Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply preserves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's independent funding and ensures that it is adequately funded. That is essentially what this is all about. This is very clear. The sides on this couldn't be more clear. My amendment is one of many this week, but I hope that people pay special attention to how folks vote on this particular amendment.

This amendment is a clear litmus test. If a legislator wants to support

the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, if they want to support the work of $11.5 billion being returned to consumers, they should vote ``yes.''

A ``yes'' vote on my amendment means you want to protect Americans from fraud, deceptive practices, and rip-off schemes.

A ``yes'' vote means you want banks, debt collectors, credit reporting agencies, payday lenders, and other finance companies to be held accountable if they rip off consumers.

A ``yes'' vote means that you want honest and fair-dealing firms in the financial services space to be rewarded for their good work and for people who take advantage of consumers to be punished.

We want to keep good companies good. How can you do that if good and bad get treated just alike?

We need the CFPB. My amendment asks that you stand with Ari Booras, for example. As you may have seen on ``CBS Sunday Morning'' a few weeks ago, Harry Booras contacted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's consumer complaint center for help. His teenage son, Ari, joined the Army, just like mine did, and bought a used truck at a car dealer near his base.

My boy was 18 when he went to the Army. Ari was the same age, I imagine. Yet that desire was taken advantage of.

Teenage Ari joined the Army and bought a used truck at a car dealer near the base. The loan was way more than this private could possibly afford, with an extensive extended warranty and 18.5 percent interest. Private Booras would have paid three times more than Blue Book value for this $11,000 truck. He would have paid three times more. Yet he can't afford three times more. He is just a private trying to serve his country.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau got Private Booras and 50,000 other servicemembers out of these predatory loans that ruin their finances and cause enormous stress in their lives. We need servicemembers thinking about protecting the country, not how to fight off some predatory lender.

My amendment asks that you stand with Samir Hanef from Durham, North Carolina. Samir was one of more than half a million people who was wrongly charged for auto insurance when he took out a loan to buy a Honda Civic.

Samir, a social worker, already had insurance, but Wells Fargo charged him and 20,000 others, customers, added insurance that made them miss payments. This led to their cars being repossessed in some cases.

The numerous scandals at Wells Fargo--the forced insurance, fake accounts, overcharges at mortgage closing, signing customers up for life insurance without their consent, and other fraudulent practices-- are coming to light because of the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its consumer complaint office. They need independence.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment preserves the CFPB's authority to protect people who live in manufactured housing, manufactured housing buyers.

I am lucky to have the National Manufactured Home Owners Association based in my district. For the Record, they have written an excellent letter on behalf of this amendment, which I will include in the Record.

Manufactured Housing Action.

Representative Keith Ellison,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Ellison: We are writing to thank you for

introducing the Ellison Amendment #200 to the Department of

the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Act of 2018

(H.R. 3354). On behalf of the manufactured homeowners we

represent, we our offering our organizational support for

this amendment.

MHAction empowers homeowners and residents in manufactured

home communities to build and win local, state and national

issue campaigns that strengthen the long-term viability and

affordability of their communities. The work of MHAction is

based on a set of core values, central to which are

compassion for our neighbors and love of our communities. We

believe that manufactured home communities play a key role in

providing affordable, safe and accessible housing for all

families, regardless of race, language, immigration status,

class, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. MHAction

currently represents over 19,000 manufactured homeowners in

28 states.

It is vital that this amendment passes to protect

manufactured home buyers, especially people of color that

face higher levels of lending discrimination and seniors. We

need to ensure that the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau

retains the power to ensure that potential home buyers aren't

steered into high fee and high interest loans. When people

buy a home, it should help increase their stability and

wealth, not damage their finances.

Again, we would like to express our sincere thanks to your

office for fighting to ensure that the Consumer Finance

Protection Bureau can continue to protect manufactured home

buyers from loans that strip away their economic and

retirement security.

Should you have any question, please feel free to contact

MHAction's Executive Director, Kevin Borden. Our organization

can easily put your office in touch with purpose-driven

community leaders in numerous states that have been fighting

to strengthen the economic and retirement security of

manufactured homeowners.

Sincerely,

The MHAction Core Team.

I am also very proud of the residents of the Park Plaza, a

manufactured home resident-owned community in my district.

They tell me that being steered to high-cost loans makes homeownership more costly for families. Before Dodd-Frank and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the manufactured home loan market was notoriously predatory.

For example, a story in The Seattle Times, which I recommend Members read, tells the story of Kirk and Patricia Ackley, a construction worker and a Walmart employee in Washington State.

More than a decade ago, they bought a new manufactured home big enough for their children and room to care for Patricia's dad, who had dementia. But their dream became a nightmare when the promised 7 percent interest rate was raised to 12.5 percent.

This family faced crisis when this raised their monthly payment from $700 to $1,100. They had already invested $11,000 to build the concrete foundation for their new home. They took the loan, but it destroyed their finances and nearly cost them their marriage. The home was repossessed.

A 2015 investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and The Seattle Times interviewed more than 280 customers of Clayton Homes. One person they interviewed was a member of the Navajo Nation. She said she learned about Clayton on Navajo radio.

The ad recommended that she talk to a specific Navajo-speaking salesperson at a lot outside of the reservation. He told her that Vanderbilt Mortgage was the only source of finance for homes on the reservation. He didn't tell her the truth and overcharged her.

Now it is illegal for a salesperson to steer buyers to high-cost loans because of new rules from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But section 915 of the bill weakens those protections. Loans with high interest rates can be especially devastating to buyers of mobile homes since houses often depreciate quickly.

A buyer with a high rate will still owe a large sum for many years on a home that can be almost impossible to sell or finance. That is because the value of the home can fall below the loan balance.

Opponents of my amendment say that they want to help manufactured home buyers. That is a good thing. Yet none of them have cosponsored H.R. 515, which would provide low-cost loans to owners of outdated mobile homes so they can buy ENERGY STAR homes, which would reduce their bills and save energy. None of them have joined me to cosponsor the Frank Adelmann Manufactured Housing Community Sustainability Act, which helps residents of mobile home communities form a cooperative and buy the land that they live on. Or what about H.R. 3583 that gives manufactured homeowners located in communities the same tax benefits as those who own their own land?

I have introduced these bills to try to help people who live in manufactured homes. We do and must stand with them because this is an affordable, and sometimes quality, housing option for people, and yet manufactured homeowners support my bills.

Right here we have the National Manufactured Home Owners Association, which has said very clearly that my amendment is a good one.

There is a way to help manufactured homeowners that does not involve overcharging them. There is a way forward to help owners of manufactured housing without helping Clayton Homes and its affiliates make more money off of them.

And let's be clear, nearly no other lender benefits to this change to section 915. Ninety-one percent of the high-cost loans come from lenders owned by Clayton. The industry's second largest mobile home lender, Wells Fargo, didn't have a single loan in the high-rate pool in The Seattle Times study.

Protect manufactured home buyers. Support my amendment No. 200.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is to preserve the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's authority to regulate small-dollar loans.

Sometimes people need access to more money quickly. We know that. Your car breaks down, your refrigerator dies, or your kid breaks a leg at a soccer game and you get hit with an unexpected health bill. Life happens sometimes, not on a plan. We get that.

Unfortunately, too many people--about half of families--do not have the adequate savings for the cushion. Right now, Mr. Chairman, about 63 percent of all Americans report that they do not know what they would do if hit with an unexpected $500 bill.

If they take out a payday loan or a title loan, they can fall into a cycle of debt, and many people do. Instead of getting one $500 loan, most people get a repeat loan of 6 to 10, on average, paying additional fees each time, at 400 percent interest. So a $500 loan could cost thousands of dollars.

More than 80 percent of the payday industry's revenues are generated by repeat borrowers, not one-and-done, Mr. Chairman.

That is why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau prioritized improving the small-dollar loan market. Unfortunately, language in this bill would stop the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from moving forward to rein in abuses in the payday loans, auto title loans, and other similar debt traps.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has documented through extensive study how payday lending traps borrowers in a cycle of debt: one in three auto title loans in default, one in five borrowers using auto title loans have their cars repossessed. That is 20 percent.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is close to releasing guidance to improve this market. Its efforts are supported by a broad network of civil rights and consumer advocates, as well as faith-based leaders opposing predatory lending.

I am really proud of Exodus Lending in my district. The Minneapolis Lutheran congregation recognized that too many of their congregants were stuck in debt traps. Their parishioners had jobs. They had bank accounts. But when they took out small-dollar loans, it gave lenders access to their bank accounts, which stripped out a third of their paycheck every 2 weeks. Instead of one loan, they ended up getting ten because they could not repay the first loan.

So the Lutherans, working with Sunrise Banks, established an alternative. They made more than 100 loans to people stuck in debt traps. Other communities are creating small-dollar lending alternatives through employer assistance programs with for-profit partners.

My amendment would simply allow the CFPB to finalize its rulemaking so cool ideas like these, to help people out of debt, could go forward. We need strong Federal standards so people can have access to small loans on a quick basis without falling prey to debt traps.

Research from the Center for Responsible Lending shows that payday lending drains $3.4 billion a year nationally from consumers' pockets-- money that is no longer available to help pay for medicine, new tires, or any kind of emergency.

The CFPB is very close to putting forth a better way to get private sector lenders involved. We could have a $300 loan with $60 fees that someone can repay.

Let's allow the CFPB to move forward to better small-dollar loans. Please support my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, let's be clear, to get a payday loan, you have to have a bank account and a job. We are not talking about the unbanked. We are talking about people who run into a short-term financial crisis, they go to a payday lender, but the amount of the fees are so high that they have to borrow money to pay the money back, and they end up getting in a cycle of 6 to 10 loans that they have to continue to take out, which drains money from their finances. They lose bank accounts because of payday loans.

We are saying: Let the CFPB allow the regulatory process, the rulemaking process, to go forward. Let's not chop it off, let's not stop it, and let's see what we can find out. People in my district have come up with some pretty innovative ways to go around the high-cost, high-APR payday lending scam.

But if we just say, No, we are just going to take authority away from the CFPB, what we are really doing is subjecting Americans to the payday loan industry. Now, I don't want to take support from those guys, so I am happy to stand up here and say: Vote for my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. If you have a contract doing business with the Federal Government, if in your disclosures you have been found designated to have violations of the Federal Labor Relations Act, and those violations are considered to be willful, intentional, and repeated, then you will not be able to take advantage of this particular appropriation.

This kind of amendment is designed to say that the Federal Government believes that a penny earned and a penny worked should be received by the worker. It is as simple as that.

People who do not support this amendment are saying that Federal contractors can engage in wage theft and it is okay with us. And we are simply saying that the hardworking people in the United States expect that the Federal penny that workers earn will be given to them, and that is not too much to ask.

Hardworking people living in America should never worry that an employer will steal their wages, especially if that employer is paid by a government contract. Right now, Federal contractors who repeatedly and intentionally pay subminimum wage, force

their workers to work off the clock, refuse to pay overtime, or make illegal deductions on their employees' pay are still allowed to apply for Federal contracts. They should not be. We should reward workers who treat their workers fairly and not allow firms who willfully and repeatedly profiteer off of their employees by letting them keep their government contracts.

If passed, my amendment will ensure that a business that willfully and repeatedly violates the Fair Labor Standards Act cannot apply for a Federal Government contract until they clean up their act. To be clear, my amendment would not punish a single accidental violation.

If my colleagues across the aisle won't make corporations pay their fair share of their taxes, I hope that they will at least join me in going after employers who refuse to pay taxpayer money to line their pockets by cheating employees repeatedly, and on purpose. This is not a small thing. This is real money out of real people's pockets.

The Economic Policy Institute found that low-wage workers in just the ten most popular States--California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and others--lose $8 billion in wages due to wage theft each year.

For example, the corporation General Dynamics Information Technology owns a number of call centers that serve Federal contracts. In the last 10 years, they have agreed to pay $412,000 in back wages to 921 employees for Fair Labor Standards Act violations. Immigrants and residents of low-income communities are often at the greatest risk for abuse at the hands of employers who do wage theft.

The government should be doing everything it can to protect workers from intimidation and stolen wages. If this amendment passes, companies like General Dynamics Information Technology won't be able to continue to do what they have been doing. They will have to be fair to people, at least after they clean up their act.

We have to demand higher standards, Mr. Chairman. Respecting a fair day's pay for a fair day's work is an American value.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, cutting off funds to UNRWA would force it to shut down. If UNRWA shuts down, they will not be able to operate, and all of the services that it provides will fall to the predominant power, which is Hamas. I don't think this is what the gentleman wants.

The fact of the matter is UNRWA, right now, provides education, food, shelter, and a whole host of services in very dire conditions. Over the last number of years, we have seen 90 percent of the tap waters not fit for human consumption, rolling blackouts 20 to 22 hours a day, and UNRWA, in this context, is making sure that necessities like education and economic opportunity exist.

It would be counterproductive to cut off UNRWA because somebody is going to have to help the refugees.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, all Americans deserve access to clean air. We have a great deal of progress that we have made in making the air cleaner and reducing pollution, but we should continue to learn from the most recent science to continue to improve air quality. Instead, this bill delays needed public health protections like the ozone standard.

My amendment would strike language that delays the implementation of the new ozone standards until the year 2026. We don't have until 2026 to protect our children's lungs. We don't have until that time to protect our seniors who are most subject and vulnerable to respiratory harm.

The consequences of this pollution are real and significant, especially for ozone pollutants. Chronic exposure to ozone at the ground level is dangerous. It increases the risk of hospital admissions. In my district in Minnesota, we have a real epidemic of respiratory injuries known as asthma. North Minneapolis is mostly a low-income community of color and has the highest rates of poverty, unemployment, and asthma.

Our children deserve better. Allowing the implementation of these ozone standards will protect them.

I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, much is said on this House floor about job-killing regulations. As a person who believes in the right of a business to open up and make a profit, I also believe that business must absorb the cost that they impose on society as well.

This rule says you can take all the money you can possibly make as you expand and increase ground level ozone, but you don't ever have to pay the costs of the externalities and the health costs you impose on everybody else.

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

Mr. Chairman, administrative relief sounds like a euphemism for ``you guys got to keep breathing this bad stuff.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to share with everybody that over the past several weeks, Americans have seen this body try to strip healthcare away from them. If there was a full repeal with no replace, 32 million people would have been without any healthcare that they had before, and many more would have been unprotected from preexisting conditions. That, fortunately, was held off. But now here we are again today with more attacks and assaults on people's health.

When will the Congress take people's health seriously? When will we hold businesses accountable who emit toxins that cause the ozone layer at the ground to increase and cause respiratory illnesses?

It is time for Congress to act responsibly in the public interest to make sure that the health of all Americans is protected. The people have the right to breathe. Let's go forward and eliminate and strip out this language that delays the implementation of the new zone standards until many years from now. Let's do it now.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the University of Minnesota Libraries, which has been awarded the 2017 National Medal for Museum and Library Service. Their devotion to innovative and accessible library service has made them one of the nation's standout public research libraries.

Every year, the Institute of Museum and Library Services selects ten institutions that best represent the stewardship of public knowledge. Throughout its 23-year history, the IMLS has only selected three academic libraries for the recognition. This is a fitting recognition of the amount of community-driven work the UMN Libraries undertakes. As a public research library, their work expands far beyond the University walls to our state's 5.5 million residents and beyond.

As I wrote in my letter of nomination for the University of Minnesota Libraries: I have been moved by the deep commitment the Libraries have shown to our community. Its mission is realized every day through the dedication, creativity, and human kindness represented in the programs and services it provides. It is a shining example of how a public institution can make a great difference in the lives of people within its walls and beyond its borders. I am proud to be associated with the University Libraries and believe it to be an exemplary candidate for this honor.

I am thrilled to congratulate the UMN Libraries for receiving the U.S. government's top honor for library service to the community. I look forward to seeing the way they expand the pursuit of knowledge in coming decades.

Mr. Speaker, for far too long, people's legal rights have been limited by the use of forced arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial products and services. Forced arbitration clauses, also called mandatory pre-dispute clauses, prevent cheated or defrauded American consumers from going to court to challenge wrongdoing by big banks, cell phone providers, auto leasing and auto financing firms, credit repair, payday lenders, debt collectors and credit card companies. Most arbitration clauses for financial products also prohibit consumers from participating in class actions. Forced arbitration clauses have been opposed by conservatives and progressives.

Forced arbitration is a secret process where consumers seek redress at private firms chosen by the financial institution. This rigged system is why banks and lenders receive more than a million dollars per year paid out to them by their customers in forced arbitration, compared to just $86,216 returned to consumers. While advocates for the financial sector are correct that (sixteen) consumers recover an average of $5,400 in arbitration every year, they leave out the fact that banks and lenders receive an average award of $13,195 when they win--and they win 93 percent of the time. Indeed, a recent report found that consumers paid more restitution to Wells Fargo in arbitration than the other way around between 2009 and 2016, the prime years of its fake account scandal.

After years of effort, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rule restoring American consumers' right to join together in court when harmed by systemic and widespread misconduct in the financial marketplace. The rule does not eliminate forced arbitration, but it would make individual secret arbitration more transparent by publishing arbitration complaints and outcomes. It also permits class action lawsuits.

Instead of celebrating a rule that prevents financial interests from evading responsibility, Republicans seek to stop this rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Today, they presented H.J. Res. 111.

It is a vote to prevent consumers from receiving adequate compensation for fraud, deceptive and predatory practices.

A vote for H.J. Res. 111 is a vote to deny Americans their constitutional right to access the legal process.

H.J. Res. 111 would protect companies like Wells Fargo that used arbitration clauses and class action bans to create fraudulent accounts, overcharge customers with debit fees and mortgages and avoid responsibility for misconduct. H.J. Res 111 would remove federal protections for members of the military from evictions and- repossessions while they are on active duty. And, H.J. Res. 111 would deny consumers the ability to get fair compensation for harm.

For those reasons, and more, we urge you reject a resolution that shields companies from responsibility for risky and illegal conduct.

Today is another example to show the American people just how much Republicans want to rig the system for the powerful. A vote FOR this resolution is a vote to rig the rules to take money from the pockets of the American people and put it into the pockets of the financial sector.

H.J. Res. 111 puts the profits of banks, student loan, car loan and mobile wireless providers, credit card companies, payday lenders, debt collectors over the fair treatment of the American people.

How?

For far too long, people's legal rights have been limited by the use of forced arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial products and services. Forced arbitration clauses, also called mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses, prevent cheated or defrauded American consumers from going to court to challenge wrongdoing.

If your bank opens a fake account in your name, if your student loan lender refuses to adjust your loan due to your loss of income, if your bank re-orders your debit transactions to maximize overdraft fees, it was frequently impossible for you to join with others to sue the bank as part of a class action.

But two weeks ago, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau responded to demands from consumers and changed the rules to protect consumers. The Consumer Bureau told banks and lenders they cannot keep their customers out of court. Class action lawsuits must be allowed. And, the Consumer Bureau ended the secrecy that surrounds the arbitration courts. Companies must report court filings, arbitration filings and rulings.

The vast majority of the American people, consumer groups like the Consumer Federation of America, the Military Coalition, and even conservative groups oppose forced arbitration.

A vote AGAINST H.J. Res. 111 is a vote to allow people to receive adequate compensation for fraud, deceptive and predatory practices.

A vote AGAINST H.J. Res. 111 is a vote to give Americans their constitutional right to access the legal process.

Please join me in voting against H.J. Res. 111.

I include in the Record various statement of opposition to the joint resolution.

[From National Consumer Law Center, July 2017]

Summary of CFPB Rule on Forced Arbitration

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has issued

a rule addressing the use of forced arbitration clauses in

the fine print of financial contracts. The rule has two

components:

1) Restores consumers' day in court and accountability when

companies engage in widespread violations of the law.

Contracts that have forced arbitration clauses will not be

permitted to ban consumers from banding together by joining

or bringing class actions involving consumer financial

services.

2) Brings transparency to the secretive arbitration

process. Companies that use forced arbitration in individual

cases must report court filings, arbitration claims and

rulings and other information to the CFPB (with identifying

information redacted) so that the CFPB can study the impact

of forced arbitration in individual cases.

The rule applies to the core consumer financial markets

involving lending money, storing money, and moving or

exchanging money. With some exceptions, the rule would cover

most:

Loans and credit, including credit cards, payday loans,

student loans, and auto loans (auto finance companies, not

auto dealers, except some buy-here/pay-here dealers).

Mortgages are already prohibited from having forced

arbitration clauses. Providing leads, referrals, purchasing,

selling and servicing credit are covered.

Bank accounts, prepaid cards, money transfer services and

apps and remittances.

Credit reporting, credit scores, credit monitoring.

Credit repair, debt management, debt settlement, and debt

relief services, including those that purport to avoid

foreclosure. This includes debt relief involving. medical

debt, taxes, and other kinds of debt even if not credit

related.

Check cashing, check collection, check guaranty services.

Auto leases, but not auto dealers who assign their leases.

Debt collection and payment processing related to these

products or services.

Mobile wireless providers that allow third party charges

through the wireless bill.

Key areas that are not covered include:

Auto dealers (other than somebuy-here/pay-here dealers),

such as claims related to discrimination, add-ons, lemon

laws, odometer fraud, or deception about a car's history.

For:profit colleges and trade schools, unless the school

directly makes loans.

Credit cards, bank accounts and other products begun before

the rule goes into effect.

Services offered directly by governments or tribes to

members within their jurisdiction. The rule does apply to

tribal payday lenders who offer products off-reservation.

Investment products and services by entities regulated by

the SEC.

Individuals and others who offer a product or service to 25

or fewer consumers a year.

Nonfinancial products and services, like nursing homes,

cable/mobile providers (except for third party charges on

bills), employers, or store payment plans that don't charge.

The rule applies to new contracts entered into 211 days

after a final rule is published (likely Spring of 2018) and

older contracts that are purchased or acquired after that

date.

July 25, 2017.

Re OPPOSE H.J. Res. 111, Congressional Review Act resolution

to repeal CFPB arbitration rule and block future reform

of forced arbitration.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: Americans for Financial Reform and

Public Citizen write to urge your opposition to H.J. Res.

111, the resolution to repeal the Consumer Financial

Protection Bureau (CFPB)'s arbitration rule under the

Congressional Review Act (CRA) and block a similar future

rule to protect consumers. This extreme legislative measure

would harm the public by insulating bad actors from

accountability when they systematically defraud consumers,

and give lawbreakers a competitive edge in the marketplace as

a result.

Based on five years of careful study and consideration

mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer

Protection Act of 2010, this rule is the result of a

Congressional directive instructing the agency to restrict or

ban forced arbitration if it found the practice harmful to

consumers. The rule centers on two commonsense measures: 1)

it restores the right of consumers to join together in court

by prohibiting class action bans, ensuring consumers can hold

banks accountable for widespread harm, and 2) it brings

transparency to individual arbitration by publishing claims

and outcomes with sensitive information redacted, ensuring

banks can no longer cover up illegal behavior.

According to a 2016 poll conducted by Pew Charitable

Trusts, nearly 90% of consumers want their right to join

together in class action lawsuits restored. Indeed, more than

100,000 individual consumers across the country wrote in to

support the rule during its public comment period, as did the

Military Coalition, representing 5.5 million servicemembers.

Two weeks ago, 310 consumer, civil rights, faith, and labor

organizations wrote to support the final rule.

All available data supports the conclusion that class

action lawsuits hold bad actors accountable and enable harmed

consumers to be made whole. Without the option to join

together, just 25 consumers with claims of less than $1,000

pursue arbitration each year. In contrast, class actions

returned $2.2 billion to 34 million Americans between 2008

and 2012, after deducting attorneys' fees and court costs. An

independent study conducted by a former clerk for Justice

Scalia reached similar conclusions, finding ``even the

harshest critics of consumer class actions would have to

concede that the picture it paints is a fairly successful

one.''

While bank lobbyists suggest that consumers recover more

money in arbitration than class actions, these claims are

misleading at best and brazenly dishonest at worst. Even with

class action bans currently a widespread presence in customer

contracts, available data shows consumers still recover $440

million more in class actions than arbitration every year,

with nearly 7 million consumers receiving cash relief

annually. Class actions also often result in injunctive

relief and systemic reforms that benefit consumers who are

not members of the class.

Big banks and lenders prefer forced arbitration precisely

because the vast majority of consumers cannot and do not

pursue claims in that forum. Though bank lobbyists loudly

proclaim that consumers recover an average of $5,400 in

arbitration, they neglect to mention that this number is

based on just sixteen consumers per year who receive any

relief in arbitration, across all fifty states. Because

arbitration is so time and resource-intensive for consumers

compared to class action lawsuits, the consumers that choose

to pursue arbitration tend to have high-dollar claims backed

by strong evidence--and even these sixteen consumers recover

an average of just nine cents for every dollar claimed.

It is no wonder that the financial industry prefers

arbitration when consumers receive a total of just $86,216

per year. If Wells Fargo had to pay $5,400 each to even a

small percentage of the thousands of customers defrauded in

its fraudulent account scandal, surely it would switch sides

in this debate. But forced arbitration not only allows banks

and lenders to keep millions in illegal profits, it

affirmatively lines their pockets with large awards paid out

by consumers.

The same study that found sixteen consumers recover a total

of $86,216 in arbitration per year also found that banks and

lenders receive more than a million dollars per year paid out

to them by their customers in forced arbitration. While

sixteen consumers recover an average of $5,400 in arbitration

every year, banks and lenders receive an average award of

$13,195 when they win--and they win 93% of the time. Indeed,

a recent report found that consumers paid more restitution to

Wells Fargo in arbitration than the other way around between

2009 and 2016, the prime years of its fake account scandal.

In addition to the high payouts banks and lenders receive

in arbitration, the Wells Fargo scandal demonstrates how

financial companies use secret arbitration proceedings to

keep misconduct out of the public eye. After the CFPB led a

$185 million enforcement action against the bank for opening

as many as 3.5 million fraudulent accounts and credit cards,

reports revealed that customers had been trying to sue Wells

Fargo over fake accounts since at least 2013. Yet the bank's

lawyers used arbitration clauses buried in the fine print of

the customers' other legitimate account contracts to force

allegations of fraud out of public court--and the bank

continued to profit from its illegal scheme for years.

Finally, real-life experience shows that restoring consumer

class action rights will not increase costs or decrease

availability of credit. Consumers saw no increase in price

after Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Capital One, and HSBC

dropped their forced arbitration clauses as a result of

court-approved settlements. Similarly, mortgage rates did not

increase after Congress banned forced arbitration in the

mortgage market.

The CFPB arbitration rule will ensure that bad actors

cannot turn fraud into a viable profit model to the detriment

of law abiding institutions, including the many community

banks and credit unions that largely do not include

arbitration clauses in their customer contracts. This new

rule simply allows consumers to enforce rights deemed crucial

by state and federal protections and increases accountability

and transparency, making the financial system stronger and

safer for all of us. We urge you to reject H.J. Res. 111 and

allow this data-driven, commonsense rule to take effect.

Sincerely,

Americans for Financial Reform

& Public Citizen.

Mr. Speaker, if you listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle, they are going to tell you that having access to a lawyer in a court is a bad thing, but it is the foundation of American justice. The foundation of American justice is that, if somebody rips you off, you can sue them in court.

These arbitration clauses are the fine print, Mr. Speaker, that you find in these contracts that say, if you have a dispute with this particular company, you can only go to arbitration. And these arbitrators are almost always picked by the company themselves.

The fact is this is not justice. It is a railroad court. It is not a real court, and consumers are less well off. That is why over 100,000 individual consumers across the country wrote in to support the rule during the public comment period.

If my friends on the other side of the aisle are right, how come they don't have 100,000 people saying that their position is correct?

The people have spoken. They have engaged in the comment period and said: We want to be able to go to court to hold these people accountable.

Wells Fargo ripped off literally hundreds of thousands of Americans. In 2 million transactions, they opened up accounts people never asked for.

If you sue them, you might just be limited to an arbitration clause, which limits your award, and they pick the judge. Why not be able to join with other Americans and sue in court the good, old-fashioned way: get some discovery, get some money back, get some justice? This is what it is all about.

We believe that the American people deserve to take them to court if they take your money and rip you off. That is what we are standing up for today.

This is nothing but a U.S. Chamber, Big Business giveaway that they are talking about. We stand on the side of American consumers. American consumers want to take them to court.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to talk about a tragic situation involving Justine Damond. Justine Damond was a young woman who saw what she believed to be a sexual assault outside of her home. She then made a call to the police and asked them to come to give assistance.

Ms. Damond then went outside to try to meet with the police to report what she saw, and for some reason, which no one really knows quite yet, she was shot in the abdomen and died.

Ms. Damond, 40 years old, she was due to be married in only a few weeks. She leaves behind a fiance, her fiance's son, her family, her parents, and here we are again dealing with a tragic situation in which an unarmed civilian has been shot by a member of law enforcement.

Now, as I speak today, Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. I know many police officers personally. I know how hard they work. I know the dangers that they incur. I know that they, by and large, join the force because they want to help people, because they are courageous and brave and are willing to put themselves in harm's way in order to protect other citizens. And I myself, and many people I know, have called on the police to stop crimes from happening, to report them, and we are grateful when they report.

But it is also true, Mr. Speaker, that officer-involved shootings happen with tremendous frequency, and it is not even a matter of blaming the officer. We have to ask ourselves what is going on with the system of policing which allows us to return to this tragic scenario again and again and again.

Justine Damond, again, was reportedly in her pajamas, and she was trying to help another person, yet somehow the officer, who was on the passenger side of the squad car, shot through the door or the window, and that is not clear, and she sustained lethal injuries.

One of the most disturbing things about this particular case, Mr. Speaker, is that the officer's body cameras were not turned on. The dash cam did not capture the interaction between Justine and the officers, and the body cams were, again, as I mentioned, not on. This is despite the fact that all Minneapolis police officers have worn body cameras since the end of 2016. Why the body cameras were not on, we can only speculate.

But I urge, with everything I have, that the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Minneapolis Police Department, and everyone and anyone who has jurisdictional authority investigate the reason for these tools to not be in use.

Justine is dead. Justine is not coming back. And it is true that innocent people get killed by criminals all day, and that is a sad reality of our world. It doesn't just happen in my city of Minneapolis. It happens all over the country. It happens all over the globe.

But I think that citizens expect that members of law enforcement, who are sworn to protect us, would take due care to protect life, not end it, unless there was a legal basis to do so.

Now, again, I don't know what happened here. Nobody really knows what caused the officer to somehow reach over his partner and shoot Ms. Damond in the abdomen and kill her when she is unarmed and wearing pajamas and is the reporter of a crime. The weeks and days ahead will reveal what happened. But I assure you that this will not be the last time that it happens unless, as a society, we begin to ask ourselves why these things are happening.

In our community in Minnesota, we are still trying to figure out how to

deal with it, how to cope with the death of Philando Castile. Philando Castile was shot and killed on videotape, captured on live-stream Facebook. To the credit of John Choi, who was the prosecutor, district attorney in Ramsey County, Minnesota, that officer was charged with the criminal offense of manslaughter, and after a jury trial, that officer was acquitted.

When I looked at the dash cam and saw the officer discharge his firearm into the body of Philando Castile, it was absolutely horrifying, and I couldn't possibly understand why this happened. I don't know what the jurors saw, and I am a lawyer myself, and I support the jury system, but I can tell you that Philando Castile, who did have a firearm, said: Officer, I have a firearm; I have a license to carry a firearm. And the next thing you know, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, young man dead.

Philando Castile was a beloved member of his community. He was the lunch attendant. He was the lunch manager at Hill Elementary School in St. Paul, and the children needed counseling, and the families needed somebody to explain why was Philando Castile shot this way.

The children are raised to respect the police, but they knew Philando Castile and they loved him, and they couldn't reconcile why the police, who they respect, would hurt Philando Castile, who they also respected and admired and loved.

Jamar Clark, another one from Minnesota, unarmed, shot, killed, tremendous outpouring of community frustration around this, brought an 18-day protest outside of the Fourth Precinct in Minneapolis, and you know, drew the attention of the entire community. And I can assure you that many people, particularly young people, were angry, upset, frustrated, feeling very vulnerable because they just felt that there was no accountability in that their lives just didn't matter very much in the eyes of the people who were sworn to protect and defend them.

We have a community problem, Mr. Speaker. We have to come together and deal with it, and it is simply not enough to say it is all the cops' fault or it is all the citizens' fault. This is a social problem that calls for a social solution.

Part of it will be changes in law. Part of it will be departmental changes. Part of it will be changes in the way we do business. But we have got to have these changes. And if people just say, ``It is not my fault, you know, it was an accident, this person had it coming,'' we will never get to the bottom of these kind of things.

Mr. Speaker, in 1967, there were a state of civil disturbances, some people call riots, throughout our urban areas, and the government responded by issuing something called a Kerner Commission Report, K-E- R-N-E-R. And one of the findings of that is that police community relations were incredibly bad, that communication was poor, and that the police were essentially sent into areas that were economically and socially isolated and deprived in order to keep order, and what really should have been happening is that we should have been investing in jobs and opportunity and social inclusion, and we just asked the police to sort of just solve this problem without making the investments that our society should have made.

I am sad to say that we really don't seem to have advanced very far. The fact is that often civil disturbances, which are often referred to as riots, occur after these tragic shootings. Civil judgments are paid out. Citizens tend to distrust the police and are less willing to call them when they need them.

There are tremendous social costs to not addressing these officer- involved shootings involving unarmed civilians, and we have to be there to do something about it.

We have seen a number of tragic circumstances all across the country, whether it is Sandra Bland or whether it is Walter Scott in South Carolina, whether it is Eric Garner who died begging for a breath or whether it is all of the victims of Officer Holtzclaw who routinely and systematically sexually abused women in Oklahoma City. The fact is there is great discretionary latitude conferred on our law enforcement officers.

We need more oversight and accountability. We need people to be held accountable when they break the law, and I mean people who are police and people who are not. We need to say that there is one standard of justice and that everyone has to adhere to it.

We know about Michael Brown, 17 years old, shot in 2014, or we could say Tamir Rice. There are so many cases. They just go on and on and on. We are at a point where we have to address this crisis.

Now, Ms. Damond is one of more than 500 fatal shootings by police this year alone. I will say it again, Mr. Speaker. Ms. Damond is one of more than 500 people who have been fatally killed by the police this year. Some of them, the officer may have had legal justification, some not; but when you have got 500 people across this country being shot and killed, it is a crisis that we have to do something about.

This year, I could simply tell you, Mr. Speaker, that offering prayers simply isn't going to get it done. We have a systemic problem, and whether we have to talk about addressing body cameras more and insisting upon their use or whether we need implicit bias training for police to raise awareness of unconscious or implicit biases, whether we need to train officers on the deescalation of force and have training in that regard and, yes, prosecutions of people who just commit crimes with a uniform on, we have got to take decisive action.

We need more diversity in police departments, and we need more diversity in jury selection. We need grand jury reform, and we need the Department of Justice to keep account of all the cases that involve officer-involved shootings.

One thing we absolutely do not need is for the Attorney General, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, to abandon consent decrees, which have brought some level of understanding and communication between communities and the police departments. We need a partner in the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker. What is at stake is too important.

We also need quality schools. We need investment in neighborhoods. We need quality jobs and affordable housing. We need healthcare for all, and we need to have clean air and water for everyone. We need those things as part of the ecosystem that human beings live in. But none of these things are a replacement for decent, respectful treatment people deserve from law enforcement.

I am not here to give up. I am here to engage police in a dialogue about how we reduce these shootings, how we increase the trust, how we make sure that no one feels that they can't go to the police because the trust has been so severely damaged.

I believe we have got to come together as a society and recognize that this problem is serious. It is not getting better; in fact, it is getting worse.

When you think about cases involving people like Mya Hall, or Alexa Christian, Meagan Hockaday, Sandra Bland, Natasha McKenna, all African- American women killed by or after encounters with the police, it is not just men; it is women, too. It is not just African Americans; it is whites, too. Justine Damond was a white female. It is Latinos. It is people of different economic stations. It is not just one community. If Ms. Damond's case proves anything, it is that officer-involved shootings of unarmed civilians don't only occur in certain neighborhoods of certain people.

The time is now for us to act. And I do put out a call for police and communities to engage in an intensive discussion about how we restore trust, how we increase accountability, and how we really make it true when we write on the side doors of our police vehicles all across this country, ``to protect and serve.''

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, for the folks who might be watching this today, I think it is important to understand that bad ozone causes a whole lot of health problems--things like making it difficult to breathe deeply. It can aggravate your emphysema. It can cause a sore and scratchy throat. It can aggravate lung diseases like asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. And it is actually associated with asthma attacks, as I mentioned, and it can cause very serious obstructive pulmonary disease. It is a bad thing, it is dangerous, and it hurts people.

In the Obama administration, we tried to pass some standards to say that companies that emit the polluting substances have to comply with certain air standards to make sure that people don't suffer these nasty health effects.

What is going on today with H.R. 806 is that the Republicans are going to say: No, they don't have to implement right away. They have got a lot more time, years, before they actually have to comply with these air standards.

So what they are saying is that industries that pollute don't have to take the measures that they would need to take that will cost them money--yes, they will--in order to protect the public's health. They are saying that their money and the profits of their shareholders are more important than the lungs of our kids.

You are going to hear them say all this stuff about jobs, jobs. Please. This is not about jobs. This is about money. This is about profitability from polluting industries that don't want to spend the money to protect the public's health. That is what this is about. That is what we are talking about.

They always say: You can have a job, or you can breathe, but you can't do both. That is what our friends say. You can breathe, but then you won't have a job; or you can have a job, but then you can't breathe.

The fact is, they want to send us to work with gas masks on, and it is wrong. We as a people deserve to breathe. Our kids deserve to breathe. Our seniors deserve to breathe. If it costs a company a little bit more to make sure the air that we have is breathable, then they should spend that money. I believe that they should, because when you look at the health costs on the other side, they are astronomical. What does it cost to lose a loved one dying from an asthma attack or bronchitis or obstructive pulmonary disease? What does it cost a family in terms of not just treasure but heartache when they have their loved ones hooked up to a bunch of machines and wires because they are undergoing a respiratory attack? That is the cost. That is the true cost that we have to consider, Mr. Chair.

The real cost here is not this mythical jobs thing that they say. The real cost they are talking about is profitability, but the true cost to society is our health. Do you really want to see missed days of school, missed days of work? Do you really want to see more people incurring medical bills because of the failure of industry to protect our health when they are taking that stuff that they are spitting out of their smokestacks and putting it into the sky that we all have to breathe?

Mr. Chair, it is time to say ``no'' to H.R. 806. No.

Mr. Chair, if the Congress of the United States were to direct the Department of Defense to study and examine and scrutinize your religion to list leaders in that religion and teachers, to decide what was orthodox and unorthodox, you would be among--I don't know--the Christian community, the Jewish community, Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims.

But only Islam is selected out in the Franks amendment, only one religion is done so. Mr. Chair, if you select out one religion for particular scrutiny, to scrutinize their doctrine, to declare to the government what is orthodox and unorthodox, and to identify teachers of it, you have simply abridged the free exercise of that religion. That is unconstitutional.

Nobody is saying you can't study terrorism. You can study what motivates people to commit acts of terrorism; and we should, but we don't, not equally. The fact is that this amendment singled out and stigmatizes one religious group. It is wrong, and it should be voted down.

Mr. Speaker, America needs a raise. We have not raised the minimum wage in 10 years, and people who work hard every single day have seen their pay erode again and again.

Mr. Speaker, people who are working full time at $7.25 an hour can't make it. And if we can defeat this previous question, we can actually bring up something that the American people really need, which is to get a raise.

Mr. Speaker, this is not something we are going to dump on top of business all at once. There is a ladder up. It takes 7 years to get to that $15, but, Mr. Speaker, make no doubt that we need to do it.

Mr. Speaker, right now, today, people working full time qualify for food stamps, housing assistance, and medical assistance because their employers don't pay them enough to make it. And I know that everybody in this House knows that, when people work hard, they ought to be able to make it in America.

If you work full time, you shouldn't be in poverty. You should be able to afford a good apartment. You should be able to have good scheduling for your job. You should have some benefits. This is all the American Dream is about, being able to work hard and get paid fairly for it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to let you know that between 2009 and 2013, we saw the top 1 percent of income earners get 85 percent of the income growth in this country. That means we have historic inequality not seen since the Great Depression. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker. And if we can defeat this previous question, we should do everything we can to pass this excellent piece of legislation that Ranking Member Bobby Scott has authored in this body.

Mr. Scott and I, as well as many other Members, have been all over this country, and right here in D.C. standing with workers explaining to us their struggles, how they haven't seen a raise, how they haven't seen their pay go up. And they are serious, Mr. Speaker, about wanting to be part of this economy, too.

Pass this minimum wage increase. Give America a raise.

Mr. Speaker, due to other commitments, I missed the following roll call votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Roll Call No. 286, I would have voted yes,

Roll Call No. 287, I would have voted yes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the transgender, queer, lesbian, bisexual, and gay members of my community as we begin celebrating Pride. Every year, Twin Cities Pride recognizes individuals and organizations who have devoted their lives to equality. This year, the Grand Marshal is Jana Shortal, and the Community Champions of Pride are Clare Housing and the Avenues for Homeless Youth GLBT Host Homes Program.

Jana Shortal is a journalist, public figure, and co-anchor of KARE 11's Breaking the News, one of the Twin Cities' most popular evening news programs. Jana has garnered a lot of attention across our city-- accolades for her coverage of a mom dying of cancer, criticism in the Star Tribune for wearing skinny jeans, and national awards for telling stories about race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity. Throughout her career, Jana has been guided by an overarching goal: telling the story. Like she's said herself, ``The average person's completely-not-average story motivates me.'' Often times we get lost in statistics or politics and forget to talk about how it's actually impacting people's lives. Jana's drive to humanize the news is more important now than ever--we can't let elected officials control the narrative just because they dislike the facts. I thank Jana for her service to our community, for her realness on screen, and for her devotion to telling the story.

Clare Housing and Avenues for Homeless Youth provide something that can mean the difference between life and death for LGBTQ folks: a place to live. For 30 years, Clare Housing has provided housing for hundreds of people with HIV or AIDS. They manage multiple apartment buildings for people who are independent, as well as nearly a dozen family homes where people can eat regular meals and have a caseworker assist them with doctor's visits and medicine. We have made tremendous progress on HIV treatment, and it is unacceptable that a lack of access to housing or healthcare means it can still be a death sentence. Thanks to Clare Housing's leadership, HIV positive individuals can get the housing stability they need to keep their bodies healthy.

Avenues for Homeless Youth's GLBT Host Home Program is a national model for community and volunteer-driven efforts to end LGBTQ youth homelessness. Nearly 40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ, and many of them were pushed out of their homes due to their gender or sexuality. This program provides not only a roof over their head, but an environment where their identities are validated and supported. Over their 15 year history, the GLBT Host Home Program has helped hundreds of kids grow into happy and healthy adults. No one should be forced into a life of economic struggles simply because their parents are closed minded. The Host Home Program is a tremendous example of what ``It takes a village'' looks like in practice.

If the last five months have taught us anything, it's that we still have so much work to do. We can't sit back and watch our federal government walk back protections for trans kids, or school districts lead the charge to belittle and exclude them. We can't accept the talk that we have to wait because there are more important or less divisive issues. LGBTQ equality is deeply connected to economic inequality, racism, sexism, and every other -ism we're fighting against. We must fight for both social and economic equality, because if we don't fight for both, we won't get either. My deepest thanks to these leaders in our community who are showing how we advance equity on all fronts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the public service of Kari Moe, my Chief of Staff for over 10 years.

When I was first elected to Congress, many of my friends and colleagues said the one thing I had to do was hire a great Chief of Staff. Kari has been more than great--she has been irreplaceable.

Kari Moe met my personal hero and a mentor, Senator Paul Wellstone, when she was a freshman at Carleton College, where he was a professor. When the college's conservative administration moved not to renew Senator Wellstone's contract in 1975, Kari organized campus protests to grant him tenure. Kari and her fellow activists were victorious, and Wellstone was granted tenure.

That event marked the beginning of a long and successful career in organizing and leadership. Soon after graduating, she moved to Chicago to work for another personal hero, Harold Washington, the city's first black Mayor.

After Paul Wellstone won his Senate race in 1990, he called Kari to ask her to join his team in D.C. As Senator Wellstone's Chief, she helped achieve many progressive victories and helped develop staffers with her signature nurturing leadership style.

Kari has exceeded all expectations in her role as lead staffer for my office. She has, perhaps more than anyone, shaped my Congressional career. She helped us serve the 5th Congressional District, advance our policy agenda, and build the work of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. We have worked together every step of the way and I have appreciated her leadership. I will miss her and know she will continue to advance our agenda in her future work with young leaders.

She will be remembered in my office for her strength, empathy and leadership, always urging staff to act with purpose, and to remember that real change doesn't come from the top--it comes from empowering people at the grass roots.

I thank her for her service and will miss her in my office.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Since Dodd-Frank's passage, the economy has created over 16 million jobs over 85 consecutive months. Business lending has increased 75 percent. Banks, large and small, are posting all-time record profits, community banks are outperforming larger banks, and credit unions are expanding their membership. And because of the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 29 million people have seen $12 billion back into their pocket and not into those of improper and illegal practicing financial services firms.

Do you want to know why we have the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act before us today?

Because they want the money. Not the $12 billion that went back to the 29 million veterans and farmers and students and citizens and people who need that kind of help for their families. They want that money going back to the big financial interests.

And that is the purpose of the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act. It is between the many and the money, and the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act stands firmly on the side of those who would line their pockets in the top 1 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

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

One of the elements of the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act that is particularly troublesome to me--and there are many--has to do with the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act repealing section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Now, people watching this debate, Mr. Chair, might find that to be just legislative talk, but it is substantively, really important. Section 953(b) was a hard-fought victory for investors, consumers, workers, and the general public. Mr. Chair, the law requires that publicly traded firms disclose the ratio between what they pay their CEO and what they pay their median worker.

I think this is important information. A CEO of an S&P 500 company makes, on average, about $331 for every $1 a typical rank-and-file worker makes. In some companies, this ratio can reach as high as $1,000-to-$1. Investors should be able to consider if a CEO provides hundreds of times more value to their employees before investing in a firm. Actually, exorbitant CEO pay, excessive CEO pay, can impact dividends. It can impact all kinds of decisions, lead to risk taking, and it is a good idea for investors and the general public to know that information.

So while executives are making critical decisions about the direction of their companies, quality employees ensure those decisions are being properly implemented.

This pay ratio information benefits investors by giving them valuable information for ascertaining whether or not a company's employees are being treated fairly and, therefore, able to retain employees; whether or not it is a stable company, and a company that values its people.

The ratio helps them to decide how to cast their say-on-pay advisory votes on executive compensation. And research shows that the higher the CEO-to-median-worker pay ratio, the more likely the CEO is to pursue the kind of risky investments that brought the global financial crisis to bear.

Institute for Policy Studies found that nearly 40 percent of the CEOs on their top 25 highest paid list over a 20-year period wound up being fired, sought a bailout, or were forced to pay fraud-related fines.

Moreover, a lower ratio of CEO-to-median-worker pay, implies more investment in human capital, and a longer-term outlook on the corporation.

According to the Center for Audit Quality's annual investor survey, 46 percent of investors say they consider CEO compensation in their decisionmaking.

The current culture of paying CEOs hundreds of times--and even thousands in some limited cases--more than typical employees hurts working families, is detrimental to employee morale, and goes against the research which shows us what is best practice.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. Chair, does it make sense that, after 8 years of a piece of regulation, Dodd-Frank, that has brought us increases in GDP, increases in jobs, and stability in financial markets, that we would now repeal that piece of legislation to go back to a time when we saw that deregulation strategy bring us the Great Recession?

It just doesn't make any sense to take the position that what we need is more wide open, Wild West, you are on your own kind of financial rules and laws in our country.

The fact is, before Dodd-Frank was passed, we had an abysmal consumer protection system. We really had seven or eight different agencies that were sort of responsible, but not really. Consumer protection was not a priority of the Federal Government. And as a result of it, we saw a proliferation of mortgages that got people who really couldn't handle that particular mortgage that they got, or the products were just fraudulent, get into a situation where they ended up going into foreclosure.

We saw the secondary market package up some of these bad mortgages. We saw rating agencies say that these were good equity products, and when these products started to fail, what we saw is that those big banks that trafficked in those equities get bailed out, and we saw citizens lose their homes.

The fact is, going back to those bad old days is just a bad idea--to bring us back to a time when we didn't have any consumer protection, when we didn't have any responsibility placed on the shoulders of management, when we didn't say that we were going to look after these rating agencies, and we didn't say that these systemically important large institutions were going to get a little bit more scrutiny.

Before the time that we did that, we saw ruin in the economy. Let me just remind the American people: we had many States with unemployment above 10 percent because of the deregulation, laissez-faire attitude that prevailed in the American financial services legal system.

Those bad old days nearly ruined so many families, and they are just now starting to recover. But under Dodd-Frank, we have seen month after month of private sector job growth. We have seen economic activity increase. Fast enough for me? No. I think we need much more.

But with over $170 billion in record profits from 2016, I can tell you one thing: this claim on the other side that the banks and financial services sector is being crushed simply isn't a true statement. It is just not right.

Business lending is up 75 percent since Dodd-Frank. Data from the Federal Reserve shows aggregate bank lending has increased from about $1.2 trillion, in 2010, to $2 trillion in outstanding business loans. Vote ``no'' on the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which was filed late, should be viewed as the first admission by the Republicans that H.R. 10 would be bad for our financial markets and our economy.

The amendment recognizes that it would be inappropriate for Members of Congress to attend nonpublic meetings of the council charged with reviewing sensitive financial information and discussing potential threats to our economy.

I agree with the sponsor that this was one of many harmful provisions in the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.

Here are a few more: the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act eliminates the Office of Financial Research, which is tasked with studying emerging risks to our economy and informing the Financial Stability Oversight Council. The ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act stops the council from taking actions to prevent firms like AIG from threatening our economy. The ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act allows banks to choose the regulatory system that best suits their bottom line, even if doing so is bad for the economy and taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment also recognizes the dangers of subjecting our independent financial regulators to the partisan appropriations process, by restoring the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's and the National Credit Union Administration's independent funding when it comes to their responsibilities for unwinding failed banks and credit unions.

I agree, this is important, but do you know what is also important and needing to be independent?

The authority to supervise those entities before they fail.

The bank and credit union regulators, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, have important yet sensitive responsibilities to make sure that financial institutions follow rules that are good for the economy, good for consumers, but which some institutions would rather ignore.

Subjecting these decisions to the appropriations process will result in fewer cops on the beat, weaker guardrails, and a greater likelihood of financial catastrophe.

We have seen this happen before. One of the reasons for the failure of the housing giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was that they had a woefully underfunded regulator without independent funding.

Democrats fixed this when we created the independently funded Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2008. Since then, this agency has successfully made tough decisions to right both GSEs by putting them into conservatorship and cleaning up their businesses.

Ignoring this success and history, H.R. 10 would once again strip away the independent funding of the GSE's regulator, as it would for all of the financial regulators.

I am pleased that this amendment has recognized the problems taking away independent funding for our regulators, but, unfortunately, it doesn't go far enough. I oppose this amendment and I urge my colleagues to reject it and the entire ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, the late poet Maya Angelou had a saying: ``When people show you who they really are, believe them.''

So when the chief lobbyist for the American Bankers Association leads a pep rally before 1,500 bankers, we should pay attention. He probably means what he is saying.

In March, he told ABA members about all the opportunities for banking with a Republican Congress, he crowed: ``I don't want a seat at the table. I want the table.''

If we read this bill, we know what it looks like to give the financial services sector the whole table. We know they want the whole table.

H.R. 10 is clever at undermining financial regulators, emboldening Wall Street, and making it incredibly easy to delay regulators at every step of the rulemaking process.

It is important for the people of America to understand that when Republicans say they want to kill regulations, usually what they are talking about is safety regulations, regulations that make the water clean, the meat safe, and that financial product that you just bought not blow up in your face. They don't like regulations because regulations mean that the people who control some of these products can't just do whatever they want to do.

But for the people in the United States, you should know that financial regulators are going to keep money in your pocket, they are going to stop people with way more resources than you have from picking your pocket.

That is why we oppose this amendment. I think it is particularly important for people to realize that the rhetoric that we use denigrating regulation all the time is the same regulation that protects us, and that includes in the financial services sector.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chair, the Hollingsworth amendment seeks to insert a totally new and unvetted set of exemptions from the security laws for closed-end funds. These are the type of pooled investment vehicles that typically issue a fixed number of shares that, unlike mutual funds, are not redeemable on a daily basis by the fund, making them harder for investors to sell.

The Financial Services Committee has had no hearings, no markups, no debate on these issues until now. Perhaps that is why the amendment has been mislabeled as only benefiting closed-end funds traded on an exchange with well-known seasoned issuer status.

In fact, the amendment is much broader, as it would allow even illiquid, nontraded funds to claim multiple exemptions. This effort would make it harder for the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, to police these products for investors.

This last-minute, partisan approach is not the way that Congress should proceed in making laws, but it is consistent with this bill. Although Democrats conducted 41 hearings to develop Dodd-Frank, Republicans planned only 1 hearing on this bill. It is not surprising, then, that the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act is a 600-page bill chock-full of bad partisan ideas and special interest wish lists that will harm our Nation's investors, consumers, and taxpayers.

For example, the bill would severely undermine the ability of the SEC, our Wall Street cop on the beat, to protect investors and hold bad actors accountable. Specifically, it would remove valuable law enforcement tools, burden the SEC with onerous cost-benefit analysis, and generate more and more endless litigation, tying the agency up.

Worse, the bill repeals the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule and effectively prevents the DOL or the SEC from ever moving forward to protect our Nation's investors and seniors from conflicted advice by unscrupulous financial advisers.

I will say, most financial advisers are not unscrupulous, but for the ones that are, there needs to be authority in the law to stop them. We need the fiduciary rule. The ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act takes it away.

But this should come as no surprise, since the Republicans in Congress have been relentless in their opposition to the DOL's commonsense requirement that financial advisers put their clients' interests ahead of their own when providing investment advice about retirement products.

Their extreme partisan efforts to kill the fiduciary rule ignore the facts that 9 in 10 Americans reportedly agree with the rule. An overwhelming majority--65 percent--of Americans who voted for President Trump appear to support the regulation.

Tellingly, just last week, after robust bipartisan debate, the Republican Governor of Nevada signed into law a bill requiring financial advisers to act in their clients' best interests.

The ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act continues this partisan slant by also rolling back bipartisan efforts from this and past Congresses to craft legislation that helps grow small business and protect investors.

Mr. Chair, we owe it to our constituents and the American people to work together to address real problems with real solutions that are thoroughly vetted. For that reason, I must oppose this bill and this amendment.

I will add, my colleague on other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, said: Where is our bill? That would be Dodd-Frank.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have discussed business development

funds. We have not talked about closed-end funds in committee. This amendment introduces a new idea which has not been debated. For that reason alone, we should vote it down.

We have got to have regular order around here. This is a complicated issue. All the avenues and all the different perspectives that need to be brought to bear should be done in committee, not right here.

Mr. Chairman, for those reasons alone, I would ask for a strong ``no'' vote on this particular amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that there might be some merit to this amendment, but I still claim time in opposition.

Because it wasn't brought up in committee, I think that there is a lot of hashing out of this particular amendment that could have happened and we might have been able to agree, but at this point in the process I have to claim time in opposition and I will explain why. I will say that, if we can work on it later, we will see what happens, but as now for now, we are urging a strong ``no.''

I think the amendment is well-intentioned because it purports to address the growing problem of identity theft, something we all need to be concerned about. However, I am concerned that it may make it harder for some consumers who want to obtain their own reports, particularly those using the website annualcreditreport.com, to access their free annual consumer reports from nationwide credit reporting agencies, or CRAs.

Also, the amendment purports to combat identity theft, but solely focuses on tougher authentication requirements for consumers who want to access their own files, not on all users who have access to consumer reports like landlords or employers. I think that is a weakness.

The website annualcreditreport.com and reports maintained by the big three require consumers to provide personally identifiable information and to successfully answer several questions about information on the consumer files before giving them access to reports online.

In a 2017 report, the Consumer Bureau noted that credit reporting complaints are consistently among the top three types of consumer complaints it handles. When consumers are denied online access, they have to mail copies of sensitive identifying documents in order to obtain their reports, which consumers note is time consuming as well as potentially not secure. This amendment could make that situation even worse.

I also find it a little confusing that the House is considering this amendment to a bill that will hamstring the only Federal agency, the Consumer Bureau, that has rulemaking, supervisory, and enforcement authority over most consumer reporting agencies and has actually addressed many credit reporting problems.

If Members support this amendment, then it simply does not make sense to me for the same Members to support H.R. 10, which will gut the Consumer Bureau's capacity to effectively address problems like identity theft.

Before Dodd-Frank, the Federal Trade Commission was the only Federal agency with enforcement authority over the CRAs, but there was no entity with supervising authority. Dodd-Frank closed that gap by giving the Consumer Bureau the supervisory power to monitor CRAs' operations.

Just this year, through the good work of the Consumer Bureau's examiners, the Consumer Bureau issued enforcement orders against all of the big three CRAs for misleading practices that harm consumers.

I urge colleagues to oppose the amendment and reject the ``Wrong''

CHOICE Act. I hope next time we can talk about this legislation before it gets to the floor. That would be better and more proper.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about an issue somewhat related that is critical in this debate and would go a long way toward improving our economy and the chances of consumers.

I have a bill, H.R. 435, the Credit Access and Inclusion Act. My amendment would help solve problems the Financial Services Committee has been discussing for more than a decade. This is not an amendment that I have submitted for disposition today, but I would like to bring to the attention of the body that this Credit Access and Inclusion Act was good legislation and should be taken up. It would address a problem of access to credit that the leader of this bill says he wants to solve.

My bill would allow utility, telecom, public and Section 8 housing residents to build a credit score without debt. It provides affirmative permission for utility, telecom, and housing providers to report on- time payment information to credit reporting agencies.

I have introduced this bill in four consecutive Congresses. I introduced this bill with Mr. Pittenger as a lead. It has the support of many members of the committee, including Representatives Maloney, Duffy, Green, Stivers, Meeks, Love, Capuano, and more, a truly bipartisan piece of legislation.

Why am I committed to passing the bill? Because 1 in 10 Americans do not have a credit score. These 26 million people are credit invisible, and they can have trouble getting an apartment and might pay more for insurance, and they will have a very hard time qualifying for a loan to buy a car or a home. Another 19 million are not scorable because there is too little information in their files. One in four African Americans and one in four Latinos are credit invisible and not scorable.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is another example of Republicans choosing to prioritize the interests of corporate insiders over consumers, which is what the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act really symbolizes. We should not prevent regulators from addressing potential conflicts of interest but, instead, let all shareholders have their voice be heard.

While Democrats stand ready to work on targeted reforms to help responsible community banks and credit unions, we will reject any ideological legislation that puts our financial system and economy at risk of another crash and that gives a leg up to Wall Street and predatory lenders to rip off consumers all over again.

Republicans like to pretend that Wall Street reform destroyed our financial system and economy, but the alternative facts have no basis in reality. Thanks to Wall Street reform and other Democratic policies, our economy has made significant gains since the depths of the financial crisis.

Since Dodd-Frank became law, we have set a record, with 86 consecutive months of private sector job growth, during which the economy created more than 16 million private sector jobs. Let me assure you, much more work needs to be done, but this record is important and must be noted.

Financial institutions are thriving since the passage of Dodd-Frank. According to the FDIC, banks are posting record profits since the crisis. Profits for community banks increased more than 10 percent in the past year. In 2010, the banking industry set an all-time record with $171 billion in profits. Business lending has increased 75 percent since Dodd-Frank became law. Credit union membership has expanded by more than 16 million members since 2010, an increase of 18 percent.

This has happened in part because we have a system that is fairer, because bad actors are held accountable. The highly successful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was established and has returned nearly $12 billion to 29 million consumers who were ripped off by unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices of bad actors. This tough consumer enforcement approach has put the entire financial industry on notice to follow the law and treat their consumers fairly or suffer the consequences.

So the economy is doing well, financial institutions are doing well, and consumers are finally being protected. The last thing we should do is go back to a failed, weak regulatory model that gave us bank bailouts and the Great Recession. But that is what the Republicans are offering the American people with this bill.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if it was the last time, but one of the many times that we listened to Nancy Pelosi, we passed the Dodd- Frank Act, which protected consumers to the tune of 29 million of them to return $11.5 billion to $12 billion back to their families. I think that Nancy Pelosi has a pretty good record of helping out consumers. I think consumers of America would appreciate $11.5 billion returned to their family budgets.

The last time we listened to Nancy Pelosi, we saw a Dodd-Frank which has stabilized markets, which gave us 85 consecutive months of private sector job growth.

But the last time we heard from these free-market, Ayn Randian conservatives, oh, boy, these guys ran the economy straight into the ditch with their deregulatory schemes and their hostility to any kind of regulation on Big Business.

We saw unemployment rates well north of 10 percent in many parts of this country; we saw home values plummet; and we saw mass foreclosures, all because of the failed Ayn Randian, free-market fundamentalist attitudes that we see so often on the other side of the aisle.

I will just note to my freshman friend that the minority leader can talk as long as she wants. You might want to check the rules on that one.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, let me recognize that the problem that Representative McSally is trying to address here is a legitimate problem that we think needs to be focused on.

I must oppose it because it is inadequate and simply not enough. It would be good if we could get together and try to come up with a bipartisan solution to this problem that she has, I think, identified as a legitimate issue.

But ensuring that legitimate financial transactions move freely and globally, particularly key remittance channels for vulnerable populations, is a subject of great importance and one on which I and my Democratic colleagues remain focused.

Many of us represent districts with significant immigrant populations from Central and South America, the Caribbean, Africa, all across the globe. We have heard just how critical it is for immigrants here in the United States to be able to send money that sustain their loved ones back home.

While I am pleased that there is a bipartisan recognition about the need to preserve critical remittance channels for legitimate transactions, I must say that I am deeply concerned by some of the rhetoric and proposals that we have seen from the Trump administration, which make me fear that access to remittances, particularly for vulnerable populations, may be in jeopardy.

Not only has the President been overtly anti-immigrant in his rhetoric during the 2016 campaign and since, he put out an alarming proposal about how he would force Mexico to pay for a wall on our Southern border. He proposed cutting off access to remittance transfers for anyone who couldn't document their immigration status until Mexico agreed to pay an extortion payment of between $5 billion and $10 billion.

I also note that while it is essential that legitimate financial transactions move freely and globally, it is equally important that illegitimate and illicit transactions do not.

For this reason, I am concerned that the amendment before us falls short in that it fails to call the administration to disclose how it plans to curtail the flow of illicit funds, particularly funds which may be coming from key adversaries like the Russian Federation.

One doesn't have to look far to see that, despite record fines and numerous enforcement actions, global megabanks have continued to facilitate shady transactions even when such transactions are highly suspicious, have no economic rationale, and even likely involve money laundering and tax evasion.

One example of concern, Deutsche Bank, which operates in the U.S. and around the globe, was found by the Federal Reserve, New York State, and the United Kingdom to have facilitated a massive fraudulent trading scheme that allowed $10 billion to flow out of Russia to unknown locales.

In order to better understand the scheme, I recently joined with a number of my colleagues in writing to the Treasury Secretary to ask for any and all records of suspicious activity related to Deutsche Bank's 2011 scheme in the Department's possession, including the names and identities of all parties who participated in, or benefited from, the scheme.

But, like much of the oversight Democrats are conducting on this administration, this request has apparently fallen on deaf ears.

So, again, I do appreciate the intent of the amendment--I even commend Representative McSally for identifying this is an important issue--it should have gone further in demanding that this administration disclose how it will curtail well-known schemes being used to facilitate fraud. So I must urge a ``no'' vote, but I look forward to working with Representative McSally on this important issue.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, as if the CHOICE Act was not bad enough, this amendment piles on to the Republicans' misguided attacks on the highly successful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I don't understand why my Republican friends don't get--29 million people got $11.5 billion of their money back because unscrupulous financial services firms unlawfully took their money. I would think we could get together on that. I would think we could agree that that is an important thing to work on. And now we are trying to mess with their building, for the sake of the children, no less.

The Bureau's inspector general conducted a thorough investigation of the Republican's made-up suggestion that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's building renovations were inappropriate.

The inspector general released an audit back in 2015, that stated:

We determined that construction costs appear reasonable

based on comparisons to an independent cost estimate and the

costs of two comparable building renovations identified by

the U.S. General Services Administration. We also determined

that potential renovation costs are below the amount

previously budgeted and obligated for the renovation. . . .

Current controls for approving, managing, and documenting

renovation costs and project decisions are designed

appropriately. . . .

May we put this issue to bed that there is some nefarious plot going on with the building? It wasn't legitimate when they first raised it. It is not legitimate now. And trying to bring a big deal up about their building, which is an issue that has been resolved, is not going to benefit the children of tomorrow. I think it will benefit the children for those 29 million families to get $12 billion back. Now, that might help some kids. That might pay for some lunches, some school fees, and a whole bunch of other things to help families. But just messing with the CFPB over their building will not help anyone.

Even if the House Republicans are not willing to thank the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for all it has done, I am.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been a tough independent watchdog, has done a great job on behalf of American consumers, and has done a great job for American financial firms which do honest work. Imagine, Mr. Chairman, being a financial services firm that is actually selling a good product at a fair price and you have somebody down the street cutting corners, ripping off consumers, and you are losing your competitive advantage because you are honest. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau helps keep good financial firms good and not create this pervasive sentence to drag them in the wrong direction.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau maintains a transparent database that has collected over 1.1 million consumer complaints about financial institutions, and 97 percent of those have received a timely response.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has demystified financial transactions by requiring simple know-before-you-owe disclosures, and providing educational and comparison shopping tools so that consumers are empowered to make the right choice for them and their families.

Perhaps one of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's most notable accomplishments to date was its investigation of Wells Fargo's fraudulent account scandal. Let me tell you, Wells Fargo's fraudulent account scandal definitely hurt families and kids in those families, and the CFPB's good work helped those families.

Last September, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fined Wells Fargo $100 million for secretly opening up 2 million unauthorized accounts on behalf of its consumers and ordered the bank to compensate customers it harmed. This marks the largest penalty the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has imposed to date. And that, Mr. Chairman, has helped families and children.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, to stop the petty stuff about the building. This has been reviewed by independent people. It is really just a waste of time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.