2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Restructure The CFPB's Management Structure From A Single Director To A Five Member Commission. In July 2016, Schweikert voted against a series of amendments voted en bloc that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike[n] sections repealing provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that fund the Consumer Financial Protection Board through transfer of funds directly from the Federal Reserve without the need for appropriations, requir[ed] the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to notify Congress and publicly post on its website when it requests a transfer of funds from the Federal Reserve during fiscal 2017, and preserv[ed] the current management structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under a single director." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 financial services appropriations bill which would have also, according to Congressional Quarterly, "modif[ied] the budgetary treatment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to make it subject to annual appropriations beginning in fiscal 2018 and change[d] its leadership structure from a director to a five-member commission." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 183 to 238. The House later passed the underlying bill, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 361, 7/6/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/6/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/7/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1230; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Establish Three Advisory Boards For The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Offset By Limiting Future Funds For The CFPB. In April 2015, Schweikert voted for establishing three advisory boards for the CFBP with future limits on CFPB funding. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would have "formally establish[ed] three advisory boards with which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that must consult on matters regarding small businesses, credit unions and community banks. The measure is offset by limiting funding for the CFPB in future years. As amended, the bill would encourage the CFPB to ensure the participation of veteran-owned small-business concerns as members of the Small Business Advisory Board." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 235 to 183. The Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 167, 4/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/22/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1195]
CFPB Is An Independent Agency Created By Dodd-Frank And Is "Charged With Implementing And Enforcing Federal Laws To Ensure That Markets For Consumer Financial Products And Services Are Transparent And Competitive." According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created as an independent agency within the Federal Reserve (Fed) by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (PL 111-203) to protect consumers' interests. Unlike other financial institution regulatory agencies that are primarily focused on institution safety and soundness, the CFPB is charged with implementing and enforcing federal laws to ensure that markets for consumer financial products and services are transparent and competitive, and that consumers are protected from discrimination and other unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices. CFPB funding is not controlled by Congress; rather, the agency is directly financed through transfers from the Federal Reserve." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/17/15]
Democrats Argued That The Bill's Offset Added Via A Floor Rule Was A Back-Door Attempt To Limit CFPB Funding And Believed That The Funding Offset Could Undermine The Agency. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Democrats who oppose the bill argue that adding the offset through the floor rule is simply a back-door GOP attempt to limit CFPB funding and that Republicans have turned a bipartisan bill into one Democrats can't now support. They note that Republicans have long opposed the CFPB and its mission and have repeatedly sought ways to cut agency spending, and they say the bill's limits could undermine the CFPB's ability to protect consumers --- with the funding reductions actually amounting to tens of millions of dollars, not just the $9 million that CBO cited. Democrats also say Republicans apply pay-go rules inconsistently, just last week supporting passage of tax-cut bills that would add hundreds of millions of dollars to the deficit." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/17/15]
2015: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Prohibiting Individuals From Serving On Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Advisory Boards Created By The Underlying Bill If They Worked For A Company In The Last Ten Years That Was Subject To Enforcement For Predatory Lending Or Fraud Against Veterans Or Service Members. In April 2015, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would have "prohibit[ed] individuals from serving as members of the any of the advisory boards if within the last ten years they have been employed or acted as an agent of a company whose been subject to a state or federal enforcement action for predatory lending or fraud against veterans or servicemembers." The underlying legislation was the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act would have created "three advisory boards with which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that must consult on matters regarding small businesses, credit unions and community banks." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 184 to 234. [House Vote 166, 4/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/22/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1195]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Required The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau To Include Representatives Of Minority- And Women-Owned Small Businesses On The Small Business Advisory Board. In April 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have required the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to include representatives of minority- and women-owned small businesses as members of the Small Business Advisory Board. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have "require[d] the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to include representatives of minority- and women-owned small-business concerns as members of the Small Business Advisory Board." The amendment amended HR 1195, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, established a Small Business Advisory Board to "advise and consult with the CFPB in the exercise of its functions under the federal consumer financial laws regarding eligible financial products of services, and (2) provide information on evolving small business practices." The vote was on the amendment and the House passed the amendment 244 to 173. HR 1195 passed the House. The Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 165, 4/22/15; Congressional Research Service, 3/2/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/22/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 90; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1195]
Rep. Ann Kuster (D-NH) : Underling Bill Encouraged, But Did Not Require Women Owned And Minority Owned Small Business In The Board's Membership. Speaking on her amendment on the House floor, Rep. Kuster (D-NH) said, "The underlying bill encourages but does not require the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to include women-owned small businesses and minority-owned small businesses in the membership of the small business advisory board." [Congressional Record, 4/21/15]
Rep. Ann Kuster (D-NH) : The Amendment Ensured That The Small Business Advisory Board Was "More Representative Of The American People." Speaking on her amendment on the House floor, Rep. Kuster (D-NH) said, "The underlying bill encourages but does not require the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to include women-owned small businesses and minority-owned small businesses in the membership of the small business advisory board. The bill also encourages the Director to include financial institutions predominantly serving traditionally underserved communities in the membership of the Credit Union Advisory Council and the Community Bank Advisory Council. My amendment would simply change the underlying bill to make the inclusion of these groups a requirement, to ensure that a broad and diverse range of voices are included in these bodies. Federal regulators should listen to stakeholders when writing new rules for our economy, and this amendment will help ensure that these advisory boards are more representative of the American people." [Congressional Record, 4/21/15]
Opponents Claimed Bill's Current Language Was Sufficient And That Changes Would Have Upset Bill's Negotiated Support. Speaking on the amendment on the House floor, Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) said, "Mr. Chairman, the underlying language in this bill was a bipartisan agreement that was worked out in the last Congress. When we were marking up this bill previously, it was brought up that minority representation would be important to this bill, and so the chairman of the committee, Mr. Hensarling, actually stopped the deliberation there and worked in a bipartisan way across the aisle with Ms. Waters to make sure that we put language in the bill that would encourage the Director to make sure that women and minorities' business concerns on the small business advisory board were taken into consideration. We have addressed that, and we kept that language that was agreed to and, by the way, was passed by a voice vote. Mr. Pittenger accepted that amendment, and the bill reported out of the committee 53-5. So, basically, we have kept our word and kept in the spirit of the agreement that was negotiated in the previous Congress, and that language is in this underlying bill." [Congressional Record, 4/21/15]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring All Consumer Complaints Be Made Public On The CFPB's Website. In May 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "remove[d] from the bill a section that would require all consumer complaints to be made publicly available on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau website." The underlying legislation would have reformed the CFPB. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 191 to 236. The House later passed the underlying bill. [House Vote 223, 5/22/19; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/19; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 252; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1500]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Delay The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Rules Regarding Lender Disclosures Until February 1, 2016. In October 2015, Schweikert voted for delaying CFBP's rules on lender disclosures until February 1, 2016. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "delay[ed] implementation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rules regarding lender disclosures to consumers applying for home mortgage loans until Feb. 1, 2016. Enforcement of the rules and lawsuits against lenders would be prohibited as long as the lender makes a good-faith effort to comply with the rules." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 303 to 121. The Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 540, 10/7/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/7/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3192]
As Part Of Dodd-Frank, The CFPB Was Required To Combine Certain Disclosures Made To People When Applying Or Closing A Home Mortgage; Banks Were Also Prohibited From Imposing Fees Before A Person Indicated That They Wanted To Proceed. According to Congressional Quarterly, "As part of the push to address this problem, the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act (PL 111-203) required the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) created by the law to streamline and combine certain disclosures that must be made to consumers when applying for, and closing, a home mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. CFPB's final rule requires two forms instead of the current four and is currently set to take effect on Oct. 3, 2015. In addition to the new disclosure forms, after Oct. 3, banks are prohibited from imposing fees on consumers before the consumer has received the loan estimate and indicated an intent to proceed with the loan. When providing written estimates of terms or costs to consumers before they receive the loan estimate, the bank must also provide a written statement that the terms and costs may change. Banks are also prohibited from requiring consumers to provide documents verifying information in their mortgage applications before the banks provide consumers with the loan estimate." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/2/15]
A Contributing Cause Of The Great Recession Was Housing Market Turmoil In Part Caused By Consumer's Purchasing Homes Through Predatory Lending. According to Congressional Quarterly, "A contributing cause of the recession and financial crisis in 2008 was the bursting of the housing bubble. Many individuals, in the expectation that the increase in housing prices would continue, purchased homes they could not afford. In the aftermath of toxic mortgages and the increased rate of foreclosure, some lawmakers blamed financial institutions for predatory lending: making loans to people who did not understand the terms and could not afford the loans." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/2/15]
Supporters Of The Bill Claim That Agencies Need More Time For Implantation While Supporters Note That There Was Already A Two Month Delay. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill argue that CFPB's new mortgage loan disclosure requirements are complicated and pose significant implementation and compliance challenges to the industry, and that the measure simply gives the industry a few more months to fully implement them. They note that in consolidating the disclosure requirements, the new rules also make significant changes to the origination, processing and closing of mortgage loans, and that they include difficult-to-understand timing and delivery requirements that make implementation problematic. [...] Opponents of the bill argue that lenders have had ample time to implement the new disclosure rules, including a two-month delay of the implementation deadline that has already occurred. [...] The bill, they contend, is simply an effort to micromanage the CFPB's supervision and enforcement decisions." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/2/15]
2017: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Would Have Repealed Significant Portions Of Dodd-Frank, As Well As Reforming The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau By Allowing The President To Fire Its Director For Any Reason. In June 2017, Wagner Schweikert voted for the Financial Choice Act. According to NPR, "House Republicans voted Thursday to deliver on their promise to repeal Dodd-Frank --- the massive set of Wall Street regulations President Barack Obama signed into law after the 2008 financial crisis. In a near party-line vote, the House approved a bill, dubbed the Financial Choice Act, which scales back or eliminates many of the post-crisis banking rules." The vote was on passage." The House passed the bill by a vote of 233 to 186. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 299, 6/8/17; NPR, 6/8/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 10]
Legislation Significantly Reduced The Authority Of The CFPB. According to Vox, "The Choice Act would also gut the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). As Mike Konczal wrote for Vox, the CFPB has won millions from big corporations by suing those who use 'deceptive practices' for their customers." [Vox, 6/8/17]
Legislation Allowed The President To Fire The Head Of The CFPB And The FHFA For Any Reason. According to CNN, "Hensarling's bill would give the president the power to fire the heads of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a consumer watchdog agency created under Dodd-Frank, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at any time for any -- or no -- reason." [CNN, 6/8/17]
Legislation Renamed The CFPB To The Consumer Law Enforcement Agency And Subjected The Agency To The Congressional Appropriations Process. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure significantly modifies the structure and authority of the CFPB, converting it into an executive agency funded by annual appropriations, rather than an independent agency funded directly from the Fed, and it makes the agency's director subject to removal by the president 'at will' (rather than for cause, as under current law). [...] The CFPB would be renamed as the Consumer Law Enforcement Agency (CLEA)." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/7/17]
Legislation Removed The CFPB's Ability To Monitor Financial Firms Closely For Consumer Protections And From Writing Payday and Car-Title Loan Rules. According to the Los Angeles Times, "The Financial Choice Act would strip the agency of its ability to closely monitor financial firms for compliance with consumer protection laws and specifically prohibits the bureau from writing any regulations on payday and car-title loans." [Los Angeles Times, 6/8/17]
CFPB Fined Wells Fargo $100 Million In 2016 For Deceptive Practices; Legislation Would No Longer Allow The CFPB To Do So In The Future. According to the Washington Post, "Hensarling's bill would strip the agency of some of its most important powers. It would no longer be able to write major rules regulating consumer financial companies, such as debt collectors, without getting approval from Congress. The agency would lose some of its independence because its director would serve at the pleasure of the president. And it would also no longer be able to levy hefty fines against financial institutions for 'unfair' or 'deceptive' practices. The CFPB used those powers to fine Wells Fargo $100 million last year for opening up to 2 million accounts customers did not ask for or know about." [Washington Post, 6/9/17]
2016: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2017 Financial Services Appropriations Bill Which Replaced The CFPB's Director With A Five-Member Commission. In July 2016, Schweikert voted to appropriate $21.7 billion for financial services and general government for FY 2017. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "provide[d] $21.7 billion in discretionary funding for financial services and general government appropriations in fiscal 2017. [...] The measure would modify the budgetary treatment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to make it subject to annual appropriations beginning in fiscal 2018 and changes its leadership structure from a director to a five-member commission." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 239 to 185, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 398, 7/7/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/7/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating The CFPB. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Would Have Repealed Significant Portions Of Dodd-Frank, Including Effectively Gutting The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In June 2017, Schweikert voted for the Financial Choice Act. According to NPR, "House Republicans voted Thursday to deliver on their promise to repeal Dodd-Frank --- the massive set of Wall Street regulations President Barack Obama signed into law after the 2008 financial crisis. In a near party-line vote, the House approved a bill, dubbed the Financial Choice Act, which scales back or eliminates many of the post-crisis banking rules." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 233 to 186. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 299, 6/8/17; NPR, 6/8/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 10]
Legislation Significantly Reduced The Authority Of The CFPB. According to Vox, "The Choice Act would also gut the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). As Mike Konczal wrote for Vox, the CFPB has won millions from big corporations by suing those who use 'deceptive practices' for their customers." [Vox, 6/8/17]
Legislation Allowed The President To Fire The Head Of The CFPB And The FHFA For Any Reason. According to CNN, "Hensarling's bill would give the president the power to fire the heads of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a consumer watchdog agency created under Dodd-Frank, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at any time for any -- or no -- reason." [CNN, 6/8/17]
Legislation Renamed The CFPB To The Consumer Law Enforcement Agency And Subjected The Agency To The Congressional Appropriations Process. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure significantly modifies the structure and authority of the CFPB, converting it into an executive agency funded by annual appropriations, rather than an independent agency funded directly from the Fed, and it makes the agency's director subject to removal by the president 'at will' (rather than for cause, as under current law). [...] The CFPB would be renamed as the Consumer Law Enforcement Agency (CLEA)." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/7/17]
Legislation Removed The CFPB's Ability To Monitor Financial Firms Closely For Consumer Protections And From Writing Payday and Car-Title Loan Rules. According to the Los Angeles Times, "The Financial Choice Act would strip the agency of its ability to closely monitor financial firms for compliance with consumer protection laws and specifically prohibits the bureau from writing any regulations on payday and car-title loans." [Los Angeles Times, 6/8/17]
CFPB Fined Wells Fargo $100 Million In 2016 For Deceptive Practices; Legislation Would No Longer Allow The CFPB To Do So In The Future. According to the Washington Post, "Hensarling's bill would strip the agency of some of its most important powers. It would no longer be able to write major rules regulating consumer financial companies, such as debt collectors, without getting approval from Congress. The agency would lose some of its independence because its director would serve at the pleasure of the president. And it would also no longer be able to levy hefty fines against financial institutions for 'unfair' or 'deceptive' practices. The CFPB used those powers to fine Wells Fargo $100 million last year for opening up to 2 million accounts customers did not ask for or know about." [Washington Post, 6/9/17]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for eliminating the CFPB. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The CFPB [...] should be eliminated." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) As Part Of The Republican Study Committee's Budget Proposal. In April 2014, Schweikert voted for the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution for fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The Dodd-Frank financial reform law created the CFPB to be a new financial products regulator with wide authority. Unlike other regulatory agencies, the CFPB operates with little Congressional oversight. The CFPB should be eliminated." The House considered the RSC budget as a substitute amendment to House Republicans' FY 2015 budget resolution; the amendment was rejected by a vote of 133 to 291. [House Vote 175, 4/10/14; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 615; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, As Part Of The Republican Study Committee's Budget Proposal. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support eliminating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The RSC budget proposes eliminating the CFPB, saving taxpayers approximately $5.7 billion over ten years." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2019: Schweikert Voted For Subjecting The CFPB To The Congressional Appropriations Process. In May 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "subject[ed] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau funding to congressional appropriations and authorize[d] fiscal 2020 funding for the CFPB equal to the aggregate funds transferred to the agency by the Federal Reserve Board in fiscal 2019." The underlying legislation would have reformed the CFPB. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 192 to 235. [House Vote 224, 5/22/19; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/19; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 253; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1500]
2017: Schweikert Voted For Subjecting The CFPB To The Congressional Appropriations Process. In September 2017, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "eliminate the bill's provision that would incorporate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau into the regular appropriations process." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 omnibus. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 183 to 226. The House later passed the underlying legislation The Senate took no substantive action on the overall legislation. [House Vote 521, 9/14/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/14/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 435; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]
The CFPB Receives Annual Funding Direct From The Federal Reserve, Capped At A Fixed Percentage Of The Fed's Operating Expenses For The Fiscal Year. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Funding for the CFPB comes from the Fed and is independent of the congressional appropriations process; the Fed transfers the amount determined by the bureau's director as reasonably necessary for the bureau's annual budget, but not to exceed a specified percentage of the Fed's total operating expenses. Funding is capped at 11% of the Fed's operating expenses for FY 2011 and 12% for FY 2013 and each year thereafter, adjusted for inflation." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
Opponents Of A 2014 Bill That Subjected The CFPB To The Appropriation's Process Argued That Doing So Would Undermine Bureau's Independence. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, argue that it will undermine the CFPB's independence and ability to protect consumers. Funding the CFPB through the annual appropriations process would simply enable agency opponents to cut funding and subject it to political pressures, both of which would endanger its ability to protect consumers, they say. And requiring that four commissioners be confirmed by the Senate would give agency opponents another venue to block the agency, they say, pointing to the two years it took to get the current single director confirmed. They contend that lowering the number of FSOC votes needed to overturn CFPB rules would negate the primary reason for creating the bureau --- to ensure that consumer protection is a top priority --- and that singling out the CFPB from other financial regulators and preventing it from paying higher salaries will severely weaken its ability to attract and retain top talent. Finally, they say that requiring the agency to contact every consumer about personal information would be excessively burdensome and harm its analytical efforts to protect consumers." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
2017: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Would Have Repealed Significant Portions Of Dodd-Frank, Including Subjecting The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau To The Congressional Appropriations Process. In June 2017, Schweikert voted for the Financial Choice Act. According to NPR, "House Republicans voted Thursday to deliver on their promise to repeal Dodd-Frank --- the massive set of Wall Street regulations President Barack Obama signed into law after the 2008 financial crisis. In a near party-line vote, the House approved a bill, dubbed the Financial Choice Act, which scales back or eliminates many of the post-crisis banking rules." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 233 to 186. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 299, 6/8/17; NPR, 6/8/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 10]
Legislation Renamed The CFPB To The Consumer Law Enforcement Agency And Subjected The Agency To The Congressional Appropriations Process. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure significantly modifies the structure and authority of the CFPB, converting it into an executive agency funded by annual appropriations, rather than an independent agency funded directly from the Fed, and it makes the agency's director subject to removal by the president 'at will' (rather than for cause, as under current law). [...] The CFPB would be renamed as the Consumer Law Enforcement Agency (CLEA)." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/7/17]
Legislation Reduced The Authority Of The CFPB. According to Vox, "The Choice Act would also gut the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). As Mike Konczal wrote for Vox, the CFPB has won millions from big corporations by suing those who use 'deceptive practices' for their customers." [Vox, 6/8/17]
Changing The CFPB's Funding Stream Would Undermine The Bureau's Independence. According to Congressional Quarterly on a related bill, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, argue that it will undermine the CFPB's independence and ability to protect consumers. Funding the CFPB through the annual appropriations process would simply enable agency opponents to cut funding and subject it to political pressures, both of which would endanger its ability to protect consumers, they say. And requiring that four commissioners be confirmed by the Senate would give agency opponents another venue to block the agency, they say, pointing to the two years it took to get the current single director confirmed. They contend that lowering the number of FSOC votes needed to overturn CFPB rules would negate the primary reason for creating the bureau --- to ensure that consumer protection is a top priority --- and that singling out the CFPB from other financial regulators and preventing it from paying higher salaries will severely weaken its ability to attract and retain top talent. Finally, they say that requiring the agency to contact every consumer about personal information would be excessively burdensome and harm its analytical efforts to protect consumers." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
2016: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2017 Financial Services Appropriations Bill Which Made The CFPB Subject To Congressional Annual Appropriations. In July 2016, Schweikert voted to appropriate $21.7 billion for financial services and general government for FY 2017. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "provide[d] $21.7 billion in discretionary funding for financial services and general government appropriations in fiscal 2017. [...] The measure would modify the budgetary treatment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to make it subject to annual appropriations beginning in fiscal 2018 and changes its leadership structure from a director to a five-member commission." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 239 to 185, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 398, 7/7/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/7/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Give Congress Power Over The CFPB's Funding. In July 2016, Schweikert voted against a series of amendments voted en bloc that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike[n] sections repealing provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that fund the Consumer Financial Protection Board through transfer of funds directly from the Federal Reserve without the need for appropriations, requir[ed] the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to notify Congress and publicly post on its website when it requests a transfer of funds from the Federal Reserve during fiscal 2017, and preserv[ed] the current management structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under a single director." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 financial services appropriations bill which would have also, according to Congressional Quarterly, "modif[ied] the budgetary treatment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to make it subject to annual appropriations beginning in fiscal 2018 and change[d] its leadership structure from a director to a five-member commission." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 183 to 238. The House later passed the underlying bill, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 361, 7/6/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/6/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/7/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1230; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Subject The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau To The Annual Appropriations Process, As Part Of Rep. Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal. In April 2014, Schweikert voted for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2015 to 2024, which, according to the House Budget Committee's Fiscal Year 2015 "Path to Prosperity," "supports cancelling the ability of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (created by Dodd-Frank) to fund its operations by spending from the Federal Reserve's yearly remittances to the Treasury Department. Dodd-Frank was written to provide off-budget financing for the new bureau, which is housed within the Federal Reserve but enjoys complete autonomy. To preserve its independence as the nation's monetary authority, the Federal Reserve is off-budget, and its excess earnings from monetary operations are returned to the Treasury to reduce the deficit. Now, instead of directing these remittances to reduce the deficit, Dodd-Frank requires diverting a portion of them to pay for a new bureaucracy with the authority to write far-reaching rules on financial products and restrict credit to the very customers it seeks to 'protect,' outside the annual oversight of Congress through the appropriations process." The House adopted the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 205, but the Senate did not. [House Vote 177, 4/10/14; House Budget Committee, 4/1/14; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Limit The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau's Power And Independence By Transforming It Into Five-Member Commission Funded Entirely Through Annual Appropriations, By Cutting Its Employees' Salaries, And By Allowing Its Rules To Be Overturned By Council Of Other Agencies. In February 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would modify the structure and funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It would replace the CFPB director with a bipartisan five-member commission and subject the bureau to the annual congressional authorization and appropriations processes. The commission would be required to consider the financial impact of proposed rules on insured depository institutions. Under the measure, the Financial Stability Oversight Council could overturn CFPB rules with a simple majority vote. The bureau would be required to obtain consumers' permission to collect or use non-public personal information. It also would limit CFPB employees' salaries. As amended, it would repeal the bureau's exclusive rule-making authority." The House passed the bill by a vote of 232 to 182, but the bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 85, 2/27/14; Congressional Quarterly, 2/27/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3193]
Currently, CFPB Is Headed By A Single Director, And Enforces Federal Consumer Financial Protections To Ensure Transparency And Competitiveness, Rather Than Ensuring Financial Institution Safety And Soundness. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Unlike other financial institution regulatory agencies that are primarily focused on institution safety and soundness, the CFPB is charged with implementing and enforcing federal laws to ensure that markets for consumer financial products and services are transparent and competitive, and that consumers are protected from discrimination and other unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices. The bureau is headed by a director who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term. It is authorized to issue consumer protection rules that are applicable to all financial institutions, and it has examination and enforcement authority over compliance with consumer protection laws by very large banks and non-bank financial institutions, as well as by all insured depository institutions and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets. The bureau operates without interference from the Fed, including writing rules, issuing orders, appointing or removing employees, and carrying out examinations and enforcement actions." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
Bill Would Rename CFPB To "Financial Product Safety Commission" Outside Of -- And No Longer Funded By -- The Federal Reserve. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill replaces the position of CFPB director with a bipartisan five-member commission and eliminates the bureau's direct funding from the Federal Reserve --- instead establishing the new commission outside of the Federal Reserve as an independent agency subject to annual congressional authorization and appropriations." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
Commissioners Would Be Subject To At-Will Removal By The President. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Under the measure, four of the five commissioners would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, with no more than two appointed commissioners from the same political party. The Federal Reserve's vice chairman for supervision would serve as the fifth commissioner. Appointed commissioners would serve staggered five-year terms and would be able to stay on for up to one year after their terms expire until a replacement is confirmed by the Senate. The president would appoint a chair from among the appointed commissioners and also would be allowed to dismiss an appointed commissioner at will rather than having to cite a specific cause, such as inefficiency or neglect of duty." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
Currently CFPB Receives Annual Funding Direct From The Federal Reserve, Capped At A Fixed Percentage Of The Fed's Operating Expenses For The Fiscal Year. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Funding for the CFPB comes from the Fed and is independent of the congressional appropriations process; the Fed transfers the amount determined by the bureau's director as reasonably necessary for the bureau's annual budget, but not to exceed a specified percentage of the Fed's total operating expenses. Funding is capped at 11% of the Fed's operating expenses for FY 2011 and 12% for FY 2013 and each year thereafter, adjusted for inflation." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
Bill Would Effectively Cut CFPB's FY 2014 Funding By At Least $197 Million; And An Estimated $150 Million In FY 2015. According to Congressional Quarterly, "[The bill] authorizes the appropriation of $300 million for the new commission for each of FY 2014-15 and changes the CFPB's name to the Financial Product Safety Commission to reflect that it would no longer be a bureau of the Federal Reserve. (The CFPB received $541 million from the Fed in FY 2013 and initially sought $497 million for FY 2014; CBO estimates that the CFPB will spend about $450 million a year under current law for the next few years to carry out all of its activities.)" [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
Bill Would Cut Salaries For Many CFPB Employees By Requiring CFPB Employee Compensation To Conform To The Federal Government's General Schedule Unlike Other Federal Financial Regulatory Agencies. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill requires that employees of the new commission be compensated in accordance with the government's General Schedule set for most federal employees --- which would result in pay reductions for many CFPB employees. This change in pay would take effect 90 days after enactment. Current law gives financial regulatory agencies flexibility to establish their own compensation programs without regard to various statutory provisions on classification and pay for executive branch agencies. That allows the CFPB, like other federal financial regulators, to offer compensation above the limits set by the government's General Schedule for certain employees." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
Bill Would Allow Five-Member Majority Of Financial Stability Oversight Council To Overturn CFPB Regulations, Rather Than The Current Requirement Of Seven Votes (Two-Thirds Majority). According to Congressional Quarterly, "[The bill] also lowers the threshold for the Financial Stability Oversight Council to set aside regulations issued by the new commission, allowing it to do so if a simple majority of council members determine that the rule is inconsistent with the safety of U.S. financial institutions. The FSOC was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act (PL 111-203) and is charged with monitoring the financial services market to identify potential threats to the financial stability of the United States. Under current law, the FSOC may set aside CFPB regulations if two-thirds of the council members vote to do so. (The council is made up of 10 voting members and five non-voting members. The bill would exclude the vote of the chairman of the FSOC from counting toward a majority; therefore, a vote to set aside a rule by the new commission would require only five votes, rather than the current seven needed to overturn a CFPB rule.)" [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
Bill Would Require CFPB To Consider Financial Institutions' Safety And Soundness During Rule-Making, In Addition To Current Requirements. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill requires the new commission, when developing regulations, to consider the impact of any proposed rule on the financial safety or soundness of an insured depository institution. Currently, the CFPB must consider both the potential costs to consumers and the effect on certain entities and consumers in rural areas." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
Bill Requires CFPB To Obtain Permission From An Individual Before Collecting And Using Their Non-Public Personal Information. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure requires the new commission to notify consumers and obtain their permission before collecting or using an individual's non-public personal information. Commission contractors would be subject to the same restrictions. Current law allows the CFPB under certain conditions to obtain certain financial information about an individual from businesses that offer financial products, but it prohibits CFPB from collecting data 'for purposes of gathering or analyzing the personally identifiable financial information of consumers.' In April 2013, news organizations reported that CFPB had required and purchased anonymous financial information on 10 million Americans from banks and credit bureaus." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
Bill's Supporters Argue Changes Necessary To Increase CFPB Accountability, Decrease Waste And Improve Congressional Oversight. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, primarily Republicans, argue that it is needed to make the CFPB accountable to American taxpayers. Making the bureau subject to congressional appropriations for its funding, they say, would allow Congress to conduct thorough oversight of the agency and finally make it accountable to the public for both its funding and its actions. And in eliminating the single, all-powerful director and instead establishing a five-member commission to run the bureau --- as was originally proposed for the CFPB --- that distribution of authority over five commissioners will help Congress in providing agency oversight. They argue that requiring the agency to consider the impact of proposed rules on all depository institutions will give smaller institutions greater input into CFPB's regulations, and that requiring CFPB employees to earn pay commensurate with the rest of the federal government will eliminate excessive and wasteful spending. Finally, they contend that the bill provides essential protections to consumers by giving them direct control over what personal information the bureau may collect or use." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
Bill's Opponents Argue Changes Would Undermine Bureau's Independence, And Ignore Key Motivation Behind Bureau's Creation: That Existing Financial Regulators Had Not Seen Consumer Protection As A Top Priority. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, argue that it will undermine the CFPB's independence and ability to protect consumers. Funding the CFPB through the annual appropriations process would simply enable agency opponents to cut funding and subject it to political pressures, both of which would endanger its ability to protect consumers, they say. And requiring that four commissioners be confirmed by the Senate would give agency opponents another venue to block the agency, they say, pointing to the two years it took to get the current single director confirmed. They contend that lowering the number of FSOC votes needed to overturn CFPB rules would negate the primary reason for creating the bureau --- to ensure that consumer protection is a top priority --- and that singling out the CFPB from other financial regulators and preventing it from paying higher salaries will severely weaken its ability to attract and retain top talent. Finally, they say that requiring the agency to contact every consumer about personal information would be excessively burdensome and harm its analytical efforts to protect consumers." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/14]
2018: Schweikert Voted To Nullify The CFPB's 2013 Indirect Auto Lending Rule Which Attempted To Reduce Auto Lending Discrimination. In April 2018, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "nullify and disapprove of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule that provides guidance to third parties that offer indirect financing for automobile loans. The rule states that such third party lenders are treated as creditors under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the lenders may not mark up the rate of an indirect loan in relation to a borrower's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age or receipt of income from any public assistance program." The vote was on passage legislation. The House passed the bill by a vote of 234 to 175. President Trump signed the resolution into law. [House Vote 171, 5/8/18; Congressional Quarterly, 4/17/18; Congressional Actions, S. J. Res. 57]
Car Dealers Could Add A Markup To Interest Rates And Keep The Profit; CFPB Said This Was Done More Often For Minority Buyers. According to Bloomberg, "At issue is a common practice by car dealers: They add a markup to the interest rates that lenders charge on loans and pocket it. Under Cordray, the CFPB contended that such mark ups were routinely higher for minorities, and warned it might punish lenders for not adhering to fair lending laws. [...] Auto dealer groups defend the markups as a standard practice that represents a reasonable price for connecting borrowers with lenders." [Bloomberg, 4/18/18]
Rule Was Used To Collect More Than $100 Million From Auto Lenders That Charged Larger Interest Rates To Minority Individuals: Four Auto Lenders Paid Millions In Fines: Ally Financial, American Honda Finance Corp., Fifth Third Bank, And Toyota Motor Credit Corp. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Senate voted 50-47 Tuesday to proceed to a disapproval resolution that would nullify 2013 guidance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the agency used to collect more than $100 million from auto lenders for charging members of minority groups higher interest rates. [...] Republicans have complained about the CFPB's methods in auto lending since December 2013, when the bureau and the Justice Department levied $18 million in fines and recouped $80 million in damages from Ally Financial, formerly General Motors Acceptance Corp., one of the nation's biggest indirect auto lenders. Then CFPB Director Richard Cordray said the bank's lending practices had a 'disparate impact' on 320,000 individuals from minority groups who were charged higher rates. Three other auto lenders paid fines or restitution in cases brought through 2016: American Honda Finance Corp., $24 million; Fifth Third Bank, $21 million; and Toyota Motor Credit Corp., $22 million." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/17/18]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) To Create A Process Whereby Areas Can Apply To Be Considered Rural For The Purposes Of Allowing Balloon Payments In Qualified Mortgages As Part Of A Five Year Transportation Reauthorization. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against requiring the CFPB to make a process where more areas are counted as rural as part of a five year transportation reauthorization. According to Congressional Quarterly, the provision would have "require[d] the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to create a process whereby areas can apply to be considered rural for the purposes of allowing balloon payments." The underlying legislation would have "reauthorize[d] federal-aid highway and transit programs for five years, through fiscal 2020, at increased levels." The vote was on the conference report. The House approved the legislation by a vote of 359 to 65. The Senate later passed the legislation and the president later signed the legislation. [House Vote 673, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 22]
The Financial Crisis Was Fueled In Part By A Burst Housing Bubble Caused In Part By Borrowers No Longer Able To Pay, Which Dodd-Frank Attempted To Redress. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The financial crisis of 2008 was fueled at least in part by the bursting of the housing bubble. In light of rapidly rising real estate values, and because they could bundle mortgages into securities and sell them to investors, lenders had made many mortgage loans to borrowers without investigating the borrowers' financial situations or ability to repay. And borrowers, convinced that their property values would continue to rise and that they could sell the property for more than the purchase price if unable to repay the loans, had sought these mortgage. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act [...] addressed this issue with the introduction of 'qualified mortgages,' requiring that creditors make a reasonable determination, based on verified and documented evidence, that a borrower can repay the loan. In return, the lender receives certain liability protections." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/10/15]
January 2014: Qualified Mortgage / Ability To Pay Rule Went Into Effect, But Included Allowance For Certain Rural Areas. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In January 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB's) qualified mortgages (QMs)/ability-to-pay rule took effect. That rule prohibits a qualified mortgage from having certain features that are generally considered harmful to borrowers, such as negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments or a loan term longer than 30 years. 'Balloon payments' refer to larger-than-usual, one-time payments at the end of the loan term --- often a large payment that pays off the remaining balance of the loan. Loans with a final balloon payment generally have lower interest rates than longer-term loans. Under the CFPB rule, however, the prohibition on balloon payments for qualified mortgages does not apply for small lenders in rural or underserved counties, where borrowers often use balloon loans because of the unique nature of properties in such areas." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/10/15]
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): Opposed The Bill Because It Weakened Dodd-Frank. According to a press release from Sen. Warren, "And now, in the FAST Act, Republicans have handed out more than a dozen goodies to financial institutions, including a requirement that does little but bog down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with needless paperwork and administrative tasks. If Democrats continue to support bills that include these kinds of rollbacks, it will simply encourage Republicans to use other must-pass bills to repeal or weaken even larger portions of Dodd-Frank and our other financial rules. That is why I must oppose this bill--and why I hope the American people weigh in with their representatives against this kind of cynical hostage-taking." [Sen. Warren Press Release, 12/3/15]
April 2015: H.R. 1259, Which Was Effectively This Provision, Was Passed By The House 401 to 1. According to Congress.gov, H.R. 1259, the Helping Expand Lending Practices in Rural Communities Act, was passed 401-1. [Congressional Actions, H.R. 1259; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15]
2017: Schweikert Voted Against The CFPB's Ability To Regulate Payday Lending. In September 2017, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "eliminate[d] the bill's provision that would remove the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's authority to regulate certain types of small dollar credit, such as payday loans and vehicle loans." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 omnibus. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 186 to 221. The House later passed the underlying legislation. The Senate took no substantive action on the overall legislation. [House Vote 523, 9/14/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/14/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 437; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Rule On Payday Loans. In July 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike[n] a section in the bill that would [have] prohibit[ed] funds from being used by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to enforce regulations or rules with respect to payday loans, vehicle title loans or other similar loans during fiscal 2017." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 financial services appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 182 to 240. The House later passed the underlying bill, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 369, 7/6/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/6/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1238; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Proposed A Rule Requiring Short-Term Lenders To Asses If The Borrower Can Afford To Pay Back The Loan, Its Fees And Living Expenses. According to NPR, "Under the proposed rule, so-called 'payday,' 'auto-title' and other short-term lenders would be required to determine that people they loan money to can make the payments and fees when they come due and still meet basic living expenses and major financial obligations." [NPR, 6/2/16]
Interest Rates For These Loans Can Reach 300 Percent Or Higher; As A Result, Some People Can Get Stuck In A Cycle Requiring A New Short Term Loan To Pay For A Past One. According to NPR, "With interest rates of 300 percent and higher, these lenders have fallen under greater scrutiny at both the state and federal level. [...] But regulators say the problem is that the terms are so onerous that many borrowers can't afford to pay the loans back and still have enough for their rent and other essentials. And so they end up taking out another loan, and then another loan after that, again and again for months or sometimes years, sinking deeper into a quagmire." [NPR, 6/2/16]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Protecting The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Ability To Protect Servicemembers From Payday Lenders On Or Near A Military Base. In February 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "stipulate[ed] that nothing would prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from informing consumers about personal information breaches, protecting servicemembers from payday lenders on or near military bases or from investigating and enforcing sanctions related to ATM or private student loan fees." The underlying legislation would have overhauled the CFPB. The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 194 to 223. [House Vote 84, 2/27/14; Congressional Quarterly, 2/27/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3193]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Recognizing And Honoring The Work Of The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In February 2014, Schweikert voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "add[ed] findings and sense-of-Congress language to the end of the bill that acknowledges and honors the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in providing protection and relief to consumers from instances of unfair, deceptive and abusive practices in financial markets." The vote was on agreement to an amendment; which the House rejected by a vote of 181 to 236. [House Vote 83, 2/27/14; Congressional Quarterly, 2/27/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 572; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3193]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Legislation Undoing Some Of The Trump Administration's Changes To The CFPB, Including Re-Establishing The CFBP Office Of Students And Young Consumers, And Restore The Enforcement Powers Of The Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity. In May 2019, Schweikert voted against a legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to reissue a 2017 rule prohibiting arbitration agreements between consumers and providers of consumer financial products, such as credit card companies, that bar consumers from participating in class action lawsuits against providers." In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill, as amended, that would statutorily clarify and establish certain objectives, authorities, and offices of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Among provisions related to CFPB organization and authorities, the bill would require the CFPB director to ensure each statutorily established functional unit of the agency performs its assigned duties and functions; require the director to provide 'adequate staff' to each unit to carry out these functions; and prohibit the director from reorganizing or renaming such units. It would statutorily reestablish a CFPB Office of Students and Young Consumers to inform students and young people about education-related savings, loans, and debt. It would statutorily authorize the CFPB Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity to carry out any supervisory and enforcement activities regarding fair lending laws. It would statutorily designate the CFPB as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, replacing any references in federal laws and documents to the 'Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.' Among other provisions, the bill would require the CFPB director to ensure the number and duties of political appointees on staff match those of such appointees at other federal financial regulatory agencies. It would add certain qualifications for CFPB consumer advisory board members, urging the CFPB director to appoint certain experts and representatives, including experts in consumer protection, community development, and fair lending, and representatives of communities 'significantly impacted' by higher-priced mortgage loans. It would require the CFPB database of consumer complaints to remain publicly available on the CFPB website. As an offset for its provisions, the bill, as amended, would reduce by a total of $38 million the amount of discretionary surplus funds that may be held by the Federal Reserve. As amended, the bill would require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to reissue a 2017 rule prohibiting arbitration agreements between consumers and providers of consumer financial products, such as credit card companies, that bar consumers from participating in class action lawsuits against providers. It would reinstate memoranda of understanding between the CFPB and Education Department regarding coordination of oversight related to federal student loans." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 231 to 191. [House Vote 228, 5/22/19; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/19; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1500]