Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I will vote against H.R. 1737, the Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Act. There are arguments to be made on both sides of this debate, and I am confident that the people I've worked with over the years in the auto industry are straight shooters. It is clear, however, that there are areas of serious abuse. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has found that there are instances where auto lenders, including some dealers, charge higher interest rates for people of color than they charge white car buyers with similar credit worthiness and financial standings. These higher interest rates come in the form of on-site and undisclosed interest rate markups. Several lawsuits have highlighted these matters.

I understand there are alternative arguments. Auto dealers should have the flexibility to give car buyers the best price possible, and interest rate negotiations can be a good way to save consumers money and to streamline the sales process. Further, CFPB's mandate to enforce the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and prevent discrimination in all lending was clear even before the 2013 guidance targeted by this legislation.

On balance, however, it is important not to undercut the CFPB as the administration is working hard to protect it. Perennial Republican budget proposals attempt to limit or eliminate funding for the CFPB, and earlier this fall the House Financial Services Committee passed legislation that would replace the CFPB with a politically appointed committee.

I'm hopeful that regardless of the outcome of this debate that there is a way to be able to work in a more cooperative basis on this issue. I'm interested in how we both meaningfully address real concerns while simultaneously protecting consumers and the delicate momentum of the newly-created CFPB under continuous attack.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source