Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 380 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met yesterday and reported a rule, House Resolution 380, providing for consideration of H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman Waters, makes in order 14 amendments, provides en bloc authority for Chairwoman Waters or her designee and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, under a closed rule, which provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee

on Education and Labor or their designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule deems as passed H. Res. 379, a resolution to dismiss the election contest in Illinois' 14th Congressional District.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on May 11 or May 12. This authority lasts through May 14.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we are here today to provide consideration of two important bills to protect and support our constituents. First is the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, which will create protections for servicemembers, small businesses, students, and other consumers against mistreatment by debt collectors. Debt collection is consistently one of the top complaints made to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the pandemic has further exposed weaknesses in current consumer protection laws.

In March, the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions, which I chair, held a hearing on protecting consumers during the pandemic. We heard expert witnesses discuss how many debt collectors have seen record profits in the pandemic, despite many families and individuals continuing to struggle.

H.R. 2547 is comprehensive legislation to update consumer protections in debt collection across many different issues. For example, the bill codifies and expands protections for small and minority-owned businesses and prohibits debt collectors from threatening a servicemember with reduction in rank or other military disciplinary actions. Additionally, it protects private student loan borrowers with disabilities, would prohibit entities from collecting medical debt or reporting it to a credit reporting agency without giving the consumer notice about his or her rights, and clarifies that entities in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

This legislation is sponsored by Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters and incorporates bills from committee members, Representatives Nydia Velazquez, Madeleine Dean, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Emanuel Cleaver, Greg Meeks, and Jake Auchincloss. The bill is supported by many consumer and civil rights organizations, including Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Responsible Lending, Color of Change, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, and others.

This legislation will update and improve debt collection consumer protection laws, and make sure that small businesses, families, and individuals are treated fairly as we all work to come out of this pandemic stronger.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Claims of pregnancy discrimination have been on the rise for two decades and affect all industries and regions across the country. This bipartisan bill will strengthen workplace protections and promote the well-being of pregnant workers by creating a new right to pregnancy accommodation in the workplace.

Temporary modifications at work, like regular breaks, a stool to sit on, or an exemption from heavy lifting, can be the difference between a healthy pregnancy and pregnancy complications. When pregnant workers are denied reasonable workplace accommodations, they are often left to choose between their financial stability and a healthy pregnancy.

Currently, only 30 States require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers, including, thankfully, my home State of Colorado. But this has created a confusing patchwork of local, State, and Federal laws, leaving many pregnant workers with few protections.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act enjoys support from both worker advocates and business groups because it is good for families, it is good for business, and it is good for the economy. The House passed this bill last Congress in a broad, bipartisan vote of 329-73, and I hope more of my colleagues join us in passing the bill this year.

I urge all my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I include in the Record a letter dated May 10, 2021, from about 85 different public interest and financial organizations supporting H.R. 2547.

May 10, 2021.

Re H.R. 2547, the ``Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement

Act'' (Waters), which includes:

HR 2540, the ``Small Business Fairness Lending Act''

(Velazquez).

HR 1491, the ``Fair Debt Collection Practices for

Servicemembers Act'' (Dean).

HR 2498, the ``Private Loan Disability Discharge Act''

(Dean).

HR 2537, the ``Consumer Protection for Medical Debt

Collections Act'' (Tlaib).

HR 1657, the ``Ending Debt Collection Harassment Act''

(Pressley).

HR 2572, the ``Stop Debt Collection Abuse Act'' (Cleaver).

HR 2628, the ``Debt Collection Practices Harmonization Act''

(Meeks).

HR 2458, the ``Non-Judicial Foreclosure Debt Collection

Clarification Act'' (Auchincloss).

Representative Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Representative Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, Washington,

I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania's comments, but, apparently, consumer protection is not high on the list of priorities for the other side of the aisle.

I would just say, this particular piece of legislation, H.R. 2547, has many good aspects, a number of which are bipartisan in nature:

It codifies the protections that currently exist under the FTC regulation for consumer loans prohibiting the use of confessions of judgment that waive due process protections, and extends those protections to commercial loans to protect small and minority-owned businesses.

It prohibits debt collectors from threatening a servicemember with reduction in their rank and revoking their security clearance or prosecuting them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and requires a GAO study on the impact of debt collection on servicemembers.

It requires discharge of private student loans for both the borrower and cosigner in the case of permanent disability of the borrower, extending protections that currently exist for Federal student loans. So it assists people with serious disabilities.

It requires private lenders who are notified the Federal Government has discharged the Federal student loans of a borrower to discharge the private student loans of that same borrower.

It bars entities from collecting medical debt or reporting it to a consumer reporting agency without giving the consumer a notice about their rights.

These are so simple, and you would expect that there would be universal acceptance of this, but apparently not.

It provides a minimum 1-year delay from adverse information reported and a 2-year delay before collection attempts are made on these medical bills.

We heard last night in committee even Dr. Burgess talking about the normal practices of medical professionals allowing people to have time to pay their bills, especially when we are in the middle of a pandemic or as we are coming out of a pandemic.

It bans the reporting of medical debts arising from medically necessary procedures. This was something that Ralph Hall, a Republican, championed for years.

It prohibits a debt collector from contacting a consumer by email or text message without a consumer's consent to be contacted electronically.

It requires the CFPB to analyze and annually report on the impact of electronic communications utilized by debt collectors.

The provisions of this bill are simple, consumer-oriented efforts to provide information to the consumer debtor and to take into consideration that we are in a pandemic and medical bills have piled up for so many people.

This is a very simple bill. It has bipartisan provisions in it. It should be passed, as should the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, as to H.R. 1065, there are at least 20, if not more, Republican cosponsors of that piece of legislation. I want the Record to reflect that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to remind my friends on the Republican side of the aisle that we passed a bill about 2 months ago called the American Rescue Plan. Not one Republican voted for that. That had money to support law enforcement and local governments and cities and States that saw their tax revenues fall off a cliff.

Mr. Speaker, when my friend, Mr. Reschenthaler, says, oh, a billion dollars was cut from the funding here, or $150 million cut from there, he forgot to talk about the fact that tax revenues across the country for local governments and State governments were cut to the bone because of the pandemic.

If my friends really wanted to put their money where their mouths are, then they would have supported the American Rescue Plan because it provided $350 billion to State and local governments so that they could increase funding to the police, to law enforcement, to social services, to a whole variety of agencies and needs. But, apparently, they chose not to. Instead, they choose to bring claims that Democrats want to defund the police, which couldn't be further from the truth.

We put our money where our mouths are, and we said we support law enforcement. We support local government employees. We support State government employees. We provided in the American Rescue Plan, which not a single Republican voted for, hazard pay because it has been so difficult for law enforcement and for so many others to conduct their services, to be out in the community during this particular pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, I just would suggest to my friends, next time they get an opportunity to actually provide funding to law enforcement, they vote for it and not just say they are supportive of it. Let's put their moneys where their mouths are.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two Statements of Administration Policy. One on H.R. 2547, and the other one on H.R. 1065, both in support of the bills that are under consideration.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2547--Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act--Rep. Waters,

D-CA, and seven cosponsors

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 2547, the

Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act. This

legislation would expand necessary safeguards to ensure

working families and small businesses are protected from

predatory debt collection practices.

As our Nation works to recover from the worst economic and

public health crises of our lifetimes, many families and

small businesses are dealing with outstanding debts. In

addition to providing robust relief, the government must also

protect Americans from abusive and predatory practices.

H.R. 2547 would extend existing consumer protections

against predatory lending arrangements to small businesses,

prohibit debt collectors from threatening service members

with a reduction in rank, prosecution or loss of security

clearance, and restrict contact to consumers by email or text

messages. The legislation would require discharge of private

student loans for both the borrower and cosigners in the case

of permanent disability for the borrower, establishing

greater parity in protections for private and Federal student

loan borrowers. The bill also clarifies protections for

consumers in the case of non-judicial foreclosure

proceedings.

The Administration applauds these steps to strengthen

consumer protections for hardworking Americans and their

families, and we look forward to working with the Congress

further on the details of this legislation.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1065--Pregnant Workers Fairness Act--Rep. Nadler, D-NY, and 228

cosponsors

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.

1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Pregnant workers are

too often unable to access simple changes to their working

conditions that would allow them to keep doing their jobs and

do so safely. This can create risks to their health as well

as economic consequences. No worker should be forced to

choose between a paycheck and a healthy pregnancy.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would provide basic, long

overdue protections to ensure that pregnant workers and job

applicants are not fired or otherwise discriminated against,

or denied reasonable accommodations that allow them to work.

Such protections promote family economic security by helping

women stay in the workforce, including for those, often women

of color, who are the sole or primary breadwinners in their

families. Approximately two million women have left the

workforce due to the COVID-19 pandemic, eroding more than 30

years of progress in women's labor force participation, and

this Administration is committed to ensuring that women can

both care for and support themselves and their families.

H.R. 1065 is a bipartisan bill that requires certain

employers to make reasonable accommodations for qualified

employees and job applicants with known limitations related

to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.

These accommodations might include simple modifications, such

as modifying a no-food-or-drink policy, providing additional

break time to use the bathroom, or helping avoid the lifting

of heavy objects, depending on the circumstances. The bill

would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations

for qualified pregnant workers unless doing so would pose an

undue hardship to the employer. It would also provide for an

interactive process, where necessary, between employers and

pregnant workers to determine appropriate and effective

reasonable accommodations, and would protect pregnant workers

from being denied employment opportunities, or from

retaliation or interference, because they request or use an

accommodation.

The Administration encourages the House to pass this

bipartisan, commonsense legislation and looks forward to

working with the Congress to protect pregnant workers across

the country.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friends on the other side of the aisle trying to find a subject to talk about, since apparently they don't really have too many objections to either of the bills that are being discussed in the rule today.

Obviously, it doesn't seem like there is much conversation about H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. And there isn't much discussion about the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act. Because those things are commonsense. They should be passed by this House. We thank so many Republicans for being cosponsors of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my opening remarks, a number of the provisions in the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act are really bipartisan, including the one Mr. Hall used to champion when he was a Member here in the Congress.

So you want to go off and talk about something else. I wonder where the outrage for brutality against our police was when a rightwing mob stormed this Capitol. And the only one of the people that really is speaking of the truth today in the Republican Caucus--Ms. Cheney from Wyoming--was ousted from her leadership position because she talked about the truth and the fact there was a mob, and our police were beaten by a rightwing mob.

Mr. Speaker, so I would just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Take a look in the mirror, and let's support our police across the board. Because I certainly support the law enforcement in Colorado. I support our Capitol Police, our FBI--particularly, the FBI.

President Trump would always undercut the FBI.

So I would suggest to my friends: Take a look in the mirror. Let's all support our law enforcement because they are important members of our community.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my friend from Nebraska for condemning-- finally, somebody condemning the riot and the attack that occurred against all of us and against our police, the Capitol Police, on January 6. I would also like to see more members of the Republican Party stand up and do exactly that same thing.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to see them do what Ms. Cheney did, and condemn the ex-President, Donald Trump, for his role in inciting that whole mob action on January 6, and then we could start getting things back together.

Instead, my friend from Pennsylvania, reading a resolution that condemns racist policing that may have existed for a very long time, and I can't believe that he supports policing that is delivered in some kind of racist fashion. We have had too many people killed across this country. I know that is not what he meant.

So I just would urge us to focus on the bills that are at hand, which is the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, because those are important pieces of legislation that should be considered immediately by this House. And when we pass this rule, they will be considered.

So I oppose the gentleman's suggestions that we move to a different previous question. I appreciate Mr. Bacon's comments about his bill. There are provisions in there that are really outstanding, but we are here to deal with debt collections and we are here to deal with pregnant workers' fairness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, during this week, applaud our law enforcement and our first responders, but particularly law enforcement right now for their valor, for their protection of our communities. I appreciate the gentleman for bringing up that subject at this time.

But we are here on a rule dealing with the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The treatment of consumers in the collection of debts and businesses and military personnel is a very important subject, especially during this time of COVID when so many families are struggling.

We have thousands and thousands of people who were laid off. In fact, where millions of people are still out of work a year and a half after COVID started. And, as a consequence, a lot of folks need assistance and need help, and they don't need to be hounded in improper ways as they go through this struggle.

So the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act is very important for the financial health of our consumers and people across the country. The provisions in the bill are bipartisan ideas to protect consumers from abusive debt collection practices. They also ensure pregnant women can receive reasonable workplace accommodations to ensure that they can stay in the workforce.

According to the CFPB 2021 Annual Report, more than one in four Americans have a third-party debt collection item attached to their credit report. And, last year, the CFPB received 82,700 consumer complaints about debt collection. It is time for Congress to act.

And based on the gentleman from Pennsylvania's argument, which has nothing to do with that particular bill or the facts as we have seen them develop during this pandemic, that should be an easy vote for everybody, whether they are Democrat or Republican.

The Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act provides important consumer protections to stop abusive debt collection practices, and it ensures that small businesses, families, and individuals are treated fairly.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is necessary to support the more than 80 percent of women who will give birth to a child at some point during their working years. These women deserve to have reasonable accommodations, which oftentimes cost businesses little to no money to implement. So we can help pregnant women stay in the workforce. This bill passed on broad bipartisan vote last Congress, and I hope it passes with even more support again this week.

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

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 380

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 3079) to amend title 18, United States Code, to

punish criminal offenses targeting law enforcement officers,

and for other purposes. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the

Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 9. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 3079, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 3080) to protect law enforcement officers, and for

other purposes. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

Sec 10. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 3080, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 2137) to amend title 18, United States Code, to

further protect officers and employees of the United States,

and for other purposes. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the

Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 11. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 3079, H.R. 3080, and H.R. 2137.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 380, I call up the bill (H.R. 2547) to expand and enhance consumer, student, servicemember, and small business protections with respect to debt collection practices, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a1l Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2547 and to include extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my legislation, H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act.

H.R. 2547 is a package of bills designed to bring new protections, fairness, accuracy, and transparency to the debt collection industry.

Individuals and families across this country have long struggled with debt, including medical debt, student loan debt, and other debts. They often face difficult decisions regarding how to pay off their debts.

During the pandemic crisis, which has harmed all of our communities, debt collectors have earned record profits. Their tactics are often divisive and predatory. Many debt collectors harass consumers with frequent phone calls, make threats, and provide misleading information to consumers. The debt collection industry is also plagued

by poor recordkeeping, resulting in many consumers being harassed for debts they do not owe.

Debt collection is among the top issues that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau receives the most complaints about from consumers, and those complaints have risen since 2019.

This bill, H.R. 2547, brings new accountability to the debt collection industry and stronger protections for consumers from harassment and abuse, including by banning abusive confessions of judgment that have hurt small businesses, prohibiting debt collectors from harassing and threatening servicemembers, barring collection of medical debts from 2 years after the debt is incurred, prohibiting debt collectors from contacting consumers by email or text message without a consumer's affirmative consent, limiting egregious debt collection fees that have disproportionately hurt low-income and minority borrowers, and protecting consumers during a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding.

Taken together, these protections will help the most vulnerable consumers, including servicemembers, student borrowers, people of color, and those struggling under the weight of medical debt during this unprecedented pandemic.

None of this is to say that people who owe lawful debts shouldn't pay them, but all Americans deserve to be free from harassment, undue pressure tactics, bullying, false information, threats, coercion, and other bad practices that debt collectors have used with relative impunity.

The last time Congress made major updates to Federal laws on debt collection was 1978, over 40 years ago. It is long overdue for Congress to act to provide stronger protections from abusive debt collection for consumers.

This comprehensive package includes a number of bills authored by several hardworking members of the Financial Services Committee, specifically bills sponsored by Representative Velazquez, Representative Dean, Representative Tlaib, Representative Pressley, Representative Cleaver, Representative Meeks, and Representative Auchincloss.

I would like to thank all of them for their work on these bills, their contributions to this legislative package, and their leadership on these important reforms that will provide desperately needed relief and protection to consumers.

I would urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides urgently needed protections to individuals and families from unfair and abusive debt collection practices.

Consumers should not have to face harassment or threats from abusive debt collectors, especially in the midst of this unprecedented pandemic. It is long overdue for Congress to bring new accountability to the debt collection industry.

Because of the strong protections the bill creates for consumers, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act is supported by more than 85 consumer, civil rights, and small business organizations, including Americans for Financial Reform, Center for

Responsible Lending, Color of Change, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Consumer Law Center, New York Taxi Workers Alliance, Public Citizen, Small Business Majority, and Student Borrower Protection Center.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard the debate and the discussion on this bill today. My colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle have tried in their presentation to have the people listening to this debate believe that the bill would hurt consumers. That is absolutely not true. My friends on the opposite side of the aisle seem more interested in protecting the debt collectors.

As I mentioned, we are still in the midst of a pandemic. Many of our consumers have been laid off from their jobs. Some businesses have closed down.

Americans like to pay their bills. They want to pay their bills. If they cannot pay their bills, we should not have debt collectors who are harassing them, calling the commanders of servicemembers and threatening to have them penalized in some way, using all the different platforms to harass.

One of the Members on the opposite side of the aisle tried to make us believe that somehow we are saying you can't use any of the platforms on the internet. We are not saying that. We are saying don't misuse them, don't abuse them. We are saying that this is about the Members of Congress who are sent here to represent their constituents being able to represent them at one of the most important times in this economy.

I would ask all Members, despite what you have heard from the opposite side of the aisle, to rise to this occasion and show our consumers we care about them and do not want them to be harassed and abused.

These predatory debt collectors must stop the way that they are harassing our consumers and work with them. They should be doing workouts. If you can't pay $50 a month, you can have a workout that says you can pay $10 a month or $15 a month on your debt. Of course, the predatory debt collectors can do this if they wish.

One of the things you must understand is they have earned more in profits during this pandemic than any other time in recent years, so they are gouging, and they are harassing needlessly so.

I would ask the Members of Congress to please join us and vote ``aye'' on this very important legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 380, I offer amendments en bloc No. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this set of amendments that will strengthen the protections in my bill, H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act.

I thank Representatives Adams, Bonamici, Bowman, Bush, Cohen, Craig, Newman, Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Payne, Ross, and Williams for their work on their amendments to improve the bill and provide additional protections for consumers.

These amendments would create a Consumer Bill of Rights Against Abusive Debt Collection Practices, putting in plain language what debt collection protections and remedies a consumer has; require CFPB strategy to use their enforcement and other tools to combat abusive debt collection during the pandemic; study racial disparities in debt collection and develop solutions to address these disparities.

Several amendments would also help students by providing private student loan borrowers with the same credit reporting protections that Federal student loan borrowers have during the pandemic; releasing cosigners in the event of the death of a private student loan borrower, regardless of when that debt occurred; studying practices and additional reforms to better protect private student loan borrowers.

Finally, these amendments address new forms of communication specifically prohibiting debt collectors from harassing a consumer on social media, and studying electronic communications and developing recommendations to further protect consumers from harassment.

Together, these amendments will protect our constituents from abusive debt collectors. So I urge Members to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bowman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments offered by our colleagues make H.R. 2547 even stronger for our constituents who deserve to be treated fairly. I would like to again thank Representatives Adams, Bonamici, Bowman, Bush, Cohen, Craig, Newman, Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Payne, Ross, and Williams for their work on these amendments to H.R. 2547.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 380, I offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendments offered by Representatives Luetkemeyer and Burgess. Representative Burgess' amendment does not provide any new protections for low-income consumers or consumers with no credit or poor credit history.

Instead, this is an attempt to prevent my bill, H.R. 2547, from being implemented at all. Under the guise of a certification standard, Mr. Burgess' amendment would create a legal loophole for unscrupulous debt collectors to challenge and potentially block not just some, but all of the protections included in this bill for servicemembers, student borrowers, borrowers with a medical debt, and so many more.

This is not a serious attempt to have low-income borrowers, it is an attempt to protect debt collectors who are making record profits during this pandemic.

I do not support this poison pill amendment. Representative Luetkemeyer's amendment to study and delay misses the mark on what is needed to protect consumers from the harm of ongoing, unfair debt collection practices.

Copious research has been shown that debt collection harassment and mistreatment have created undue stress and financial burdens on consumers, especially for low-income people, and in communities of color.

My bill does not restrict debt collection, but rather ensures consumer protection for those who are facing harassment or other abusive tactics used by debt collectors.

Millions of consumers are still struggling to make ends meet during this tragic public health pandemic. Instead of considering the amount of stress consumers feel when they get sick, need medical care, and face harassment from a debt collector, Mr. Luetkemeyer's amendment would commission a study and delay implementation of my bill by a full year.

H.R. 2547 would already provide the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with a sensible 6-month implementation period, during which the Bureau can give all stakeholders guidance on how to comply.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose both of these amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Representatives Burgess and Luetkemeyer' proposed amendments would not provide stronger protections for consumers who are saddled with debt, while navigating the various challenges they have faced, through no fault of their own, by this terrible pandemic.

Instead, these amendments would needlessly delay or prevent my bill, H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, from being implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject these amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute amendment offered by our committee's ranking member, Mr. McHenry.

Mr. McHenry's partisan proposal is a nonstarter and not a serious attempt to find common ground with bipartisan support. The Republican substitute amendment does not include several important elements of my bill, H.R. 2547, and fundamentally weakens many essential protections in the few provisions he included.

For example, Mr. McHenry included a prohibition on confessions of judgment based on title I. However, he included a harmful provision related to written affidavits, effectively undermining the prohibition on confessions of judgment, and severely reducing protections for small businesses struggling during this pandemic.

The Federal Trade Commission banned confessions of judgment more than 35 years ago in 1985 for consumer loans. Our committee learned that small business owners, like taxicab drivers, have unwittingly waived their typical due process rights when it comes to debt collection because these harmful confessions of judgment terms were tucked into their small business loan.

Representative Velazquez has been leading the effort on this in the House, working in a bipartisan fashion with Senators Brown and Rubio. However, if we take the approach proposed by Mr. McHenry, small businesses will continue to be ripped off.

Moreover, I would add H.R. 2547 includes several other bipartisan provisions, including title II, which is based on a bill by Representative Dean to protect servicemembers from harassment and threats from debt collectors. The House has unanimously passed title II as a standalone bill twice, both last year and this year.

Additionally, title VI would enhance protections related to Federal agency debts based on a bill by Representative Cleaver that has been bipartisan for a number of years, but when we tried to move it on the suspension calendar last year, Republicans changed their mind.

Unfortunately, at a time when consumers are suffering while debt collectors make record profits during the pandemic, the House Republican alternative is not a serious effort to reform and modernize our debt collection laws.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the McHenry substitute amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

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

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

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

The rule before us today provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation. The first bill, H.R. 1065, would create a stand-alone law requiring employers to provide accommodations to known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

Republicans have long supported antidiscrimination legislation, including protections for pregnant workers. We agree pregnant workers should be protected and accommodated in the workplace. However, it is disappointing that the Education and Labor Democrats absolutely refuse to work with committee Republicans to include a longstanding provision protecting religious organizations from being forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith. I really hope that moving forward, my colleagues across the aisle will actually work with Republicans and help protect religious liberty.

The rule also makes in order H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, a collection of eight Financial Services bills that claim to address the debt collection practices and the problems thereof in the U.S. economy. But in reality, this measure is just the latest step in House Democrats' socialist takeover of our country's financial system.

Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, consumers are already protected from harmful debt collection practices. While Democrats claim H.R. 2547 is necessary due to the economic effects of COVID-19, several of these partisan bills were introduced last Congress prior to the pandemic.

It is absolutely clear that my colleagues across the aisle are using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to dismantle our free market system and force their radical, progressive agenda on the American people.

Instead of actually helping consumers, H.R. 2547 will increase healthcare costs and make credit more expensive for borrowers. In fact, under this legislation, the lowest income borrowers may be pushed out of the system entirely.

Further, H.R. 2547 will make it harder for small businesses, many of which have been devastated by this pandemic. It will make it harder for those small businesses to receive payments for services rendered.

Finally, H.R. 2547 undermines the CFPB's October 2020 final rule, intended to modernize debt collection practices. This rule was the result of more than 7 years of research and set forth guidelines for both consumers and debt collectors on acceptable communications.

During committee consideration of this bill, Ranking Member McHenry offered a substitute amendment to address bipartisan concerns with the current financial framework. This commonsense proposal included provisions to prevent debt collection harassment of servicemembers, provide protection for cosigners in cases of death or permanent disability, and prohibited the use of Social Security numbers by consumer reporting agencies.

The majority, however, refused to work with Republicans. This refusal is just the latest in the Democrats' disturbing ``my way or the highway'' approach on issues where there is actually room for bipartisan solutions.

House Republicans will continue to support policies that provide Americans with access to affordable credit, while ensuring that our financial system remains safe and sound.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

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

Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't know it from the Democrats' floor schedule, but Sunday marked the beginning of National Police Week.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation designating May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week in which that date falls as Police Week.

Throughout this week, our Nation honors and pays tribute to law enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country and our communities safe.

When Republicans controlled the House, we marked this week by moving legislation to support our police officers and help them keep our communities safe. In stark contrast, this liberal, progressive majority is not moving a single bill to support law enforcement during this year's Police Week.

Instead, Democrats are choosing to ignore Police Week, even though 2020 was the deadliest year on record for police officers in 50 years; even though, barely 1 month ago, Capitol Police Officer Billy Evans, a father of two, was killed defending this very building in which we stand; and even though more police officers have been shot and killed in the first 4\1/2\ months of 2021 than in all of 2020 and 2019.

I guess that is not surprising coming from the party that has openly attacked our law enforcement officers and called for defunding, dismantling, and abolishing the police.

Don't believe me? Just take their word for it.

Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib tweeted: ``Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist.'' The Congresswoman then went on and said: ``No more policing, incarceration, and militarization.''

Congresswoman Cori Bush called St. Louis' decision to eliminate $4 million from the city's police budget a ``historic'' move that ``marks a new future for our city.''

Then there is Chairwoman Maxine Waters, chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, who tweeted, and I read the tweet verbatim: ``Police reform is not enough. Getting rid of serial, racist, ignorant, and stupid cops must be a top priority. Let's call them out.''

Not only is this disrespectful to the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities, but it is actually dangerous. The stats speak for themselves. In Democrat-run cities that defunded the police, they have seen increases in crime. Let's look at some of the numbers.

Austin, Texas: They cut funding for police by $150 million. In return, they saw a 50 percent spike in homicides.

Los Angeles: L.A. defunded the police by $175 million. They, too, experienced an increase in crime, an 11.6 percent rise in homicides.

Then, there is New York City. New York City cut police funding by $1 billion, that is billion with a B. In return, New York City saw a 97 percent rise in shootings and a 45 percent increase in homicides. Let me repeat that for you because the stats are so alarming: a 97 percent increase in shootings and a 45 percent increase in homicides.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans support law enforcement officers and want to help them do their jobs safely, effectively, and professionally. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider Congressman Don Bacon's Back the Blue Act, Congressman John Rutherford's Protect and Serve Act, and Congressmen McCaul, Cuellar, and Chabot's Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Law Enforcement Protection Act. Let's talk about each one of those bills.

The Back the Blue Act would protect our police officers by making it a Federal crime to kill or assault a Federal law enforcement officer.

The Protect and Serve Act would create enhanced penalties for anyone who targets law enforcement officers and purposefully harms them.

The Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Law Enforcement Protection Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation, would ensure individuals who harm or attempt to harm U.S. Federal officers or employees serving abroad can be brought to justice and prosecuted here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls). He is here to explain this amendment. He is my good friend and a former law enforcement officer.

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

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Colorado was talking about money in the American Rescue Plan and money going to States and how that is being used. Let's be clear about something.

California was actually running a surplus in their budget, yet that didn't stop them from taking the money from the American Rescue Plan and giving that not to the police, but to illegal immigrants.

And there is this myth out there that Democrats really don't want to defund the police. I would say that it is not a myth. They actually do want to defund and dismantle the police. But don't take my words for it. We can take the words of my liberal colleagues, the Democrats.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, when reacting to Mayor Bill de Blasio's plan to cut one-sixth of New York City's Police Department budget, she actually deemed that as insufficient. And I will quote my colleague: ``Defunding the police means defunding police. It doesn't mean budget tricks or funny math.''

Again, that was my colleague from New York, a Democrat. Her words, not mine.

Representative Cori Bush, when celebrating St. Louis defunding their police force, despite consistently ranking as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States, to that my colleague said: ``Today's decision to defund the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department is historic. It marks a new future for our city.''

Well, my colleague might be half correct because it was historic. It did usher in a new future for that city, and that is the fact that you have crime rates rising to historic levels.

My colleague from Missouri continued and she also said: ``If we remove that''--meaning the funding from the police, if we cut police funding--``and take that money and put it into our education system, put it into making sure our unhoused community members are sheltered, putting it into mental health resources, that is what we are saying because that is what is going to make our communities safer.''

So please stop the myth that Democrats actually don't want to defund the police. They absolutely do. They have said it over and over again, and their policies have proven it in many cities.

And what do the American people get?

Increased crime rates.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), my good friend and a former sheriff.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Colorado is asking why we are talking about the police. Well, the Democrats have been doing a lot of talking about police themselves--lots of talking about police.

Representative Ilhan Omar, in talking about the Minneapolis Police Department following the death of George Floyd, said: ``You can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root.''

So, again, we are talking about police because police are heroes. We have always stood with the police, as Republicans. I wish my Democrat colleagues could say the same. But they have said repeatedly throughout the summer, in the past, atrocious things about the police.

Chairwoman Maxine Waters, in response to the death of Rayshard Brooks, who tried to shoot officers with their own tasers during an attempted DUI arrest, said: ``Police reform is not enough. Getting rid of serial racist, ignorant, and stupid cops must be a top priority. Let's call them out. Police protective unions, you have got to go, too.''

The attacks go on and on, on our law enforcement. After the death of Daunte Wright, following a physical struggle where an officer fired their service weapon instead of the intended taser, Representative Rashida Tlaib said: ``Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist.''

Representative Tlaib has also said: ``No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can't be reformed.''

Again, this is what Democrats say about police.

And I know my colleague from Colorado said he supports police, but in response to riots across the country surrounding the death of George Floyd, my good friend from Colorado said: ``Supporting Representative Pressley's resolution to condemn all acts of police brutality, racial profiling, and excessive use of force is the first step, but an important step, in affecting change and working to end these injustices.''

That sounds very benign, and understandably so. But if you look at the support for what the resolution actually said, let's read what the resolution said.

``The system of policing in America and its systemic targeting of and use of deadly and brutal force against people of color, particularly Black people, stems from the long legacy of slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, and the war on drugs in the United States.''

So, in essence, supporting that resolution is really linking modern police to the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow. It is absolutely unacceptable.

Again, it was a Democrat, it was JFK in 1962, who declared this week Police Week. I just wish the current Democratic Party could stand with the Republicans and honor police, especially memorialize police who have died defending our communities and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), my good friend the former general.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is relevant, these three police bills, because, as I said

when I opened, if we defeat this previous question, I will bring forth the amendment personally to bring up these three bills that actually honor our police officers.

Again, it is a historical norm in this body, in this Chamber, that during Police Week we focus on bills to help police officers. That is why this is relevant today. And the fact that my Democrat colleagues refuse to talk about the police raises a lot of questions. We need to help the police.

Let me just give you one example of the heroic acts of the police. After a suicidal man drove off a bridge into an ocean, San Diego Police Department K-9 officer, Jonathan Wiese, sprung into action, scaling down the side of a cliff to rescue twin 2-year-old sisters who were caught inside the vehicle.

When asked about this decision to throw himself over a cliff, Officer Wiese explained: ``I didn't do this job to be liked every day. I didn't do it to become rich. I did it because I wanted to be out there making a difference and helping people.''

That is the mentality of the men and women who are in our law enforcement. That is why this week they deserve our attention, and that is why my colleagues should be afforded the right to bring up their three bills through an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, while the rest of the Nation recognizes National Police Week and shows gratitude for the men and women keeping our communities safe, House Democrats are prioritizing two pieces of legislation that do absolutely nothing, nothing to help law enforcement officers.

Instead, they are jamming through a socialist takeover of our country's financial system that will actually hurt consumers and our Nation's small businesses. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I urge ``no'' on the underlying measure.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2547.

This bill is misguided. It will not improve debt collection or credit reporting but will instead harm consumers and small businesses.

This bill would make extending credit more expensive for everyone, especially lower-income borrowers with thin or no credit files and who need it the most.

This bill is yet another giveaway to progressives who want to eliminate the core foundation of our credit market and financial system.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2547, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I claim the time in opposition, and I am opposed to this en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that people are hurting. There is no doubt that many Americans continue to feel the weight of the pandemic in their daily lives. Yet Republicans know that preventing individuals and businesses from being paid for services rendered will not help those individuals and families who need it the most.

This bill will not benefit consumers or businesses, particularly those small businesses that are the backbone of our economy. In fact, if enacted, this bill and the amendments will drive up the cost for all borrowers and will make credit less accessible to the borrowers who need it the most. Many of these amendments were not even considered during markup, and could result in unintended consequences and conflict with existing law and regulations.

For example, this en bloc makes it harder to collect on payment for services. It creates more confusion. This en bloc requires duplicative actions and is in conflict with current CFPB rules. This results in consumers receiving varying and inconsistent information. It also imposes specific requirements on the process and content of legal actions--some in direct conflict with existing laws and court procedures.

All of these have potential consequences and deserve to be debated through regular order, not in the 11th hour on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, this en bloc continues the Democrats' goal of bringing all student loan borrowers under the Federal student loan portfolio, this time under the guise of COVID relief. In expanding the Federal student loan profile, this en bloc fails to address the underlying issues related to the Federal student loan debt crisis, which was already exacerbated by the Democrats' goal of nationalizing student lending in 2010.

This en bloc fails to recognize the success of the private student loan market. Approximately 98 percent of student loans are repaid in the private market.

This en bloc continues to ignore the work that the CFPB did when it finalized its debt collection rule last fall. This final rule reflects more than 7 years of research and analysis, and clarifies the allowable uses of modern communication technology.

This en bloc prohibits debt collectors from contacting consumers by email or text message without explicit prior consent from the consumer. Under this amendment, social media messages are also prohibited. This approach ignores the fact that the final rule allows consumers to opt out of specific means of communications used by debt collectors.

Republicans believe that consumers should be able to communicate about their payment options privately and using the methods that they want to communicate.

This is yet another example of Democrats attempting to hamstring the ability to modernize the regulatory framework to account for modern technology and consumer preference.

Finally, this en bloc requires the CFPB to produce a prescriptive report on the debt collection process. The CFPB, in consultation with the FTC, already issues an annual oversight report on debt collection, which includes data on consumer complaints and enforcement actions.

The point is, constraining debt collection will undermine the underwriting system and increase risk to the financial system. This ultimately makes extending credit more expensive for all borrowers and may exclude the lowest income borrowers entirely.

There are commonsense ways to update and improve the process for debt collection and credit reporting.

Republicans believe that consumers who owe a debt should be treated with respect and dignity and are not subjected to abusive or harassing behaviors. While there are commonsense ways to update and improve the debt collection process, the law already upholds this notion.

Mr. Speaker, this en bloc is another partisan wish list of progressive policies in search of a problem. I urge my colleagues to oppose this en bloc.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, this en bloc will not improve debt collection or credit reporting, but will instead harm consumers and small businesses. It will make extending credit more expensive for everyone, especially lower income borrowers with thin or no credit files and who need it the most.

The intent is clear, the Democrats want to eliminate the core foundation of our credit market and financial system.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am not opposed to this en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments will ensure that we know the true consequences of this bill before it is enacted into law. These amendments direct the Treasury Department and the GAO to separately study the impacts this bill will have on low-to-moderate income, minority, or thin-or no-credit-file consumers.

Payment for services rendered is a fundamental premise of our free market system. Republicans understand this concept and work hard to ensure legislation does not cut off access to credit or price large swaths of Americans out of the consumer credit market.

Moreover, we should not be limiting small businesses' ability to collect payments at any time, but especially when they are already hurting from the pandemic-related shutdowns.

The point is, constraining debt collection will undermine the underwriting system and increase risk to the financial system. This ultimately makes extending credit more expensive for all borrowers, and may exclude the lowest income borrowers entirely.

There is bipartisan consensus that a consumer who owes a debt should be treated with respect and dignity and not be subjected to abusive or harassing behavior. The law already upholds this notion.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this en bloc will ensure that we know the true consequences of this bill before it becomes effective. Payment for services rendered is a fundamental premise of our credit-based free market system.

Republicans want to ensure legislation passed by this House will not limit access to credit, price large swaths of Americans out of the consumer credit market, or restrict small businesses' ability to collect payments for services provided.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee of Ranking Member McHenry, and I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, since taking the majority in the House last Congress, Democrats have attempted to undermine the financial system through a partisan wish list that is focused on one thing: undermining the pillars of our financial system. Now with one party dominating, they are jamming through a bill that will not only hurt the very borrowers they claim they are trying to help, but it will bring down our credit markets.

There is no doubt that individuals and families are hurting. There is no doubt that the pandemic brought on additional challenges. But undermining our financial system is not the way to help Americans.

Our financial system needs strong underwriting practices to keep it strong and reduce risk when extending credit. This is what makes credit more available at a lower cost to more borrowers. This is not to say that the system is perfect. Republicans agree there are some improvements that can be made to the way the system operates.

The gentleman's amendment would replace the underlying bill with several targeted approaches to improve the debt collection and credit reporting framework.

First, this amendment requires the inclusion of a clear disclosure when a confession of judgment, or COJ, is part of a business lending contract. It also requires lenders to obtain a written affidavit containing the date and nature of a borrower's default in order to execute a confession of judgment. This will help to ensure small businesses know the full terms and conditions of their agreement and help to crack down on reported misuse of COJs while allowing these important repayment tools to remain in use.

This amendment preserves the servicemember protection bill sponsored by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania. In fact, I would remind my colleagues that we just passed this bill on suspension 3 weeks ago. We should focus on getting this bill enacted into law rather than packaging it up in a wish list of partisan policies.

This amendment would allow the estate of a deceased or permanently disabled student loan borrower to request a discharge of the student loan debt. This change would codify the current practice used by private lenders to ensure that student loan borrowers are indeed protected.

This amendment would also address concerns with medical debt. It would eliminate the inclusion of paid, medically necessary, nonelective medical debt in credit reports. This provision is a responsible way to address the challenges that many face in repaying medical debt. At the same time, it does not make healthcare more expensive or services less available.

Finally, this amendment acknowledges the work of the CFPB. What my colleagues won't tell you is that the final debt collection rule was the culmination of more than 7 years of research and analysis. It clarified the allowable uses of modern communication technology.

This amendment, unlike the underlying bill, is a commonsense approach to improve the consumer experience in debt collection and credit reporting. It will strengthen our financial system while increasing options and choices for consumers when they owe debt.

I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will recognize this effort to make improvements that will benefit consumers and small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the ranking member's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment replaces the underlying bill with targeted approaches to improve the debt collection and credit reporting framework. This amendment preserves options for consumers and ensures that small businesses are paid for services that they provide. This amendment will ensure our financial system remains safe and sound.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairwoman, the gentlewoman from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a stupendous effort, and I did not want to miss the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents, for debt blocks you from living your life as a family, as a recent college graduate, as a veteran, and as an enlisted person. All of these people are in my congressional district. Texas has the highest number of military personnel.

Have you ever had them come into your house, excuse me, into your office--sometimes it is like my house because I live there, almost--and tell you about the inability to access credit, or the eviction notice, or the repossessing of the car, and therefore, impacting on their credit, but more importantly, being threatened to lose benefits by outside debt collectors.

So the legislation here, and might I rise to oppose the amendments that are en bloc at this time, but I thought it was important to be able to discuss the importance of this particular combination of legislation that goes to the very needs and hearts of our district by prohibiting the use of confession of judgment as an unfair credit practice, and providing the opportunity, as I said, to ensure that we are protecting those individuals that are military.

According to the CFPB, in the past year, debt collection accounted for 27 percent of all complaints received, 49 percent of which were for attempts to collect a debt not owed. During COVID-19 people suffered economically.

For example, in April 2020, Kate Boatswain, Texas resident and grandmother of three, had been laid off from work due to the pandemic. Her savings account had held a $4,900 tax refund. But when she checked her account, it showed a negative balance. Ms. Boatswain drove to her credit union to find out what happened, only to be told that staff members were not allowed to explain. She was given a number to a debt collection law firm. They had taken her money.

So this legislation that protects military persons, grandmothers, small business owners, is extremely crucial, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, H.R. 2547. Let's stop debt and let's make sure Americans can thrive.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the rule governing debate of H.R. 2547, the ``Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act,'' which is an incredibly important comprehensive bill that clarifies and expands the rights of Americans facing all forms of debt collection, and also extends existing consumer protections to small businesses, prohibits debt collectors from threatening service members with a reduction in rank or loss of security clearance, restricts contact to consumers by email or text messages, and requires discharge of private student loans in the case of permanent disability for the borrower.

H.R. 2547 better protects vulnerable consumers by enacting a wide variety of critical reforms, including:

Prohibiting the use of confessions of judgment as an unfair credit practice that eliminate notice and the right to be heard;

Prohibiting certain abusive collection practices directed at servicemembers, including threats to reduce rank or revoke security clearance;

Requiring discharge of private student loans due to total and permanent disability;

Prohibiting collection of medical debt for the first two years and credit reporting of debt arising from any medically necessary procedures;

Requiring debt collectors to obtain consent before using electronic communications and provide written validation notices;

Amending the FDCPA to expand and clarify coverage, including extending coverage for all federal, state, and local debts collected by debt collectors;

Adjusting statutory damages in the FDCPA for inflation and indexing them to index for inflation in the future; and

Clarifying FDCPA coverage for non-judicial foreclosures.

An estimated 77 million Americans have a debt that has been turned over to a private collection agency, and predatory debt collection affects communities and families across the country.

The debts owed can be as small as a few dollars, and they can involve every kind of consumer debt, from car payments to utility bills to student loans to medical fees.

Debt in collection can wreak havoc on individuals, subjecting them to harassing debt collection calls and potential lawsuits.

Annually, hundreds of thousands of individuals face threats, harassment at home and the workplace, and abusive litigation from unscrupulous debt collectors.

While all Americans are covered by laws barring debt collectors from overly aggressive or deceptive tactics, these laws are insufficient in many cases, and protections for Americans must be improved.

Debt collectors use predatory tactics that undermine citizens' rights with misleading and confusing information.

Each year, millions of lawsuits are filed by ``lawsuit mills,'' and in some cases, thousands of affidavits are filed in a single day that have inaccurate information about the debt and the debtors.

Consumers are often not even given the chance to defend themselves because collectors hire process servers that falsely certify documents have been delivered.

Most consumers are not represented by an attorney and debt collectors overwhelmingly seek default judgments against them in these cases.

This past year has seen a rise in aggressive debt collections due to the impact of COVID-19, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (``CFPB'').

Despite the enactment of the FDCPA in 1977, debt collection remains a frequent source of complaints to the CFPB.

According to the CFPB, in the past year debt collection accounted for 27 percent of all complaints received, 49 percent of which were for attempts to collect a debt not owed.

These trends devastate communities across the country as unmanageable debt and household financial crises become ubiquitous across the country during this pandemic, and they impact Black and LatinX communities most harshly due to longstanding racial and ethnic gaps in poverty and wealth.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been among the most disruptive long-term events we will see in our lifetimes, and it is not surprising that the shockwaves it sent across the planet were felt deeply in the consumer financial marketplace.

Texans have the second-highest rate of debt in collections in the country and are uniquely vulnerable because the state's consumer protections for bank account garnishments are virtually nonexistent.

For example, in April 2020 Kate Boatswain, Texas resident and grandmother of three, had been laid off work due to the pandemic.

Her savings account had held a $4,900 tax refund, but when she checked her account, it showed a negative balance.

Ms. Boatswain drove to her credit union to find out what happened, only to be told that staff members were not allowed to explain why.

She was given a number to a debt collection law firm, and a man at the firm tersely explained that she had owed money to Wells Fargo since 2006.

The debt was now owned by a client of the law firm who was trying to collect, and the client was not interested in solutions--telling Ms. Boatswain that, ``We already have your money.''

In a time of national crisis and economic hardship, Ms. Boatswain was left without money for her mortgage and for her family.

As we work to bolster our national economic recovery, Americans must have better safeguards against predatory debt collection actions like this.

This bill offers comprehensive reforms against predatory debt collection efforts in several ways, and I would like to touch on two protections included in these reforms--those reforms offered for our small business owners and members of the military.

Since at least 2018, an arcane legal document called a confession of judgment has targeted our hard-working small businesses and forced financial ruin on tens of thousands of contractors and small business owners.

Before many small business owners get a loan, they are forced to sign a statement called a confession of judgment which gives up their right to defend themselves if the lender takes them to court.

Armed with this confession of judgment, a lender can, without proof, accuse borrowers of not paying and legally seize their assets before they know what has happened--a practice that has not surprisingly been abused by some lenders.

Then, without contacting the borrower, lenders can immediately withdraw the value of the loan, including the full interest payments, from their accounts.

By requiring the borrower to accept any and all liabilities and damages pertaining to the loan, it undermines and circumvents the entire judicial process.

The borrower has no legal right to dispute these claims or prove their compliance with the terms of the loan contract, making them virtually powerless to reclaim--what often ends up being--their life's savings.

Although Congress banned the use of confessions of judgment for consumers in 1985, small businesses were left exposed and remain particularly susceptible to this unfair debt collection practice.

H.R. 2547 fixes this oversight by extending the ban on confessions of judgment to commercial loans nationally by amending the Truth in Lending Act and closing the loophole that has allowed thousands of American small businesses to be seized and brought down by dishonest lenders.

Military members and their families face particular financial challenges requiring extra protections: in service to their country, they relocate frequently, deploy overseas and are a prime target for scammers.

Military members are also more vulnerable to debt collectors in some instances, and debt collectors have taken advantage of this vulnerability by targeting members of the Armed Services through calling their superior officers, threatening reduction in rank and even courts-martial.

Nearly 40 percent of complaints filed by servicemembers with the CFPB concern debt collection--as compared to only 26 percent by non- servicemembers.

Our servicemen and servicewomen make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf, and they should not be forced to confront aggressive and manipulative debt collectors who capitalize on the strains required of them in the course of their duties.

We must address this fact and protect the women and men who have served our country and remove the unethical methods debt collectors use to prey upon our servicemembers.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members to support this legislation, because it is critical for

the United States' Congress to stand with our small business owners, students, the women and men who have served our country, and millions of Americans to address unfair and predatory debt collection efforts.