Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2332, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, debt bondage is a terrible crime, and many victims find themselves trapped in a perpetual cycle of forced labor and coerced debt because of it.

Earlier this year, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing where we focused on the financing of human trafficking. This is an area of bipartisan cooperation on the House Financial Services Committee. I want to commend my Democrat colleagues for leading this discussion and finding time on the committee docket for us to continue the conversation we have had over the last couple of Congresses.

In that hearing, we heard from many powerful witnesses, including Rev. Dr. Marian Hatcher, who is a trafficking survivor. Rev. Dr. Hatcher had the courage to tell us her story, and because of it, we now have legislation that will help others.

This is the way Congress is supposed to work. We are supposed to listen to experts and get ideas out of that on how we can construct legislation. Because of Dr. Hatcher, we know a lot more.

Dr. Hatcher, like so many others in this country and around the globe, but in this country, in particular, fell victim to human traffickers. Thankfully, she was able to escape a terrible situation and restore her life.

However, she struggled to reestablish herself because of a credit score, which was negatively affecting her whole financial life. She was affected by loans in particular that she was forced to obtain on behalf of her traffickers.

So not only does she have to go through the emotional and social struggles, but she has this that is a weight around her. This is something where we can legislate and make her life and make the lives of trafficking survivors like hers better.

You see, Madam Speaker, this is where traffickers trap a victim into a debt cycle. Traffickers will take out loans, open businesses, and destroy a victim's credit, which forces them to remain a victim until they pay off the debt.

Now, you think this happens in other places around the globe. You think that this is some other country. No, it is here. It is here in our midst, and they are doing it through what seems like legal means.

Too often, these victims are never able to get out. This is something that we have to be aware of and focus on.

That is where this bill, the Debt Bondage Repair Act, comes in. This simple, 4-page bill has the potential to help thousands of victims every year by ensuring that a consumer reporting agency may not furnish a credit report with adverse information from a severe form of trafficking.

While this does not erase the terrible crimes committed against them, it will help victims to regain their financial freedom and begin to rebuild their lives.

I would like to note that this bill has a very tailored rulemaking provision.

We want to fix this problem. We provide the CFPB a window of 180 days for rulemaking. This should be sufficient time to hear from all the stakeholders. But it is my hope that they will complete this rulemaking quickly so that the victims can get relief as soon as possible.

I would like to thank the many victim advocates and consumer data industry representatives who provided technical assistance to get this bill where it is.

I would say the difficulty of legislating is that you have to take in folks who are on opposite sides of an issue. Not that they don't care about the same issue, but you have folks that are on one side of a business and those advocates that see things differently. It takes time to bring them together to see what is a workable solution, maybe not a perfect solution, but a workable solution.

I include in the Record statements of support from Shared Hope International, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, Rev. Dr. Hatcher herself, and the Consumer Data Industry Association.

Sharedhope International,

June 11, 2021.

Letter of Support for the Debt Bondage Repair Act.

Dear Ranking Member McHenry and Congressmembers Wagner,

Gonzalez, Taylor, and Hill: Traffickers financially benefit

from exploiting human trafficking victims through forced

labor and commercial sex, but also by exploiting their

victims' credit history. With credit cards, loan

applications, and access to financial services all dependent

on an individual's credit history, the impact of this

financial exploitation is both far reaching and long-term.

We thank you for taking an important step in addressing

these harms by introducing and sponsoring HR 2332, the Debt

Bondage Repair Act (DBRA). The DBRA supports trafficking

survivors by preventing consumer reporting agencies from

issuing credit reports containing adverse information that

resulted from a survivor's victimization. This legislation is

essential to address the long-term impact of human

trafficking by eliminating adverse credit history that would

otherwise remain on a survivor's credit report. Most

importantly, the DBRA provides survivors an opportunity for

financial independence and stability that can help end the

cycle of exploitation.

Good credit history is essential for opening bank accounts,

and applying for loans, credit cards, insurance, and housing.

Credit reports are also sometimes necessary for applying for

student loans, and utility and cellphone service contracts.

Individuals with adverse credit history and low credit scores

experience higher interest rates or denial altogether.

Traffickers use coercion and control to financially exploit

their victims in various ways. One survivor described her

trafficker coercing her into obtaining a loan and then credit

cards by threatening the survivor's family. This left the

survivor with poor credit and more than $25,000 in debt.

Traffickers may also try to access credit that has not yet

been exploited by intentionally targeting younger victims.

One survivor recalled a trafficker targeting seventeen-year-

old girls, who were about to turn eighteen because the

trafficker could exploit their fresh credit by having them

sign up for credit cards. In addition, as Rev. Dr. Marian

Hatcher powerfully recounted in her testimony to the House

Committee on Financial Services, traffickers may also use

their victim's credit to purchase expensive items, such as

cars. Traffickers also control their victim's bank accounts,

passwords, and use the victim's accounts to engage in

criminal activities. Consequently, financial institutions may

later deny the survivor services because of criminal

activity. Traffickers often exploit their victim's credit

history at a time when the victim is not present in the

formal economy and unable to build positive credit history.

Trafficking survivors then experience adverse credit

history and burdensome loan obligations because of their

financial exploitation. Consequently, when survivors leave

their trafficking situations, they often cannot access

financial resources. Trafficking survivors report difficulty

opening bank accounts and obtaining safe housing, employment,

cars, and cell phones. Access to housing is especially

important to ending the cycle of vulnerability and

exploitation. In one study, 64% of trafficking victims

reported that lack of affordable housing prevented them from

escaping their trafficking situation. Lack of resources may

result in survivors returning to their exploitative

circumstances. In her testimony to the House Committee on

Financial Services, Rev. Dr. Marian Hatcher testified that

lack of resources leads to reexploitation because ``survivors

feel they have no option other than returning to the

commercial sex industry.'' Also, obstacles to accessing

financial resources and student loans may also hinder a

survivor's educational aspirations. This negatively impacts

the survivor's academic empowerment and long-term goals.

Furthermore, survivors may feel stigmatized or embarrassed

because of their poor credit. By preventing a consumer

reporting agency from reporting adverse information resulting

from a survivor's trafficking, the DBRA prevents a survivor's

credit report from becoming an apparatus for continuing

victimization.

Poor credit due to financial exploitation has long-term

impacts on a survivor's ability to access financial

resources, build financial independence, and navigate life

after exploitation. The Debt Bondage Repair Act is crucial to

providing trafficking survivors a clean slate and path toward

financial independence. We support this critical legislation

and urge Congress to support trafficking survivors by passing

the Debt Bondage Repair Act.

Sincerely,

Christine Raino,

Senior Director of Public Policy,

Shared Hope International.

Additionally, I would like to thank Polaris for their support of this legislation.

This is a great example of what happens when both parties work together. I want to thank Chairwoman Waters for her help and assistance, and her staff, the Financial Services Committee majority Democrat staff, for their help with my staff and the Republican minority staff on the House Financial Services Committee.

We have a bipartisan solution to help trafficking victims pick up the pieces and begin a new life. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I think this will be helpful to the lives at stake and let them rebuild their lives, not just financially but rebuild their lives.

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

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this good bipartisan bill that will help victims.

Madam Speaker, I thought I reserved.

Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this important measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

We can all agree data is important. But we need to recognize, particularly as it relates to obtaining data on companies, that each one is unique. Mandatory reporting metrics do not accurately measure progress.

Just look at the mandatory disclosure bills on the floor this week. They are a mess. The only outcome we can expect to see with those bills is a higher compliance cost on companies, leaving fewer resources to build out a workforce and invest in research and development.

Simply put, one size does not fit all, and one-size-fits-all doesn't work.

However, the bill we have in front of us today does not impose a new mandatory reporting regime. It adds on a list of voluntary data and adds a new item to that voluntary data. Data is collected on a voluntary basis under ECOA, under this law that is being amended. Any loan applicant who does not wish to provide information can decline to provide it, meaning there are fewer concerns over privacy or a one- size-fits-all reporting regime.

These are the things I have raised about this bill. I want to commend the sponsor for being willing to work with Republicans on getting back to the essence of the bill. I appreciate that my Democrat colleagues have offered a solution to promote diversity and inclusion without imposing new requirements on businesses or business owners that do not effectively measure their success.

I support this bill. I will vote for this bill. And I want to commend my Democrat colleagues for working with us on a number of concerns that we had with the various drafts of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3325, a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the U.S. Capitol Police and those who protected the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

I would like to thank the Speaker for bringing this legislation to the floor to honor the officers who work tirelessly to protect us in and out every day, to not just protect this building, but to protect the Members in this building. Not just protect the Members, but to make sure that staff is safe on a daily basis. And the staff, indeed, makes Congress what it is and gives us the capacity that we have to legislate. We want to make sure that staff and Members and our visitors here are protected on a daily basis, and the Capitol Police, indeed, do that.

Madam Speaker, what happened to this institution on January 6 was horrific. This building is a working monument to our Nation's Founding Fathers and our founding principles. It is a testament to the freedoms we hold dear and that we strive for, and we strive to become a more perfect Union on every day that we are here. Not perfectly, but we strive for a more perfect Union.

Madam Speaker, the brave men and women who stood and faced danger on January 6 deserve to be recognized for their actions. Without their courageous work and their dedication, many of us here today could have been seriously injured or worse.

This gold medal will also honor another Capitol Police Officer, William ``Billy'' Evans. Officer Evans, an 18-year veteran of Capitol Police, was killed at his post when a car rammed into the Capitol barricade on Good Friday. Any life lost is a tragedy, especially those of our friends on the police force.

Once this bill is enacted, a Congressional Gold Medal will be displayed at the U.S. Capitol Police headquarters. It will be a recognition of the good work the Capitol Police do on a daily basis. Another will be displayed at the D.C. Metropolitan Police headquarters, and the third will be given to the Smithsonian Institution so everyone who visits D.C. will be reminded of the bravery by our police officers on that very day.

Madam Speaker, I think I speak for all my colleagues when I say thank you, thank you to each and every officer who was here on January 6. Their bravery will not be forgotten.

The U.S. Capitol Police and those who protected us on January 6 deserve this Congressional Gold Medal. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I think this is a special moment for the House in a very tough year for us to pause and to say thank you to those men and women who stand guard over this institution; not just this building, not just this campus, but the people who work here every day.

It is not Members; it is staff that are here every day. It is the people that make the Capitol work physically. It is the folks who are at the daycare, the folks who are in the press. They are the folks who are frequent visitors here, such that they feel like they work here, too.

It is the Capitol Police that keep us safe not from one another, but safe from the harms that can happen in a very dangerous world. And we want to say thank you to the men and women of the Capitol Police for their dedication, for their bravery, for their training every day.

And we honor you not just in word, but with deed; not just with word and this deed of a Congressional Gold Medal, but our ongoing support. Our ongoing support, such that you can operate every day to the best of your training with the best training and tactics available to police and law enforcement anywhere in the world, the best equipment, the best training resources, but also the freedom to use those things in a way that is commensurate with public safety.

So I want to thank the Capitol Police for their service and their sacrifice in making this institution safe; safe so we can debate important things that need to be debated, to disagree, for us to be able to disagree as a civil society, yet still come together for the important things of being friends and neighbors and lovers of this great country.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2547.

Let's just start off and call the bill what it is. It is another attempt by Democrats to socialize our financial system.

Once again, under the guise of consumer support, Democrats are trying to implement their long-held partisan priorities. That is what we have seen a lot of in this Congress.

Democrats are trying to sell H.R. 2547 to the American people as a necessary action to help families and small businesses hardest hit by the economic impacts of COVID-19. It is not.

The truth is, this bill is just a redo of several partisan bills that we had from last Congress, pre-COVID. If there was any question as to whether or not Democrats viewed the pandemic as a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit their vision,'' this bill proves it.

This bill is more about catering to progressive lobbyists and stakeholders who have long sought to tear down the pillars of our credit markets and financial system.

First, it is clear that progressives want to eliminate a fundamental part of our free market system, the belief that you should be paid for services provided in a timely manner. The fact is, limiting the ability of businesses and individuals to be repaid for their services already provided will not benefit anyone. This is especially true for small businesses that have been hardest hit, frankly, from the pandemic shutdowns.

If enacted, this bill will also drive up the cost of credit for all borrowers, especially low-income borrowers, as well as limit their credit options.

There are commonsense ways to update and improve the process for collecting payments and to modernize the credit reporting regimes. This includes identifying ways to protect consumers and encourage them and their service providers or lenders to work out repayment plans.

In fact, just last month, the entire House voted to support the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Representative Dean's bill to ensure that members of our military are not threatened with service-related consequences as they work to repay debts owed. That makes sense. It was a bipartisan bill with a great result.

But the further you dig into this bill, the more problematic it gets. For example, this bill will actually make healthcare in this country more expensive and will limit the medical services provided to those who need it most. I don't think that is the intention, but that is, in fact, the impact.

Making it more difficult for medical providers to seek payment for their services does not make them free, does not make the system less expensive. And excluding medical debt from an individual's credit report is not a way to support consumers or our healthcare providers, who have been, frankly, on the front lines of the COVID pandemic.

I have a bill that allows medical debt that results from nonelective services to be protected, and ensures that if it is repaid, it is eliminated from a consumer credit report's adverse actions.

I think that bill makes sense, right?

If people repay their medical debt, I think we should acknowledge that on credit reports.

But if it's elective surgery or if it is perhaps something medically of their own choosing, I think they should have to pay for that. And if they don't pay for those services, it should be on their credit report. I think these things make sense. I think there are ways we can ensure we have accurate reporting.

Accurate reporting and full repayment allows the credit markets to work smoothly and to accurately account for risk. This, in turn, allows the financial system to continue to provide low-cost credit to those who need it most.

Democrats also want to undermine the CFPB's work to finalize its debt collection rule last fall. This rule was the result of more than 7 years of research, analysis, data collection; and it clarifies the allowable uses of modern communication technology. I think it is a proper update to these long-held consumer protection laws that we have on the books.

This bill eliminates this positive step forward. This bill prohibits debt collectors from using 21st century methods of communication to reach consumers. That is insane. That is bad. That goes all against the whole movement post-COVID or in the midst of COVID, that we digitize our communication tools and enable people to do things more cheaply via technology.

This bill includes stopping consumers from being contacted via email or text message without explicit prior consent. Consumers should be able to communicate about their payment options privately in the way they prefer. This bill eliminates that choice. Restricting options like that makes it more difficult to contact consumers. It doesn't help anyone.

Perhaps the consumer doesn't know that they missed the payment, and this bill would say you can't text them to let them know they missed their payment. That is absurd. I don't think that is the bill author's intent, but that is the impact in the real market.

Just to reiterate, limiting the ability of individuals and businesses to seek repayment for services provided will undermine the ability to underwrite and thereby increase the risk to the financial system.

If you can't price for risk, you are going to have more risk. If we have more risk that is not appropriately priced, we will get bad outcomes in the financial system. This ultimately makes extending credit more expensive for all borrowers and may push the lowest income borrowers out of the system entirely.

That is a bad result. That is not what we want. Either side of the aisle, we don't want that. This bill has that harmful impact.

We all agree that consumers who owe a debt should be treated with respect and dignity and not be subject to abusive or harassing behavior. The law already upholds this. This bill is a Big

Government, anti-consumer, anti-small business solution in search of a problem.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and the harmful impacts herein.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), my friend and colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say, for the Record, that I believe the bill's sponsors are of sincere purpose here, but I am pointing out what I think are the deficiencies that we could have worked through in a bipartisan way if there was a goal to have a bipartisan outcome for this bill.

So while I oppose the bill, it is not for a lack of ideas on this side on how to improve it and actually how to come up with something reasonable to help our people and update our technology and laws.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the ranking member of the Task Force on Financial Technology.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1532.

Some studies suggest that small-dollar mortgages, which are amounts less than $70,000, may be disproportionately denied compared to loans of higher amounts, even when credit profiles are similar.

If true, this could be an issue for families in my district and across the country who are trying to buy their first home, particularly in rural America.

H.R. 1532 is a bipartisan bill reported last Congress by the House Financial Services Committee that seeks to understand the challenges associated with small-dollar lending and why.

This bill asks the fundamental questions: Why not have the FHA review its own policies? Why shouldn't the FHA look to determine whether there are borrowers who would otherwise qualify for a mortgage and who are being left out of the market as an unintended consequence of the FHA's own regulations?

After all, the FHA's mission is to serve creditworthy borrowers who are underserved by the private market. This includes serving without bias as to how small a loan seeking insurance should be or might be.

Moreover, the FHA should understand whether its own regulations are hurting borrowers' access to credit and remedy the problem without affecting the health of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, which is at issue.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on the subcommittee, in particular Mr. Cleaver and Ranking Member Stivers, for bringing this issue to our attention and for their work on this important bill.

H.R. 1532 is a positive example of Congress identifying a problem and working together in a bipartisan way to understand the causes and to identify a reasonable solution.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I do not.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1491, the Fair Debt Collection Practices for Servicemembers Act.

I thank Representative Dean for offering this legislation.

Madam Speaker, our servicemembers put their lives on the line for us every day. To that end, we must ensure they are adequately protected from abuse or harassment related to outstanding debt. I am pleased that we were able to work in a bipartisan fashion to meet this goal.

H.R. 1491 prohibits debt collectors from using threats against a servicemember's rank or security clearance, or threats of prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Not only are such practices unfair, they also create the risk of harm to military readiness.

Last Congress, during the committee markup of H.R. 1491, Republicans expressed concerns that there were too many unanswered questions about how this bill could impact military readiness. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), who has had a distinguished career in our military, offered an amendment, which directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the impact this bill has on readiness with servicemembers regarding debts in collection, as well as military readiness and national security. This commonsense approach ensures that Congress understands and is able to account for the connection between national security and the protection of servicemembers from unfair practices.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Democrat majority for accepting this amendment, and I am glad that it continues to be included in this bill we are considering today. This makes this a far more lasting bill, I believe, and more impactful on the people that the author and this Congress want to ensure are taken care of, and those are the folks who serve and protect us each and every day.

As a reminder, this bill passed the House unanimously in March of last year.

All Americans deserve to be treated with dignity and respect when faced with repaying a debt. This is especially true for our servicemembers, who fight for our freedoms every day.

Madam Speaker, this bill contains important safeguards. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty) for all of her hard work on H.R. 1395, the Housing Financial Literacy Act of 2021.

The Federal Housing Administration, FHA, currently provides government-backed mortgage insurance to more than $1.3 trillion in loans. FHA insurance allows a wide array of borrowers to qualify for mortgages. This includes many low- and moderate-income families who might not otherwise have access to credit through traditional underwriting.

In fiscal year 2020, the FHA insured over 800,000 forward mortgage purchase loans, with more than 83 percent going to first-time home buyers. Given the large population of first-time home buyers using FHA, it makes sense to encourage those individuals to seek out ways to strengthen their financial knowledge and better prepare them for the challenges of homeownership.

Right now, current law states that FHA has the ability to provide first-time homeowners with a discount on their FHA upfront premiums. However, the homeowner must complete an approved homeownership financial counseling course.

Yet, the statute is drafted in such a way that the provision only applies in particular circumstances. This includes when FHA upfront premiums exceed 2.75 percent. Since FHA upfront premiums are currently set at 1.75 percent, the rate has not been exceeded in a decade. Thus, FHA does not currently provide an upfront premium discount to first- time home buyers who complete a financial counseling course.

H.R. 1395 would amend current law to require FHA to provide a one- quarter percent upfront premium discount, from the prevailing rate, in order to help those first-time home buyers get financial literacy and then get the discount. This equates to about $625 of savings off the current premium structure on a $250,000 mortgage. This is not an insignificant amount.

Given the nature of this, I think it is great to have a financial benefit for people understanding financial consequences. I think there are many other areas in our government that would benefit from this type of thinking.

The hope is that by making such a discount mandatory, more first-time home buyers will seek out financial literacy counseling which, in turn, will produce better outcomes for a traditionally at-risk group of home buyers.

The bottom line is that FHA is a valuable tool to help expand the universe of mortgage credit in our housing system. We ought to be doing all that we can to ensure that we are using our limited public resources to encourage all borrowers to be well-prepared for the commitments of homeownership through financial counseling or through other effective means of creating more stable and reliable borrowers.

So I think this is a very good bill thoughtfully done by Mrs. Beatty, and it is bipartisan, coming out of committee last Congress.

Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers. I urge its adoption, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1565, the Senior Security Act.

I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Hollingsworth of Indiana and Mr. Gottheimer of New Jersey for their work on this important piece of bipartisan legislation that will strengthen current efforts to protect senior investors.

Madam Speaker, American capital markets provide every mom-and-pop investor with the opportunity to realize the American Dream. Our capital markets allow individuals and families to grow their nest egg for retirement, their children to have an opportunity for college tuition, or to save and purchase a home.

Moreover, as Americans age, they are an important part of the success and vibrancy of the U.S. capital markets. In fact, Americans over the age of 50 already account for roughly 77 percent of financial assets in the United States. To that end, fraud and exploitation of any kind in our capital markets threatens the integrity of our markets and harm investors seeking to build their nest eggs.

It is especially problematic when the fraud targets senior investors. Protecting senior investors and preventing such predatory behavior within our financial markets is a goal that we all share, regardless of party. This bill will support the Securities and Exchange Commission's current efforts to protect against increasing instances of financial exploitation against senior investors.

H.R. 1565 creates an interdivisional task force at the Securities and Exchange Commission to examine and identify challenges faced by senior investors.

We already have some data on senior citizens who are targeted by financial exploitation. These statistics are alarming. Older Americans lose up to $36 billion each year to financial scams and abuse. One in five seniors have reported being victims of exploitation, and only a small number of cases of financial abuse are even reported. The rates of exploitation are only rising. In fact, The New England Journal of Medicine calls elder financial exploitation a virtual epidemic.

There are concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the trend. In addition to Congress, many States are already taking action, and that is a good thing.

This bipartisan bill is an important step for the Federal Government. The bill requires the SEC to identify current issues and challenges facing senior investors and to make policy recommendations for addressing these issues harming senior investors.

Madam Speaker, protecting senior investors and safeguarding the integrity of our financial markets are objectives I believe we can get behind. In our duty to protect our constituents, especially those most vulnerable who contribute so much to society, we need to be helpful and supportive. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth), the coauthor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1528, the Promoting Transparent Standards for Corporate Insiders Act.

As my colleague stated, this is bipartisan legislation that strikes an important balance. It protects retail investors in the market from illicit insider trading while, at the same time, ensuring that the rules governing insider trading are clear, fair, and not prohibitively onerous.

I thank my colleagues for supporting this bill last Congress, and I think they should do so this Congress. Thwarting and punishing fraud and abuse within our financial markets is not a Republican or Democrat issue. This includes illegal insider trading. When a corporate insider gains an unfair advantage by violating current insider trading rules and trading on material nonpublic information, that illegal behavior harms Main Street investors.

It harms those who diligently put their hard-earned money aside for retirement.

It is important to note that not every corporate insider or executive trading in the stock of his or her company is a bad actor. The Securities and Exchange Commission's current rules and guidelines allow corporate insiders to purchase and sell securities of their company without fear of insider trading liability. Most corporate insiders carefully follow this rule called rule 10b5-1, and they follow it to the letter of the law.

Moreover, this rule ensures that insider trading guidelines are fair tools when properly followed. These rules are designed to allow corporate insiders to liquidate their stock options when needed, such as when trying to pay for a child's education, buying a house, or paying medical expenses.

Furthermore, allowing insiders to purchase and sell securities at a predetermined time on a scheduled basis under rule 10b5-1 ensures market stability.

This rule also decreases the risk of volatility by preventing fraudulent behavior, such as the so-called pump-and-dump schemes that some have tried to take advantage of.

This bill requires the SEC to study whether this current rule should be amended. In studying the rule, the SEC is directed to consider how any amendments would clarify and enhance existing prohibitions against insider trading. Importantly, though, the bill also requires the SEC to weigh any potential amendments against the important benefits of this rule.

The SEC is also directed to consider what effects amending the rules would have on attracting qualified candidates for open insider positions, such as capital formation, and a company's willingness to go public.

I am pleased that this is a bipartisan legislation that thoughtfully balances the meaningful goals of protecting everyday investors with facilitating economic growth opportunities, and I think that ensures that we keep a healthy capital markets function here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on my side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1996.

I want to begin by commending my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, for the way that he has approached this legislation. He is incorporating a lot of ideas from Members all across this Chamber and from across the country. He has doggedly pursued this legislation for many years, and I want to commend him for that.

I also want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Stivers and Mr. Joyce of Ohio, for the way they have approached this bill. I think this is a testament to constructive criticism of a bill and it becoming better as a result of it.

Let me say, regardless of your position on this bill, I do think the fact remains that cannabis is a prohibited substance under schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.

Let me further state that, by enacting this legislation, we are effectively kneecapping law enforcement in legalizing money laundering. These are concerns that I have, that still remain.

By effectively legalizing money laundering, we are inserting a new level of risk in our financial system. We are preventing our legal entities from doing their jobs. We are encouraging bad actors and placing our financial institutions at risk.

Rather than dealing with the issues of cannabis and the question of its Federal legalization, we are dealing with a component of the challenge, which is the banking of it, and it is a challenge. I think we are adding a new risk to our banking system and our anti-money laundering reforms that we passed just in January of this year. That seems counterintuitive to me.

For years, Congress has worked to reform our anti-money laundering laws. Now, in one fell swoop, we are undoing a lot of that hard work and we are going to make it easier for money launderers.

If you want to help the system, if you want to give financial institutions the certainty and security they want and need to do the job with the cannabis industry, where it is legalized in these

States, we should debate the merits of cannabis remaining a schedule I substance, not pass a bill that skirts around the substance of the issue.

This bill we are considering today is one of the biggest changes to U.S. drug policy, yet it was done with little debate this Congress. There has been a lot of debate overall in this Congress, far more than the Senate has even had, on the question of cannabis.

This bill, which is really the first step in legalizing cannabis at the Federal level, was reported out of the Financial Services Committee last Congress, and it is a committee that really has no jurisdiction over the Controlled Substances Act. We only had one hearing featuring one panel of witnesses. We haven't had a hearing this Congress to discuss changes over the last 2 years, let alone a markup to discuss any changes that might strengthen or impact the bill.

For example, late last year, Congress passed a sweeping bipartisan anti-money laundering piece of legislation. These reforms include prohibitions on the concealment of sources of assets in monetary transactions; a prohibition, I will add, that comes with a steep penalty of up to 10 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines.

If we were doing our due diligence, we would have done a deeper discussion on how these new AML Act changes would impact banks working with cannabis industries as clients instead of me raising this issue at the eleventh hour on the floor, which is what I have got to resort to.

In addition to this concern, I believe I have voiced many other concerns, including our need to better comprehend and address the supervisory and regulatory issues that would result from enactment of

Mr. Speaker, this letter raises a number of concerns, including:

What changes to our banking laws are necessary to implement the SAFE Banking Act, a number of questions that I have;

What agencies are going to be necessary for this working group to actually ensure that the letter of this law is adhered to by the executive branch, that they actually follow it as the writer of the legislation intends;

How the executive branch will interpret the ``know your customer'' rules enacted in the SAFE Banking Act, compared to what we enacted just 2 months ago, 3 months ago;

How we would deal with suspicious activity reporting requirements under the new guidelines of the SAFE Banking Act, compared to what we enacted at the end of last year;

How we deal with currency transaction reports under this law, compared to what we just passed; and

What are the implications on nonbank financial firms as well, such as insurers and investment companies.

Mr. Speaker, I think the author of the bill intends for insurers and investment companies and banks to have the same qualifications when they are handling money that has touched the cannabis industry. I think that is the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to understand whether or not the administration would follow that intent that the author has stated clearly in debates here on the House floor last Congress and this Congress and, furthermore, whether or not Federal, State, and local law enforcement will have a similar interpretation that the writer of this bill says is his intent, that Federal law enforcement should hear the voice of Congress and hear this step to legalization which is part of this bill.

I do not think it is the author of the bill's idea to get into sort of the broader conversation about legalization at the State level and what we should do at the Federal level in this bill. However, that is a part of it.

In March of 2019, the National Sheriffs' Association voiced concern with this bill, saying that it could easily be exploited. They echoed my concerns that ``allowing banking access for a Schedule 1 drug gives money laundering access to international drug cartels, which are already using the cover of legalization.''

Mr. Speaker, I include that letter in the Record.

National Sheriffs' Association,

March 19, 2019.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Chairwoman, House of Representatives, Committee on Financial

Services, Washington, DC.

Hon. Patrick McHenry,

Ranking Member, House of Representatives, Committee on

Financial Services, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry: On

behalf of the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) and more

than 3,080 sheriffs nationwide, I write to express our deep

concern and opposition to H.R. 1595, The SAFE Banking Act.

This bill creates protections for depository institutions

that provide financial services to cannabis-related

businesses and service providers for such businesses.

H.R. 1595 will increase the legalization of marijuana

across the Nation, which we understand is an intended

consequence of this bill. Furthermore, allowing banking

access for a Schedule 1 drug gives money laundering access to

international drug cartels, which are already using the cover

of legalization. This will inevitably open the door to other

criminal activity!

NSA is concerned with the welfare and safety of citizens

and works to preserve their rights to live and work in

communities where drug abuse is not accepted and they are not

subjected to the adverse effects of drug abuse. The dangers

of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the threat to

public safety caused by their use in terms of highway safety,

criminal activity, and domestic violence are well-documented.

NSA believes that any legislation regarding national

legalization must engage the nation's law enforcement

agencies in order to have a comprehensive discussion

regarding the potential implications this bill could have on

our communities. We urge The House of Representatives to

defeat this dangerous bill.

Sincerely,

Jonathan F. Thompson,

Executive Director and CEO.

Furthermore, we see cannabis-legal States like California, Washington, and Colorado, as the subject of recent news reports that cartels have found that it is easier to grow and process marijuana in legal States like Colorado and ship it throughout the United States than it is to bring it from Mexico or Cuba. I include that article in the Record, Mr. Speaker.

[From Global Power, May 29, 2018]

Foreign Cartels Embrace Home-Grown Marijuana in Pot-Legal States

(By Dennis Romero, Gabe Gutierrez, Andrew Blankstein and Robert Powell)

Los Angeles.--General Jeff Sessions called it ``one of the

largest residential forfeiture actions in American history.''

In early April, local and federal authorities descended

upon 74 marijuana grow houses in the Sacramento area they say

were underwritten by Chinese organized crime. They filed

court paperwork to seize the properties, worth millions of

dollars.

Federal officials allege that legal recreational marijuana

states like California, Colorado and Washington, where

enforcement of growing regulations is hit-or-miss, have been

providing cover for transnational criminal organizations

willing to invest big money to buy or rent property to

achieve even bigger returns.

Chinese, Cuban and Mexican drug rings have purchased or

rented hundreds of homes and use human trafficking to bring

inexperienced growers to the United States to tend them,

federal and local officials say.

The suspects are targeting states that have already

legalized marijuana ``in an attempt to shroud their

operations in our legal environment here and then take the

marijuana outside of the state,'' said Mike Hartman,

executive director of the Colorado Department of Revenue,

which regulates and licenses the cannabis industry.

Authorities say they've seen an increase in these ``home

grows'' since the launch of recreational pot sales in

Colorado.

While California and Washington have mainly seen organized

criminals from China buying homes and converting them into

grow houses, Colorado has largely been grappling with Cuban

and Mexican-led cartels, said Sheriff Bill Elder of the El

Paso County Sheriffs Office in Colorado.

``They have found that it's easier to grow and process

marijuana in Colorado, ship it throughout the United States,

than it is to bring it from Mexico or Cuba,'' Elder said.

Furthermore, because of this patchwork at the State level, I think you are seeing additional concerns at the southern border right now, and I will include for the Record a letter that the former Border Patrol chief submitted that in February alone there was nearly $14 million a day of marijuana caught at the southern border.

Despite these many issues I still have with the SAFE Banking Act, I do appreciate the work that my colleagues

have put into this legislative effort, but considering that the larger issue of cannabis legalization has not yet been debated here on the House floor, I think it is premature for the Financial Services Committee to do the full work of this Congress on the question of cannabis legalization at the Federal level. I think that would be better left to the Judiciary Committee, with a wider debate here on the House floor, and I would encourage that wider debate.

Notwithstanding that, I would like to thank my colleagues for the hard work that they have put into this legislation. Even if I have concerns, I know that there is more than sufficient support to pass this under the suspension calendar, and that would not happen were it not for the good legislative work of my colleague and friend from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I do believe that my colleague was quite intentional about the date that he wanted to actually have the vote here on the House floor. With that, for those of you who don't know, tomorrow is 4/20/21, 4/20 being the operative date.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), the subcommittee chair on Housing, Community Development, and Insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that if we are going to have legalization of cannabis, let's have legalization of cannabis and do it in regular order in the House of Representatives, not have it come through the Financial Services Committee. I wanted to be clear, and I wanted to make sure my colleague heard that.

But I do commend my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for taking every bit of the jurisdiction that we currently have and using it smartly for the best outcome possible.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my colleague and good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

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

I want to repeat this from my earlier remarks. This bill represents one of the biggest changes to U.S. drug policy. If we want banks to provide services risk-free, then we should do it thoughtfully and address the legality of cannabis instead of this workaround. This bill represents a yeoman's task of a legal framework so that funds from cannabis in those legalized States can be legally banked.

But that is not a holistic approach to this issue, nor should it be the Financial Services Committee leading the debate, which we have had one hearing on in the last 3 years in this committee--actually, you could say probably one hearing in the last decade on the Financial Services Committee. Yet, we have this bill, which, frankly, on its face is a very well-balanced bill to fix a glaring problem that is happening across the country.

This bill will legalize the banking of a federally illegal product. I am sure the irony of this is not at all lost on the American public.

The drug cartels, frankly, are keen to this, and other bad actors are keen to this. They will attempt to take advantage of this if it is not well-implemented, if it is not thoughtfully implemented, especially if those things are not the case.

No matter how we spin what is happening right now, we currently have a crisis at the southern border, and human trafficking is certainly a part of that; a desire to come to the United States is certainly a part of that; and the movement of illegal drugs into the United States is certainly a part of that. This doesn't help with that crisis at the southern border.

Again, we are the House Financial Services Committee. We are not the Homeland Security Committee, and we are not the Appropriations Committee, so we can't fix all things within our jurisdiction.

Let me close with this. I do not support this bill because it represents a workaround to a much bigger debate that we need to have in the United States, and that is whether or not cannabis should remain a schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. This fact is the bigger issue that I think this Congress should wrestle with, and I would welcome it. In fact, I think we can have a much more nuanced debate here.

But I do want to close by thanking my colleagues for creating a very thoughtful product. This legislative text is much improved upon from where it was originally. I thank my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for leading that conversation and leading that set of negotiations.

It has taken years to produce this product. It is strong legislative text. It is a strong legal framework. Even though I have pointed out a number of its deficiencies and challenges, I do see on its face how this would resolve a huge problem in a large number of States.

I understand that, and I am inviting the larger discussion about cannabis, as well. I think we need to have that conversation.

But I do thank my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for his leadership there, and I thank my colleagues, Mr. Stivers, Mr. Davidson, and Mr. Joyce, on our side of the aisle for engaging in that, as well as Mr. Luetkemeyer and Mr. Barr who dealt with particular issues in their States and their jurisdictions, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' but I understand if they do vote ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Eliminate Barriers to Innovation Act. This a bipartisan bill that addresses the much-needed collaboration between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

What we have is a regulation of commodities through one entity of our Federal Government here in the United States and regulation of securities by another entity of our government. What we need is conversation between those two entities about the nature of digital assets and cryptocurrencies.

We have neither a security nor a commodity in what is a new creation of digital assets. Now what we see with the CFTC is that everything is a commodity in their worldview, and the Securities Exchange Commission thinks: Well, you are close. Everything is actually a security.

They each want to regulate something that is not in their nature to regulate or not in the substance of their capacity to regulate. We have neither fish nor fowl, neither security nor what the Commodity Futures Trading Commission wants to regulate in their world. So, you have neither fish nor fowl when it comes to this new creation of cryptocurrencies.

The fact is that the ``Bitcoin Whitepaper,'' written by Satoshi Nakamoto, as they call themselves, is more than a decade old. What we have seen in that time period is the valuation of bitcoin, and then things that are like bitcoin that use an encrypted ledger system in the blockchain and tokenization to open up the value of that new creation of a blockchain, that new creation of cryptocurrencies is now valued over $2 trillion globally.

Most of that innovation has happened outside of the United States because we don't have a legal and regulatory framework that is permissive of the raising of capital in order to develop those technologies. So, people in the United States, American citizens, are missing out on innovation and the potential economic upside of those innovations.

I would say this is one of the few pieces of technology in the last 100 years that Americans have not been the drivers of. In fact, we are reacting a lot to what is happening globally.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Lynch, for his thoughtful engagement on this bill and his important structural changes to make sure this can be a bipartisan bill. Those conversations really are that balance between economic opportunity and growth that a lot of us on the Republican side want to emphasize at all costs, frankly, and then the protection of our citizens that some on the left want to have at all costs.

Mr. Speaker, striking that balance is really necessary for us as legislators. Let's just be pragmatic and honest about it. Mr. Lynch has brought some nice changes to this bill that actually will enable it to be a bipartisan vote, I hope.

Mr. Speaker, what this bill does, with our colleagues from the House Committee on Agriculture, is it requires the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to establish a working group focused on digital assets. This is the first step to opening the dialogue between our regulators and market participants and will move to much-needed clarity.

The fact is that this working group will produce a report within a year that includes an analysis of the domestic regulatory framework necessary for the development of cryptocurrencies and digital assets here in the United States. It is really important that we get our act together, that we be technology-permissive, that we ensure that it is legitimate money raised here, that our existing laws are adhered to, but that we adapt and change and don't allow the debate between the CFTC, which sees everything as fish, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which sees everything as fowl.

When we look at this new entity, which is neither fish nor fowl, we have to have a small regulatory framework for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I concur that our colleague, Mr. Heck, was instrumental in these debates. I miss his lively debates in committee markup, but, frankly, given the sick burns he has given me there, I think I am better off with him as Lieutenant Governor. But I concur with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), a member of the House Agriculture Committee and a leader on agriculture issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Lynch, for his leadership on this important issue and the issues of financial technology.

Frankly, one of the healthier conversations we get to have on the Financial Services Committee is on the nature and the deployment of the technology. It is neither the pure conversation of less or more regulation. It is a completely different scope of what we are doing in terms of laws that ensure that we have financial inclusion and allow offers for products to be cheaper, more affordable, and more widely distributed across the country. So I think this is a healthy thing for us to have this conversation on the Financial Services Committee.

This bill today is an important working group between the CFTC and the Security and Exchange Commission. That conversation between these two agencies, I hope, will bring us a new permissive regulatory framework for digital assets here in the United States and allow for the wider deployment and development of cryptocurrencies and all the technologies that are underlying those cryptocurrencies, those huge opportunity sets for American consumers in the development of these new assets in this first generation, but also the wire deployment of these technologies, whether it is in driverless vehicles or in the nature of how we interact with each other in the financial markets.

There are huge opportunities around digital assets, and this is the first step in Congress having a smart regulatory framework here in the United States for digital assets.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Rodgers, my classmate and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee for yielding. It is an amazing thing to be with you here today, and it is an amazing thing to be here today to talk about this important bill.

As the lead Republican cosponsor of the House companion to S. 578, I rise in support of the FASTER Act.

Millions of Americans suffer from life-threatening food allergies. More than 1.5 million Americans are allergic to sesame, in particular, yet there is no current requirement to include the ingredient on product labels. This legislation would declare it the ninth major allergen to be recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and update laws to require the labeling of sesame.

This bill would also require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to regularly review promising food allergy treatments and research. This is a major bipartisan priority. These efforts will help slow this rapidly growing disease and ultimately find and fund a cure.

Finally, the FASTER Act establishes a scientific process and framework for establishing additional allergens covered by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

I am proud to serve as cofounder and co-chair of the newly formed Congressional Food Allergy Research Caucus, along with Congresswoman Doris Matsui. We recognize there is more we can do to help those 32 million Americans, including many who are children who suffer from food allergies.

We can and we should do more to increase funding into research, therapies, and treatments for food allergies. Sending this legislation to the President's desk would be a major first step to achieving our goal of improving treatment opportunities.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Missouri, the good ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we, as politicians, are talking down our economy specifically to pass this spending package. To be clear, we know many Americans are still suffering. Republicans want to provide targeted relief to those in need--temporary, targeted relief related to COVID. In fact, for a year now, we have been working to support families impacted by COVID, and we have done so in an overwhelmingly bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, now the Democrats have power and they are not interested in bipartisanship--no matter what the campaign pledges were--or even basic facts. The fact is that CBO projects that the unemployment rate, which is lower right now than it was in the first

5\1/2\ years of President Obama's Presidency, will continue to fall even without congressional action and reach its pre-pandemic size by next year.

Additionally, personal income increased at the end of last year, and the report out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics today says personal savings rates are now over 20 percent, a level not seen in four decades. But these are facts that don't back up the Democrats' preferred narrative, that the economy is horrible, and this big, spending package is their solution.

Democrats are distorting the truth to push through a package that dedicates only 9 percent of the $1.9 trillion price tag of this bill to actually combating the virus.

Mr. Speaker, let's reject this package. Let's get American people back to work. Let's get schools open. Let's get parents back at work. Let's get women back in the workforce. And we can do that with bipartisan solutions, not a big spending package.

Let's reject this. Let's start over and get to good terms so we can actually fix the problems for the American people, get them working again, get schools open, and beat the virus.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, in its current form.

Madam Speaker, this is a final amendment to the bill. This amendment will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

You know the drill on a motion to recommit. I stand here before the House today to get an affirmative vote that we stand together against the anti-Semitic notion of the BDS movement.

The BDS movement is an effort to weaponize the world's economy against one simple State, one State, the great State of Israel and the Jewish people. They are trying to weaponize our economy, our dollars, against our only ally in the Middle East that is a democracy.

This is an effort for us today--today--to say that we will stand against this movement. This movement is about anti-Zionism. Anti- Zionism is anti-Semitism.

Let us speak with one clear voice today that we as the American people will not stand for this economic warfare. We will stand with our ally, and we will stand with the Jewish people in the Israel State.

Why weaponize our economy against Israel? To destroy Israel, to choke off economic growth, to choke off economic opportunity, and thereby weaken the State of Israel so they get rolled into the sea.

That is unacceptable. That is the notion of the BDS movement.

It may be polite in certain company to say you boycott, you divest, you sanction the State of Israel. It is not polite to say that you are anti-Semitic.

But what the BDS movement says is that you are anti-Semitic. What you say by supporting the BDS movement is that you are okay with discriminating against people because of their faith; you are okay discriminating against the Jewish people because you don't like--well, let me stop there.

This body has a long history of working together in a bipartisan fashion. I have worked for 3 years to hammer out a bipartisan approach to stopping the BDS movement. That got rolled into the bill that was passed in January in the Senate.

Seventy-seven Senators joined together and sent a bill over here to the House. We have waited 4 months, with no vote on that bill, and it is not because we don't have bipartisan support to stop the BDS movement. We do. We do.

In this Chamber, we have stood together in a bipartisan forum to stand against hate and to stand against anti-Semitism, but the leadership over there doesn't want us to have a vote on that bill.

So, today, we are saying let's have the vote. Let's stand up for the State of Israel. Let's stand against hate. Let's stand up against this anti-Zionism and the anti-Semitism that underlies it. Let's stand up for our Jewish friends and allies, and let's speak with one voice that the BDS movement is anti-Semitism.

Vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge my colleagues to support this very good amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

This amendment doesn't do that.

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

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

The Department letter also expressed concern that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

I am opposed to the amendment.

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

Am I reading the legislative text?

I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for clarifying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am prepared to close.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chair, older consumers are undoubtedly at the highest risk of becoming the victims of financial crimes. That is the unfortunate case that we are facing today.

That is why, earlier this month, the House passed multiple pieces of legislation to highlight the issues of elder financial abuse and the mechanisms to combat it.

The statistics on senior citizens who are exposed to financial exploitation are shocking. Older Americans lose approximately $36.5 billion each year to financial crimes, scams, and abuse. One in five seniors have reported being victims of exploitation, and only 1 in 44 cases of financial abuse are reported.

The gentleman from Colorado has offered an amendment that will require the CFPB to study and report on consumer complaints filed by older Americans and recommend legislative or regulatory actions to enhance consumer protections to those citizens.

This amendment would increase transparency and allow the CFPB to identify trends in elder financial abuse. Those insights could be used and can be used to protect senior citizens.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I thank my colleague for offering a good amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Chair, the gentlewoman from Michigan has offered an amendment that will help ensure the Consumer Advisory Board has a balanced perspective by including individuals who represent community banks, credit unions, and small business owners, or economic growth experts.

Community banks, credit unions, and small businesses are disproportionately affected by heightened regulatory burdens.

Dodd-Frank imposed 4,000 new Federal regulations on financial institutions, including smaller institutions that lack the resources of larger ones. As a result of that, we have seen the decline of nearly 2,000 banks, from about 6,400 banks at the end of 2010, to the end of last year, that number was 4,600. This is a significant issue for community financial institutions, the weight of regulation.

The number of credit unions has also declined by nearly 3,000 over a similar period of time, down to 5,600.

While community banking organizations, such as credit unions and small community banks, represent 17 percent of all U.S. bank assets, they make up nearly half of all small business loans. Small businesses account for over half of all U.S. employment, and nearly two-thirds of all employment growth over the last decade.

These institutions fuel our economy and spur job growth. They deserve a seat at the table.

I commend my colleague from Michigan for offering this amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

As I said, small community financial institutions have been disproportionately affected by the regulatory burden of Dodd-Frank, which has driven small community banks to either merge, or go out of business. Likewise, the same for credit unions.

So for them to have a seat at the table at the CFPB, I think, is right, fair, and appropriate. I appreciate my colleague from Michigan offering this. I support the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I am opposed to the amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's interest in this issue, but I have concerns with this amendment.

Before I get into the substance of the amendment, I do want to remind my colleagues that the Democrat majority, in 2009 and 2010, passed through the House and the Senate, and got signed by the President, the nationalization of the student loan industry, giving it to the Department of Education to administer.

Knowing their limitations, the Department of Education, at the time, contracted with loan servicers that are private enterprises, but under the direction and the regulatory enforcement of the Department of Education.

Now, the Democrat majority is unhappy, and the Federal Government is crushing an entire generation with debt by the decision they made to help pay for the ACA or ObamaCare.

To get to the substance of the amendment, this amendment would require loan servicers to submit considerable data to the CFPB, data that they are already submitting to their primary regulator, the Department of Education.

I am troubled by the sheer volume of information that would be collected and by the lack of definitive guardrails around what the CFPB can and cannot collect.

We had an amendment before that said we need to have on the Advisory Committee a privacy expert. Well, this amendment runs counter to this need for us to have enhanced privacy standards for those that are seeking loans, and enhanced privacy standards for individuals in society, because this would now require a second area of government to collect data, sometimes counter to what the Department of Education would suggest is the right and proper data to collect.

The Department of Education has authority over student loan servicing, and that work is performed on the Department's behalf under its regulation. And the servicers fall under the Department of Education's regulatory authority broadly.

While I support the spirit of this amendment that was offered, I ask my colleagues to oppose it.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, in closing, this amendment is not practical. It should be offered when we reauthorize the Department of Education. I would support it if it is mandated on the part of the Department of Education to collect this data, which is the right regulator of this nationalized industry of making student loans.

Rather than collecting more data, what we need to do is get into the action of fixing the problem of student debt. We need to make sure we have more choices for students, better communication with students, and a better understanding of the consequences of this massive debt load.

We can collect all the data we want, but the Federal Government will eventually have to take responsibility for these bad actions we have taken to saddle a generation with student debt that they cannot afford. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I would ask the author for a point of clarification.

As I read it, the amendment requires quarterly reporting to Congress. Is that correct?

I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Am I to read it correctly that that quarterly report is supposed to give 12 months of data?

Okay. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for clarifying.

Madam Chair, looking at this, that means that on a quarterly basis, it is an annual report. It is a bit clunky.

What we already see with the issues of payday and car title lenders, we know that those are State-regulated products, but we also know, according to the Bureau's 2018 Consumer Response Annual Report, payday loans account for 0.7 percent of consumer complaints, title loans account for 0.2 percent of consumer complaints. This is less than 1 percent of the consumer complaints the CFPB already deals with.

The issues of reporting here, if this were merely an annual report to reposition the data that they put out on an annual basis, I would not see that as a burden or a major cost to the CFPB, but doing an annual report on a quarterly basis would be more costly.

While I am not opposed to this data being made public--I do think that would be additive to the public--the fact that this is a quarterly filing for an annual report, I don't think that that is going to be quite as sensible as it otherwise could be.

Moreover, if you look at the Consumer Response Annual Report on the consumer complaints to the CFPB, 80 percent of those consumer complaints revolve around the credit reporting agencies and credit repair firms.

I think we should be focused on that, as a policy matter. I think there is bipartisan consensus that the credit reporting agencies need to undergo a change in the law by which they must abide to make sure that consumers are protected and their data is protected.

This is bipartisan work that I hope Chairwoman Waters and I can engage in this Congress. We have raised similar concerns about credit reporting agencies in the past, and I do think there is an opportunity for us to have bipartisan legislating that protects the consumer.

Madam Chair, I commend my colleague from Michigan for offering this. I know this is a major issue in Michigan and a major issue for the question of car insurance, the cost of car insurance as well, and a number of other issues that I know that she seeks to remedy for her constituents.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman raising this concern to us as a body, but I respectfully oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, in my reading of the bill, I would suggest that when it says, ``the Director shall issue a quarterly report to Congress containing,'' and then in subsections 4 and 5 it says 12 months of data, that 12 months is--I don't want to be snarky about it, but 12 months is a year.

So on a quarterly basis, CFPB has to provide 12 months of data. That is what I mean by on a quarterly basis CFPB has to provide an annual report. Twelve months being a year, a year being annual, filing yearly is annual.

I don't mean to be completely snarky about it, but I think if we simply had an annual report, this would be a much better structured amendment.

Madam Chair, while I oppose the amendment, I do so reluctantly.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, the gentleman's amendment would reinstate a bad rule by the CFPB that was repealed.

The CFPB's own data demonstrates that consumers fare better under arbitration than under litigation. On average, plaintiffs' attorneys account for approximately 31 percent of payments plaintiffs receive from class action settlements. Plaintiffs' attorneys collect, on average, $1 million per case; actual plaintiffs receive just $32 each.

If Members want to be consumer friendly, if Members are about consumer protection, let's let the consumers get the benefit if they are wronged rather than trial lawyers and the trial bar.

This is a trial lawyer's dream amendment.

Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, let me just reiterate: This amendment is for trial lawyers. That is what they are trying to reinstate, forcing consumers into the hands of trial lawyers. Every million dollars plaintiffs receive in attorney's fees, the actual plaintiff, the one who is harmed, the one who is wronged, receives, on average, $32. That is not fair. That is not equitable. That is not right.

It is not defending an abstract concept. It is actually defending those consumers' right to receive compensation for the harm that they have experienced. Also, it allows that consumer to enter into contractual agreements with people they seek to.

This amendment would reinstate a rule that would take that consumer's right away from them and put it into the hands of the trial lawyer once again. It is a profit center. It certainly is.

In November last year, the President signed a joint resolution passed by Congress disapproving of the arbitration rule under the Congressional Review Act. Congress spoke, in the House and in the Senate, and we changed the law.

Pursuant to the joint resolution, the arbitration agreement rule has no force or effect. That means, moreover, that a rule similar to that can no longer be written going forward. That is under the Congressional Review Act.

This amendment serves as little more than a payday for plaintiffs' attorneys.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.