Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want the Members of the House to pay very close attention to this bill today because this bill represents tricks and games in ways that people don't often understand. But this is a prime example of how you take a good idea and mess it up. So I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1195, a measure that is, again, a shining example of how far Republicans will go to squander compromise, consensus, and good faith to advance an ideological anticonsumer agenda.

The bill before us today is just the latest instance of Financial Services Committee Republicans snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

It makes clear their commitment to do all they can to undercut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Let me say that again. They have spent so much time--amendment after amendment, attempt after attempt--to try and gut and dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and they have gone so far with this bill to undermine our efforts to be of assistance to small businesses and include them in a stronger advisory way to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because they hate the Bureau so much.

Well, again, they do all they can to undercut this Bureau, an agency with an extraordinary record of success protecting consumers, reining in bad actors, and ensuring that we do not return to the predatory practices that put this Nation on the verge of economic collapse less than 10 years ago.

Mr. Chairman, as originally written, H.R. 1195 was a good and decent measure offered by my colleague, Mr. Heck from Washington State, and, again, I applaud him for his leadership. The straightforward proposal offered by Mr. Heck would codify two of the advisory boards that the CFPB voluntarily created related to community banks and credit unions, while also creating a new small business advisory board for small businesses. Along with many other requirements of the Bureau, these boards create additional avenues for input from the entities that they have been given the power to regulate under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act.

So here is what we are talking about. The Bureau itself had created a number of advisory committees. Mr. Heck saw room for strengthening the ability of small businesses to have an advisory role, and so he created this bill. But, because, again, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, the Republicans, hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so much, they decided that they were going to play tricks and games and create an opportunity to reduce the funding so they could try and limit the Bureau's ability to do its work by adding all of these amendments. I am going to point out the tricks of these amendments as we go along here today.

So in a rare show of bipartisanship, the Financial Services Committee passed H.R. 1195 by a vote of 53-5. Many of my Democratic colleagues supported the proposal, just as we have supported the many efforts of the CFPB to be responsive to the unique needs of small businesses, community banks, and credit unions. But, as usual, that bipartisanship was short-lived, as Chairman Hensarling added an amendment designed to pay for this measure by undermining the CFPB's authority and independent funding.

I find it ironic that this House has determined now is the time to offset the cost of legislation. Don't forget, we have the pay-for kings and queens on that side of the aisle. They said, they worked for, and they made a big issue that everything must be paid for, except when they decide to try and slip something in that they don't pay for. And they have done that on this floor with some of these bills that we will be talking about.

But with this bill, they decided a new kind of trick; and that is, let's find a way to take it from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because not only will this pay for it, but this will reduce their ability to do their job paying for other things.

Just last week, the House majority voted to repeal the estate tax without paying for it at a staggering cost of $269 billion. At a time when far too many Americans are struggling with stagnant wages and historic income inequality, my Republican counterparts seem all too willing to add to the Nation's deficit in order to pass giveaways for the richest 0.2 percent of Americans.

Yet when it comes to a reasonable bill to enhance the voice of small businesses, community banks, and credit unions, which they claim to care so much about, the Republicans insist that the only way to pass the legislation is by cutting the CFPB--an agency that 84 percent of small-business owners support, according to polling from the small-business majority.

The truth of the matter is that, after several years of attempting to cap CFPB funding, the Republicans have chosen to transform Mr. Heck's bill into a vehicle to make drastic cuts to the CFPB's budget.

While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim otherwise, the CFPB itself estimates Chairman Hensarling's poison pill amendment will cut its budget by about $45 million over the next 5 years and by $100 million over the next 10 years, capping it substantially less than the amount that they are currently able to request.

That means this vote is one to weaken an agency with the explicit mission of standing up for consumers and taxpayers who have been subject to the deceptive practices of unscrupulous corporations.

The chairman's amendment guarantees that this otherwise bipartisan proposal will never become law, garnering significant opposition in the Senate and a veto threat from the Obama administration, who said this measure was ``solely intended to impede the CFPB's ability to carry out its mission of protecting consumers in the financial markets,'' and further, they said, ``could result in, among other things, undermining critical protections for families from abusive and predatory financial products.''

Mr. Chairman, Republicans could have chosen any number of offsets to account for the cost of this proposal or, as they have done so many times before, waive their CutGo rules. Make no mistake about the intent of the Hensarling amendment. It is designed to back Democrats into a corner by attaching an unacceptable provision cutting CFPB's budget to a proposal that Democrats supported in committee.

The important work of the CFPB will not be undermined on our watch, and this backdoor attempt to cut its budget sets a dangerous precedent of using bipartisan bills as a way to sneak through measures that undermine the Bureau's independence and its ability to protect consumers.

Mr. Chairman, we don't understand on this side of the aisle why it is that our Republican friends hate the CFPB so much and have done so much to undermine them, to undercut them, and to try to reduce their funding. They know as well as we know that prior to the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that we put into Dodd-Frank's reforms, consumers had no protections in the Government of the United States of America. Our regulatory agencies were not doing their jobs.

They say they were focused on safety and soundness. But who was working for the consumers? Nobody.

And so now we have a Bureau working for the consumers that is doing a wonderful job. And here we have every attempt that you can dream of, every scheme that you can think of, being levied by our friends on the opposite side of the aisle because they want to kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As I have said, this is not going to happen on our watch. They can try any trick that they want. We are on to it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I first need to remind the gentleman from Illinois that Mr. Heck worked hard to put small business advisory at the table and to codify the other businesses that the CFPB had already put at the table. They snatched it right away from the table. They took away small business.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think that we have done a very good job on this side of the aisle of exposing what is happening on the opposite side of the aisle as simply an attempt to try and gut and demean the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Let me just deal with this argument that they made about the cost of renovation for the CFPB.

Bloomberg Businessweek, in an article, entitled, ``Republican Attacks on a CFPB Office Renovation Don't Add Up,'' found that Republicans took liberties with their math. Using data from a report prepared by the CFPB's inspector general, Bloomberg found that renovation would only cost $421 per square foot, if you inflate the price by including rental of temporary space and paying for movers, compared to the GOP claim of $590. Actual construction costs are only $283 per square foot, half of what the Republicans claim.

However, and I think this is very interesting, there is one very expensive renovation happening in Washington, D.C., right now. It is the Cannon House Office Building, which houses Members and committees of the House of Representatives. All end costs for the renovation of the Cannon Building approved by Speaker Boehner will be $753 million, or $911 per square foot, much pricier than the Bellagio or the Burj Khalifa. If we want to talk about what is high cost, take a look at ourselves right here in Congress for what we are doing.

Having said that, I just wonder why the continued attempts on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Maybe it is because somebody else is being protected.

Let's look at some of the work of the Bureau: a January 2015 settlement against J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo for $35.7 million after uncovering a scheme where loan officers illegally referred customers to affiliated businesses in exchange for cash and marketing services.

Look at a July 2014 settlement against Rome Finance for $92 million for a predatory lending scheme that targeted servicemembers by hiding finance charges, withholding information from billing statements, and engaging in illegal debt collection practices.

Another settlement from July 2014 against payday lender ACE Cash Express for $10 million for intentionally trapping consumers in a cycle of debt, a practice formalized in their employee training materials, as well as illegal debt collection practices, including harassment.

I could go on and on and on how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has taken on some of the biggest corporations, the biggest businesses in this country to protect consumers. What is it you are afraid of? What is it you are worried about? Why are you trying to kill the agency that is protecting consumers rather than applauding them for making sure that the consumers don't continue to be taken advantage of the way they were prior to 2008 when we didn't have any consumer protection? I ask you to question yourselves about why you hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so much.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New Hampshire for offering this measure, which will ensure that the concerns of our Nation's veteran-owned businesses are represented on the small business advisory board this legislation creates.

Madam Chairman, our Nation's veterans heroically put their lives on the line for this country. And when they come home and decide to start a small business, they are carrying forth that patriotic duty by taking another risk for the betterment of our Nation.

Just as our Nation has a responsibility to care for those who return from battle, we too have a duty to ensure those who have served in our Armed Forces have a voice at the table, in whatever vocation they enter.

Early on, the CFPB recognized the unique needs of servicemembers, veterans, and their families by creating an office targeted to address their needs. Likewise, small businesses owned by veterans comprise a subset of our Nation's economic backbone that should not be ignored. This amendment ensures that the CFPB is made aware of their views, perspectives, and interests in the same manner as all small-business owners.

But Madam Chairman, while I support this amendment and believe in its goals, I remain strongly opposed to the underlying bill, which would impose cuts to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and would set a precedent that could ultimately lead to a time when the Nation's leading consumer advocate is cash-strapped, underfunded, and financially unable to ensure that the views of veteran business owners--or any other business owners--are appropriately taken into account.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source