veteran-serving financial institutions to advisory committees. It is another step in ensuring servicemembers, veterans, and their families have a voice in consumer protection.

Military- and veteran-serving financial institutions are unique and can provide the CFPB advisory boards with insights into the biggest risks facing veterans, servicemembers, and their families.

I do concur that there should be more military representation across all fronts at the CFPB and across the government.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank my friend from Colorado for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

It is a close-knit bunch of folks up there on the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker. If you have not been by recently, you ought to come by. There are only 13 of us there. It is easy to remember everybody's name, but you don't go to the Rules Committee when you have important bipartisan legislation to bring to the House floor. You go to the suspension calendar for that.

You go to the Rules Committee when you have contentious pieces of legislation to bring to the floor. I regret that we are here today on things that are absolutely contentious that could have been absolutely partnership bills.

I want to reference first H.R. 1500. That is the bill my friend from Colorado spoke about as it relates to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He is absolutely right. The way this Congress set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when Democrats were running this institution and President Obama was in the White House was to make it a completely administration-driven agency with no accountability to Congress whatsoever. That was a mistake.

But the folks who set it up liked the team that was running it at the time, and so our efforts in the minority to stop that from happening were rebuffed. Now we are here today, Madam Speaker, and you might think that we have a list of legislative fixes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Not so.

I encourage you to pick up a copy of H.R. 1500 just to see what those fixes

might be. It is a 40-page bill. You have to get to page 21 before accusations and assertions against former Director Mick Mulvaney end, and the important work, like changing the way we reference the agency by name, begins.

I don't have any language today. No amendments were offered in the Rules Committee last night, Madam Speaker, to talk about all of the things that former Director Cordray did while he was there. The list of things that he did that I don't like are long. The list of things that he did that I thought violated the actual text of the law is pretty long.

But he is gone, and we have the ability to fix anything we want to fix that he did. So no amendments were offered to impugn the integrity of the former director. Well, not the former director, Mr. Cordray; but the former director, Mick Mulvaney, yes, acting director. There are 21 pages of a 40-page bill dedicated to personal attacks on the former director.

Madam Speaker, if we wanted to do something about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that brought its authority out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and right back here to where it belongs in Article I, we would make this agency subject to congressional appropriations. This is a bipartisan issue.

If you want to find something that we agree on as an institution, let's talk about making Article I the lawmaker in this country, rather than Article II. Let's talk about taking it out of the White House's hands and putting it back into the people's hands on Capitol Hill. You will not find that idea in these pages.

It is a disappointment because we could be doing something in partnership. Standing for consumers is a shared value, not a divisive one.

I go now to the bill coming out of the Ways and Means Committee, H.R. 1994. Madam Speaker, as my friend from Colorado referenced, this bill passed unanimously out of the Ways and Means Committee. Unanimously.

Take a look at the men and women on the Ways and Means Committee. I think there are 42 of them. These are not shrinking violets on the Ways and Means Committee. I see a couple of them out here. I won't call anybody out by name--Mr. Panetta--but they are not shrinking violets on this committee. These are serious public policy advocates who represent very diverse parts of the country and who fight hard for the values that their constituents represent.

Unanimously, they came together as a committee, Madam Speaker, to change the rules for retirement, to make it easier for families to save; to change the rules around college savings plans so that families who ran into challenges in secondary years, families whose kids develop special needs and might not be going on to college, but who have very real needs today, to allow those dollars to be tapped by those families to serve the educational needs of their children.

Unanimously it passed the committee. In fact, I will read from the committee report. This is not something that was done lightly in committee, Madam Speaker. We are talking about hundreds of pages of legislation, hundreds of pages of a committee report. This was a thoughtfully designed and crafted piece of legislation.

The committee said this:

The committee believes that expanding 529 plans will help

families save for education expenses that meet each family's

unique needs.

We run into that problem often, Madam Speaker. We try to do something that is good for America, and it turns out that 330 million Americans have different needs and priorities. So the Ways and Means avoided a one-size-fits-all solution, recognizing those unique needs. I will read on.

The committee says:

By allowing tax-free distributions for apprenticeship

expenses, homeschooling expenses, student loan repayments,

elementary and secondary expenses, in addition to tuition,

families can customize the use of their education savings to

make education more affordable.

We didn't read that on the headline of any major newspaper when the Ways and Means passed that unanimously. I am sure there was something in the headlines of that major newspaper about wars in foreign lands. I am sure there was something in the newspaper that day about partisan politics and how folks were poking each other with sharp rhetorical sticks.

There was not a word about how the men and women of the people's House on the Ways and Means Committee came together unanimously, not because it wasn't hard to craft solutions. It is hard to craft solutions, but they came together unanimously on consensus language to move out of committee.

It sounds like I am going to tell a story with a happy ending, Madam Speaker, and I should be. This should be a story about how we get things done, but what happened last night that you also won't see on the front page of the paper is, we took this consensus product that was passed unanimously by Republicans and Democrats, and we took it up there to the Rules Committee.

On a straight party-line vote, we ripped out all of the language protecting families who were trying to help their children at home; children who may not be getting everything they need through the public schools and so they get additional education at home; families that may have opted out of the public school system because they couldn't get what their children need, and they are homeschooling their children.

This language that was agreed upon unanimously in a bipartisan way, was ripped out in a party-line vote in the Rules Committee last night. We will never vote on it in this Chamber, Madam Speaker.

The Ways and Means Committee in a long committee report, long committee language, they deliberated over this language and concluded that the right thing to do was to help all American families. But somewhere between that unanimous vote in committee and late last night in the Rules Committee, the decision came down from on high--and by on high I do mean your side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, because when you sit in the Speaker's chair, you have that kind of authority. The Rules Committee is, in fact, the Speaker's committee--that said we are going to rip this language out.

We offered an amendment last night. And I think it is only right that folks come to sit here to watch the people's business. They think that we are going to operate a transparent building here, and we work very hard to do that.

We offered an amendment last night in the Rules Committee to allow a simple vote of the people's House on this provision. If you don't like parents supplementing their students' education at home, so be it. I don't understand it, but so be it. But let's have a vote on it here just like they did in the Ways and Means Committee. On a party-line basis, the amendment to allow the people's House to have a vote on this provision was defeated.

You might not have noticed it when the Reading Clerk was reading, Madam Speaker. I don't want to tell you how long that took to read. We have a lot of things packaged in this bill. You will have to go all the way down to the 12th section of the rule, and the important words are: modified by the amendment printed in part B of the Rules Committee report, modified by part B of the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report.

I will translate that for you, Madam Speaker. That means with no vote of this institution whatsoever and with no consultation or input from the Ways and Means Committee that crafted this legislation, we are going to revoke all benefits that would have gone to families who cannot find the services they need outside the home and, thus, are paying for those services inside the home.

Representative Mitchell came to the Rules Committee to testify on this amendment last night, Madam Speaker. He said that his family is blessed enough to have the financial resources to take care of their special needs family member. But he talked about all the American families who he has met in his district--the Speaker has them in her district; the gentleman from Colorado has them in his district; and I have them in my district--who don't have the financial means and who don't have that sense of security.

The Ways and Means Committee in its wisdom unanimously said let's provide that security to American families. The Rules Committee in an error

in judgment repealed it because six Members voted ``yes'' last night. That is all it took. All it took to silence an institution of 435, Madam Speaker, was six Members voting to include this one seemingly innocuous line that disadvantages families and children all across this Nation.

It is another missed opportunity, Madam Speaker. We could have been here today celebrating the things that we do here together. We could have been here celebrating shared values. We could have been here today making a difference that your constituents have asked of you and my constituents have asked of me.

From the start of this process, for the weeks in committee, and for the weeks since the committee has passed it, we were doing exactly that. In about 6 minutes of voting last night, we erased it all. It took weeks to build bipartisan consensus, Madam Speaker. It took moments to erase it all.

We have choices in this institution, Madam Speaker. We made the wrong one in the Rules Committee last night.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and give us a chance to make a right one. But we only get so many bites at this apple. The trust of the American people in us as an institution and in us as individuals is not infinite. If we betray that trust often enough, it will disappear forever.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, you heard the earnestness with which Mr. Panetta just described the committee's work. You can go through every line of the committee's work, and you are going to find a story similar to the one that Mr. Panetta has told about his family that applies to hundreds of thousands of families across the country.

That is what this work product was. That is what the committee spent weeks and weeks putting together. That is, candidly, what my constituents think we do up here every day: find problems, find partners, craft solutions, and bring them to the floor.

My friend from Colorado said that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and I think he is exactly right. I haven't voted on the perfect bill since I have been here, Madam Speaker. You may have had that opportunity; I have not. I vote on bills that move the ball in the right direction. Even had I been king for a day, I couldn't have done it better.

But the flip side of ``don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'' is that this bill passed out of the Ways and Means Committee unanimously. It was perfect if bipartisanship was your goal. It is now good legislation. But with this change, it is perfectly partisan.

I would advise my colleagues that we spent a lot of time when we were in control--and I had the pleasure of leading the rule, as my friend from Colorado does today--protecting our Members from tough votes. You may not know, Madam Speaker, but the way the Rules Committee works, we could have offered waivers. If you wanted to strike protections for homeschooling families, if you wanted to strike protections from families who need to buy more than what they can find in their public school system for their special needs child, you could have brought an amendment to the floor of this House and said: I don't like those protections for those families. I want to strike them.

But then you would have had to have stood up and said that whatever your ax was that you were grinding that day took priority over those families. No Member in this institution wants to do that, which is why it comes to the Rules Committee as a seemingly innocuous line in a committee report and why it only takes six members to vote ``yes'' on it up there to make it a part of the underlying bill. It pretends that the committee voted on it when, in fact, they did not.

If we want to vote on these issues, then let's vote on these issues. But I will just tell my friends here in their fifth month of leadership that they will begin to rue the day that they told their new Members they could come to Capitol Hill, be a United States Congressperson, and not have to take tough votes.

We began to rue that day when we started down that road, and you only get one chance to start again.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to associate myself with everything my friend from Massachusetts just said. Every line of this bill, as crafted by the Ways and Means Committee, was designed to make a difference in a family's life, a difference that every single one of us can be proud of, and no one has a single bit of concern about that language.

The concern is that, instead of being down here celebrating this bipartisan product, in the dark of night it was converted.

My friend from Colorado is absolutely right. Not only was the home- schooling provision stripped out; a provision for Gold Star families was put in.

Now, I will just tell you, if you have any concerns, Madam Speaker, let me speak on behalf of the Republican Conference. If you want to stand up for Gold Star families, I have got Members who want to stand with you. I don't have some; I have them all.

To be fair, that has nothing to do with being a Republican. If I go to the Democratic side of the aisle and look for folks to stand with Gold Star families, I won't find one; I will find them all.

That is yet another thing that unites us, and kudos to Richard Neal, as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, for taking an opportunity to make the bill better in that way.

I happen to have his manager's amendment here, Madam Speaker. This is the language that was taken up by the Rules Committee last night and, again, stuck in because only six people voted ``yes.'' And page after page is dealing with those Gold Star families and trying to right that clerical error in drafting.

It is in the middle of page 3, with looks like seven words: ``In section 302, strike subsections (b) and (d).'' You might not know what section 302 is and what sections (b) and (d) are, Madam Speaker. I will read some of that to you, again, from the Democratic chairman's committee report, from the unanimous legislation that was passed.

The provision allows tax-free treatment to apply to distributions made for certain additional qualifying expenses on behalf of designated beneficiaries attending elementary and secondary schools.

This is the offensive language that my friend referenced that some Members of his caucus had problems with that needed to be taken out. Here it comes. And I don't mean to offend you by reading these words, Madam Speaker, but I am just going to read them directly because I feel the burden to do it.

In addition to tuition, tax-free treatment would apply to a distribution made for expenses for fees, tutoring, special-needs services, books, supplies, and other equipment incurred in connection with the attendance of elementary school.

I am aghast. I am aghast that that is what the Ways and Means Committee decided to do. I am just going to tell you again, Madam Speaker.

The committee, in its wisdom, unanimously decided that we should speak up for families who have problems with expenses for fees, academic tutoring, special-needs services, books, supplies, and other equipment incurred in connection with their child's attendance in elementary school.

That is what this big to-do was about today. If you want to have a vote on the floor of the House that says, ``I don't want children in elementary school to have any help,'' we can have that vote. I think it would lose, and so do my friends on the other side of the aisle.

That is why we are not going to have that vote. We are going to sneak it in, in the rule, and never be able to speak on it.

I appreciate my friend raising the Gold Star issue because that is yet another area of agreement, like the issue my friend from Massachusetts spoke about, like the issue my friend from California spoke about.

Madam Speaker, when you are in the majority in this Chamber, it is easy to get legislation passed. You control the Rules Committee. You control the votes on the board. You get to jam everything through.

I know. I spent 8 years in the majority, and that is the way every day is when you are in the majority.

But you don't have to jam everything through. Occasionally--just occasionally--there are bills, like this bill from the Ways and Means Committee, where every single line is dedicated to solving problems, problems that affect your district and problems that affect my district.

Occasionally--just occasionally--we find Members on both sides of the aisle sitting down, rolling up their sleeves, looking for solutions instead of talking

points. And, when that happens, you produce good legislation like the bill Chairman Neal brought before us today.

We could have been down here celebrating that legislation, Madam Speaker. Instead, we are talking about the efforts to unwind it. And, for the life of me, I just don't understand why that is the path we have chosen.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I don't have any speakers remaining. I have a powerful previous question vote that I would like to describe, and I am prepared to do that at this time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We can't always get exercised about every single line in every single bill. We would never get anything done.

We have an amendment process so that, if you get exercised about a particular line in a particular bill, you can bring your amendment to the floor and we vote on it.

We are going to get into the appropriations process soon. When we spend money, it turns out to be one of those issues that people feel strongly about. We are going to entertain hundreds of amendments-- Republican amendments, Democratic amendments.

Some Republican amendments are going to pass; some are going to fail. Some Democrat amendments are going to pass; some are going to fail.

But we are going to work the will of the body, and we are going to do the best we can to get to a final package that we move across the street to the Senate.

My frustration in this moment, Madam Speaker, isn't that we have the inability of moving things forward and discussing ideas. We do have the ability to do that, and we did that well in the Ways and Means Committee.

My frustration is that, when people don't like the way the committee unanimously, in a bipartisan way, did something because they have bipartisan concerns--and, to be clear, the concerns about this language are not Republican concerns. This language was not stricken because Republicans objected. This language was not stricken to satisfy any bipartisan concern of any kind.

This was purely a partisan exercise. And if you want to have a partisan exercise, I know 435 Members who are here all day, who will come down here to the House floor and vote on it, and we can do that.

So I want to offer that opportunity, Madam Speaker. For folks who think this is about public policy, as it was when the committee considered it in a bipartisan way, I want to offer an amendment to this bill.

If we defeat the previous question, Madam Speaker, I will offer an amendment that strikes this offending section. What that means in layman's terms is the bill would contain the Gold Star family language that is very important to every Member of this Chamber. It would contain the pension language that is very important to every Member of this Chamber.

It would contain every line designed in a bipartisan fashion by the Ways and Means Committee to make a difference in families' lives, but it would strike the majority's effort, with only six votes on the Rules Committee, to eliminate protections for home-schooling families altogether.

Vote against the previous question, defeat the previous question, and we can restore the bipartisan consensus language the Ways and Means Committee crafted, and we will add the Gold Star family language that my friend from Colorado and I agree on.

I don't serve in the Ways and Means Committee, Madam Speaker. They have got big ideas they have to work on over there. I don't serve on the Financial Services Committee. They have got big ideas they have to work on over there.

I serve in the Rules Committee. My job is to get bills to the House floor and to make sure that voices are heard on perfecting that language.

If we defeat the previous question, we can achieve exactly the partisan goal that the majority wants, but we can achieve it by actually having a vote of the House on that goal.

I think the American people are tired of things being done in secret. I think they are tired of things being done without the full story being told.

I talk to my friends on the other side of the aisle regularly, daily, hourly, Madam Speaker. I know the hunger from your side of the aisle to deliver on behalf of the American people. I know that hunger. I know the hunger on your side of the aisle to roll up sleeves and do the hard things. Because the easy things somebody else has already taken care of. All that is left for you and me are the hard things.

Going to the well of partisanship, pulling your sharp stick out of your quiver and poking the other team, those aren't the hard things. Those are the easy things. And, candidly, those aren't the surprising things. They have become all too commonplace.

I don't get to run this institution, but I do get a vote in it. I see opportunities for partnership, not because everybody wants it, but because it has to happen. Republican President, Republican Senate, Democratic House: The only way we succeed, Madam Speaker, is to succeed together. That is the only pathway forward.

If anybody in this Chamber ran for their seat because they wanted to stand up here and talk about it for 2 years, we have got a great pathway for you. But if you ran for this seat because you actually wanted to get it done, these bills today aren't doing it.

The Senate won't consider them. The President is not going to sign them. But there are ideas in these bills, Madam Speaker, as expressed unanimously by the Ways and Means Committee, that America is hungry for and you and I can deliver.

Let's exceed expectations today. Defeat the previous question, and let's restore this bill to the bipartisan compromise that the Ways and Means Committee created.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1500 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act, which restores the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, so it can carry out its mission of protecting consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices by financial institutions.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created by Congress following the financial crisis in order to ensure that there is an agency in place with the sole, dedicated purpose of protecting every consumer of financial products and services and holding bad actors fully accountable when consumers are harmed.

Under the leadership of its first Director, Richard Cordray, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a resounding success. During that time, the agency put nearly $12 billion back in the pockets of over 30 million consumers who were harmed by financial institutions. The agency put in place important new protections so that consumers no longer had to worry about exploding mortgages, hidden prepaid card fees, or unnecessary foreclosures due to weak servicing standards.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also helped to take the confusing jargon out of various financial

products, such as student loans, by creating tools students can use to compare financial aid and costs when deciding where to go to college.

But Donald Trump and his appointees have made it their mission to destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from within. Mick Mulvaney, who was Trump's Director of the Office of Management and Budget before Trump inappropriately installed him as Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, made it his mission to dismantle the agency from the inside. In fact, enforcement actions have fallen by 75 percent under Trump's appointees, there have been zero public fair lending enforcement actions, Mulvaney originally requested zero dollars from the Fed to fund the CFPB, and the number of employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has declined by 10 percent.

I introduced the Consumers First Act to fix the damage that Mulvaney caused at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. For example, Mulvaney stripped the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity of its supervisory enforcement powers. The Consumers First Act restores those powers.

Mulvaney fired the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's consumer advisory board. The Consumers First Act restores and strengthens the advisory panel to ensure consumers are heard by the agency's leadership.

Mulvaney stacked the senior leadership of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with ideological political appointees. The Consumers First Act limits the number of political appointees at the agency.

Mulvaney stopped the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from supervising its regulated entities for compliance with the Military Lending Act, which is in place to prevent servicemembers from being ripped off. The Consumers First Act directs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to promptly resume Military Lending Act exams.

Mulvaney worked to hide the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's consumer complaint database from the public. The Consumers First Act requires that the consumer complaint database remain publicly accessible so that there is transparency about the complaints consumers are making about financial institutions.

H.R. 1500 puts consumers first by reversing the harmful actions Mulvaney took that we are aware of one by one. Over 50 consumer, civil rights, and labor organizations support the Consumers First Act.

The harm at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is continuing under Director Kathy Kraninger, who appears to be following Mulvaney's lead by rolling back payday lending protections and reducing the collection of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, or HMDA data, which is used to identify discrimination in lending. And she is just getting started. Following general debate on the bill, the House will debate several amendments to undo the harmful actions taken by Director Kraninger.

Congress will not tolerate the Trump administration's anticonsumer actions, and H.R. 1500 will ensure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is able to fulfill its statutory mission to put consumers first.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Committee on Education and Labor, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 17, 2019.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Chairwoman, House Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Waters: I write concerning H.R. 1500, the

``Consumers First Act.'' This bill was primarily referred to

the Committee on Financial Services, and secondarily to the

Committee on Education and Labor. As a result of your having

consulted with me concerning this bill generally, I agree to

forgo consideration of the bill, so the bill may proceed

expeditiously to the House floor.

The Committee takes this action with our mutual

understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1500,

we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter

contained in this or similar legislation, and we will be

appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar

legislation moves forward so we may address any remaining

issue within our Rule X jurisdiction.

In agreeing to forgo consideration, I respectfully request

your support for the appointment of outside conferees from

the Committee on Education and Labor should this bill or

similar language be considered in a conference with the

Senate.

Finally, I would appreciate a response confirming this

understanding and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters

on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during

floor consideration thereof.

Very truly yours,

Rep. Bobby Scott,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) the chair of the Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets.

(Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chair, we have no regrets about how we organized the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the supervisory authority is already in law. All they have to do is implement it.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the chair of the Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development and Insurance on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, it is absolutely unbelievable that the Republicans on the opposite side of the aisle now talk about wanting to work with us after they have done everything possible to undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

We move ahead with restoring it from all the harm that has been done to it.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), a leading senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, this is a consumer bill. My friends on the opposite side of the aisle who would try to kill this bill evidently do not understand that the day is over when predatory lending will go forth in this body.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), the chair of the Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a member of the Ways and Means Committee and always a strong leader on consumer protection issues.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a strong defender of consumers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Chair, I would like to inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I am so proud of this legislation, I am so proud of the members of the Financial Services Committee, and I am so proud of our Democratic Caucus. We have strong support for this legislation. I am so proud of the over 50 consumer, labor, and civil rights organizations who strongly support H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act.

It has been said more than once today that we went through a recession here in this country--almost a depression--in 2008 when predatory lending from the major financial institutions in America caused this recession and caused us to have communities that were devastated--boarded up homes--we had communities, not only where the homes were boarded up, but the weeds were growing up, in many instances animals had taken over the property, and many consumers and homeowners who lost these homes really did not know what had happened to them.

It was predatory lending. It was the tricks that were fostered on innocent people who simply wanted to live the American Dream and own a home. They signed on the dotted line for products and mortgages they didn't understand and could not afford. And they were led into signing on the bottom line because we had predatory lenders who wanted to get them into a situation where they could get some money, perhaps up front, and sell off the products that they were getting signed on up to Wall Street, et cetera, et cetera.

Of course, we worked for 2 years, and it was in 2010 that we were able to put the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau together, which is indeed the centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank reforms. So we had Mr. Cordray who was our first Director who did a magnificent job, and it has been cited here time and time again.

My friends on the opposite side of the aisle have done everything that they could do to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and, Madam Chair, none of them are going to vote for this bill today. None of them will criticize the big banks on Wall Street and others who took advantage of our consumers.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I am not prepared to close.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just say that we send a message from this House today, and our message that we are sending out across this Nation is that we are now in a position to undo what has been done and the wreckage that has been caused with our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

We send a message that the day for predatory lending is over.

We send the message despite the fact that we have Members of this House who would dare not stand up for students and servicemembers and not criticize what has happened to consumers in the way that it has happened in this country. And so I want that message to be loud and clear.

I want those on Wall Street and the major banks who had the predatory products and who had the exotic loans, I want all those who mismanaged the way that they deal with our students when our students had complaints and they looked for someone to help them, I want all of them to know, well, I suppose, there is a new sheriff in town.

We are going to make sure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is strong, that it is not simply made up of political appointees, and that they do not have to worry in the way that they are worrying now. We have personnel who have quit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because it was not carrying out the mission that was intended.

Again, I have said earlier how proud I am to have this bill on the floor and to have the support of the Democratic Caucus.

I would just ask my friends on the opposite side of the aisle to think about what is going on and to think about ways that they can begin to take into consideration their constituents who need protection, and prior to our legislation there was no protection for consumers.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Madam Chair, I am so proud that, today, we are going to stand up for consumers on this side of the aisle. It is unfortunate that our friends on the opposite side of the aisle have not seen fit to support consumers. They will all vote against this bill. We will vote for this bill on this side of the aisle.

Madam Chair, again, I urge my colleagues to come to the floor quickly and vote for consumer financial protection, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to amendment No. 6.

Madam Chair, this amendment would take the widely successful consumer complaint database dark, hiding from the public how consumers report personally being harmed by financial institutions.

The Dodd-Frank Act required the CFPB to establish a consumer complaint database to provide consumers with the opportunity to report complaints about financial products and services.

A public database empowers consumers to seek redress when harmed and benefits the public by providing firsthand stories to help other consumers to avoid similar harms.

A public database also promotes market discipline and encourages financial firms to treat their consumers fairly. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has received over 1.5 million consumer submissions, with a 97 percent response rate by financial firms to the consumer complaints.

This means that the American people know, need, and use this function. Taking this away from the public only harms hardworking people in need of help and benefits the bad actors.

Through its research, education, market monitoring, and the much-used consumer complaint database, the CFPB has been able to directly address problems in the market and issues that directly harm hardworking families. This is especially useful for the millions of consumers who, unfortunately, do not have the financial means, time, or access to the judicial court system.

Mandating that the consumer complaint database remain transparent and publicly accessible is an important aspect of this bill and will promote better conduct from providers of financial services across this country. Thus, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment to H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like to reiterate my strong opposition to this amendment.

Congress must ensure that consumer complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are available to the public to hold companies accountable to the American people for their actions or lack of actions.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment to H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment because it seeks to limit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by using the appropriations process to politicize and defund the agency.

All the bank regulators are independently funded. In addition to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the FDIC, and the NCUA are all funded outside of the appropriations process. In fact, so is the FHFA, the FSOC, and OFR.

Congress provided the regulators with independence from the executive branch and the appropriations process to ensure that financial regulators focused on protecting the financial system from harm.

However, ever since it was created, Republicans have focused on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding because, more than any other agency, it has helped level the playing field between Wall Street on one side and families, communities of color, older Americans, servicemembers, and students on the other.

Under the guise of the appropriations process, Republicans are seeking to do by amendment what they were unable to do for the 8 years they were in power, eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau entirely.

To that end, Mulvaney's first request for funds to be transferred from the Federal Reserve to fund the CFPB's operations was zero. He later asked Congress to turn the CFPB, which he previously called a ``sick, sad'' joke of an agency, into an appropriated one.

In addition, Republicans often point to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is subject to annual appropriations, as an example we should follow. What they seem to forget is that during Trump's 35-day shutdown, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau remained open while the SEC was effectively shuttered.

Advocacy groups like Americans for Financial Reform also point out that ``big banks would be able to use the politically charged appropriations process to deny funding for rule-writing or enforcement actions that Wall Street particularly dislikes. They could simply starve the agency of the basic funds it needs to do its job or threaten to do so in order to intimidate the agency out of taking actions to curb abuses by powerful companies.''

The difference with Mulvaney and the Trump administration is that they have purposely sought to ignore or disregard the law and the independence Congress tried to create. Mulvaney, who reports directly to Trump, clearly ignored the law when he directed the agency to stop supervising banks for violations of the Military Lending Act.

Nevertheless, I am not surprised that Republicans' efforts to reform the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau involve trying to starve the agency of funding.

Madam Chair, Democrats want to ensure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can do and is doing its jobs and puts consumers first. This amendment does exactly the opposite, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like to reiterate my strong opposition to this amendment.

Today, the House is trying to return the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to its mission of putting consumers first. This amendment, instead, is meant to slow down and ultimately starve the agency by using the appropriations process.

Madam Chair, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have tried everything they could try to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I think it is odd that they would spend their time opposing what is good for consumers and, yet, embracing the very institutions that caused us to have a recession in 2008 and to harm the American people.

Madam Chair, I ask that everyone oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 389 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met on Monday night and reported a rule, House Resolution 389, which covers a lot of territory. It provides for consideration of H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act under a structured rule which makes in order 17 amendments.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1994, the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act, or the SECURE Act, under a closed rule which self-executes Chairman Neal's manager's amendment.

Additionally, the rule provides same-day authority and suspension authority through Thursday, May 23, and it provides filing authority for the Committee on Appropriations through 5 o'clock p.m., Sunday, June 2.

Finally, the rule provides recess instructions through next Friday, May 31.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act, reverses the anti- consumer actions taken by this administration to ensure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau once again serves the needs of American consumers.

More than a decade ago, the United States experienced one of the worst financial crises in our history, caused, in part, by a failure to have strong protections for consumers of financial products and services.

Through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be a strong and independent agency with the mandate to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in the financial marketplace. When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was first stood up, it was a powerful ally to consumers in middle-class families across the country.

Under former Director Richard Cordray, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau returned nearly $12 billion to over 30 million consumers who were harmed, handled over 1.2 million consumer complaints about financial institutions, and implemented new safeguards to better protect consumers who utilize a wide range of consumer financial products and services.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration has politicized the agency, weakened supervision and enforcement, and reduced transparency and accountability. The Bureau has dismantled protections for Active Duty servicemembers, weakened fair lending enforcement, blocked payday loan cases, and terminated the Consumers Advisory Board. These are just a few examples of how the agency is failing to meet its mission.

The Consumers First Act would block the Trump Administration's agenda and ensure the CFPB starts working for the people once again.

Among other things, the bill would direct the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau leadership to reverse all anti-consumer actions taken under this administration, including resuming Military Lending Act oversight. The bill restores the supervisory and enforcement powers of the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity. It also reestablishes a dedicated student loan office to help protect students as they find ways to finance their education. Importantly, the bill requires adequate agency staffing across the Bureau, including for supervision and enforcement.

I want to thank Chairwoman Waters for her work on this legislation, which I cosponsored and is supported by 51 consumer civil rights, housing, and labor organizations.

This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1994, the SECURE Act. I am also a cosponsor of this bill to make it easier for American workers to save for their future. One of my number-one priorities is ensuring all Coloradans and all Americans have the opportunity to find a good job, can afford to send their kids to college, and have something left over for their retirement.

Unfortunately, nearly half of Americans in the private sector work for an employer who does not offer a retirement plan. A 2018 study by the National Institute on Retirement Security found over 100 million people of working age have few, if any, retirement assets.

The SECURE Act is a bipartisan bill which was approved unanimously by the Ways and Means Committee, and I am eager for the House to pass this important legislation. The SECURE Act would make it easier for small businesses to offer retirement plans to their employees by eliminating outdated barriers to the use of multiple employer plans and improving the quality of these providers. This could result in hundreds of thousands of new retirement accounts to help people save.

Additionally, the bill would allow long-time part-time workers to participate in 401(k) plans and create a new tax credit to incentivize small employers to set up retirement plans for their employees. It would also add more flexibility for how long individuals could contribute to their retirement accounts, and when they must begin drawing down on those accounts.

This legislation is a big step forward in helping Americans save and prepare for retirement, and I am proud to support it. I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I will start where my friend from Georgia just left off, complaining about a tiny section in the bill that was stricken in the Rules Committee. He is correct, because there are individuals within our Caucus who don't think it is appropriate. The bill, however, has dozens of provisions that benefit Americans of every stripe, millions of people.

I would say to my friend from Georgia, if he feels so strongly about it, then bring it up in a motion to recommit. It isn't the last statement here. If my friend wants to see how many people want to vote for this, then certainly bring it up there.

Otherwise, as my friend said, this was a major step forward on retirement security for so many Americans. The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good because the bill, the SECURE Act, advances that.

Secondly, I wish Representative Maloney was still in the chair, Madam Speaker, because she would recognize, as it applies to the Consumers First Act, that the purpose of having a single agency focus on consumers first was so important because we saw that by having certain activities handled by the Housing and Urban Development Department, others handled by the Federal Reserve, and others handled by the Federal Trade Commission, consumers were not being protected. Much of that failure to protect--shark practices in the credit card industry and bad practices in the mortgage industry--led to the recession that we faced back in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

The purpose of having an independent agency like the CFPB was to avoid that and put consumers first, just as H.R. 1500 is intended to do.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Responding to my good friend from Georgia, we are going to have a chance to vote on this in the rule, and we will see whether or not a majority is in favor of the changes that were made as part of this rule package.

I would say to my friend, as part of the changes, we are adding Gold Star families and other children to this entire SECURE Act package to benefit them because in the race to give a $2 trillion tax cut to the richest Americans, the Republican Party forgot about a lot of families and a lot of children. That is being corrected in this bill and in this amendment.

I urge my friend to take another look at it because this rule does benefit Americans all across the board and all income levels.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, just in response to my friend, we have two bills that are encompassed in this rule: H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act, and H.R. 1994, the SECURE Act.

The gentleman is focusing on one sentence out of dozens of provisions that benefit millions of Americans to complain about this rule and what was done.

Well, people get to vote on this rule. It isn't just 6 people or 10 people or 13 people. There will be 435 of us voting on whether we approve the rule or not. There are other opportunities to take care of the one sentence, if my friend is so aghast that it might be stricken in favor of dozens of other provisions, including the Gold Star family and children across America.

So, I appreciate the rhetorical abilities of my good friend from Georgia, but, quite frankly, he is missing the forest for the trees through all of this.

Secondly, H.R. 1500 is another key piece of legislation that is encompassed in this rule to really get consumers first again, as opposed to the financial services industry being first, which appears to be the effort of the Trump administration.

Madam Speaker, I would inquire of my friend from Georgia if he has any other speakers. If not, I suggest we close.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Panetta and Mrs. Trahan for joining us today to speak on this rule, the Consumers First Act, and the SECURE Act.

And, just briefly, with respect to the Consumers First Act, there are dozens and dozens of consumer, civil rights, and labor organizations supporting the Consumers First Act and how we are approaching it pursuant to this rule: Americans for Financial Reform, the Center for Responsible Lending, the Communication Workers of America, the Consumer Federation of America, and the NAACP, just to mention a few, with respect to the Consumers First Act.

With respect to the SECURE Act: AARP, SEIU, the Church Alliance, the Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts, the National Association of Women Business Owners.

And today is the 100th anniversary of a woman's right to vote, so here we have got the National Association of Women Business Owners, as well as the

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, TIAA-CREF, and the Air Line Pilots Association.

So we have consumer groups, insurance groups, and business groups supporting the SECURE Act so that millions more Americans can feel secure in their retirement, something that so many people feel insecure about today.

The bill has dozens and dozens of provisions. The amendment that is in the nature of the manager's amendment by Mr. Neal includes additional children, Gold Star families, a lot of people who were left out by the giant tax cut that the Republicans passed a year and a half ago to benefit the wealthiest Americans.

These two bills are important steps forward for the constituents that you represent, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman from Georgia represents, and the people I represent.

The Consumers First Act will realign the Consumer Bureau's focus as a truly independent voice protecting consumers first. We have seen what the bureau can accomplish in the millions of consumers who were helped under Director Cordray, and our constituents need the bureau to continue to focus on them.

The SECURE Act is an important bipartisan package which addresses retirement security and makes an important technical change to the GOP tax bill for Gold Star families, among others. This package was developed by both sides of the aisle and with many stakeholders.

While the other side of the aisle may be upset over one provision out of dozens and dozens of provisions, I hope they can recognize the effort that went into this package to bring both sides together and the millions of Americans who are benefited by this legislation.

These are both commonsense bills, and I look forward to their passage.

Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I kind of wanted to object, but I didn't.

Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Since its inception, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has disregarded congressional intent in a number of alarming ways. Under the previous Director, Richard Cordray, the agency took it upon itself to essentially write law through guidance and regulate through enforcement. Bureaucrats at the CFPB worked diligently to eliminate options for Americans, arrogantly believing they were better equipped to make financial decisions than consumers themselves.

Thankfully, under Acting Director Mulvaney and Director Kraninger, the CFPB is striving to foster an environment that promotes transparency, legitimacy, and great consumer choice. The American people deserve a Bureau that enforces law rather than creates it, while placing power and choice back in the hands of consumers themselves.

Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today accomplishes the exact opposite.

I appreciate the chairwoman's attempt to reform the Bureau and share the belief that it needs significant reform. However, instead of solving underlying issues that make the CFPB an unaccountable bureaucracy with little oversight, this legislation cherry-picks specific actions of former Acting Director Mulvaney and attempts to reverse his decisions.

Ignoring the underlying structural issues of the Bureau, Democrats are attempting to codify their CFPB agenda with respect to staffing by limiting political appointees, directing political initiatives through the creation of the Office of Students and Young Consumers, and emphasizing the powers and duties of the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity.

Yet again, my friends across the aisle are more focused on who is leading the agency than on real reforms that would increase oversight and accountability at the CFPB and could shed light on some of the issues this legislation seeks to address. For example, if the CFPB were subject to an Office of Inspector General, we would have reports on whether or not staffing levels are sufficient to fulfill the Bureau's statutory goals. If the Bureau was subject to the appropriations process, Congress would have a voice in choosing the number of political appointees at the Bureau. Some of these issues, Mr. Chairman, are not even partisan, they're near bipartisan, and yet we can't get these things done.

Instead of working with Republicans to reform the Bureau, create transparency, and avoid partisan policy shifts from Director to Director, the

majority is choosing to advance legislation that mandates the advancement of political priorities.

The bottom line here is the legislation before us is wholly partisan and does nothing to ensure the CFPB can carry out its mission to protect consumers. I oppose this legislation and I urge my colleagues to do so, as well.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), ranking member of the full committee.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment that would place, I believe, an unnecessary burden on credit bureaus with no benefits to consumers.

Currently, consumers have access to free credit scores through the annualcreditreport.com website run by the big three credit reporting agencies, or CRAs. On this website, consumers can get three separate credit scores, one at each of these three CRAs, for free. This amendment will use the CFPB to require that the CRAs provide an additional credit score to consumers. That is right, a fourth credit score.

Specifically, the amendment requires CRAs to use the credit score that is most frequently used. What the legislation fails to mention is that the most frequently used score is a FICO score. FICO scores are not free.

This amendment requires that the credit bureaus, all private companies, purchase credit scores from FICO, another private company; and in doing so, it is mandating the transfer of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars from one company to another company.

One has to ask oneself, why is this designed to punish these three CRAs or to create a massive payday for FICO? This is the USA, not USSR, not China, and not Venezuela. The government has no right to force a private company to hand millions of dollars to another private company simply because the government official prefers one product over another.

In addition, the chairwoman has introduced legislation to reform the CRA and has yet to bring a bill up before the committee. I would imagine this amendment that deals with credit scores, not consumer protection, is better suited to be debated under regular order in our committee than thrown onto a bill that seeks to amend CFPB governance.

In short, this amendment has the government picking winners and losers, provides little or no benefit to consumers, is irrelevant to the subject of this bill, and should be soundly defeated.

This sets a horrible precedent, Madam Chairwoman. We are dictating one private company to pay another private company for a service. When do we ever do that? That is amazing precedent to set. How can we do this?

We are not a dictatorial government here. We allow the winners and losers to be chosen by the people through economic freedom. We don't dictate who buys a product from here and who buys a product from there. That is what the people are allowed to do on their own, and that is what makes our country so great is economic freedom to be able to do that: pick and choose between what companies provide what services and which ones they want to pay for. Instead of dictating how one company should pay another, we should be allowing the freedom for them to choose.

Again, this amendment is about picking winners and losers. It provides no benefit to consumers and should be soundly defeated.

Madam Chair, is my understanding correct that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) has no time remaining?

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Madam Chair, I have the right to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the ranking member.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.