[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 149 (Friday, October 9, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                       HOMEBUYERS ASSISTANCE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. SUZANNE BONAMICI

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 7, 2015

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 
3192, the Homebuyers Assistance Act.
   The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
required the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 
to consolidate and streamline the disclosures that a lender is required 
to make to a homebuyer under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the 
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The CFPB has crafted a 
rule that will ultimately make it easier for borrowers to understand 
the terms of a mortgage and provide them with additional protections at 
each step of the process.
   But mortgages are complicated instruments, and the procedures for 
home loans have been established for a long time. There is no question 
that the new rules are complex and will ultimately result in some 
unintended violations during implementation. The CFPB has extended the 
timeline for compliance once, and I agree that it is reasonable to 
extend that compliance period again, as this bill does, until February 
of 2016.
   I also agree that lenders who inadvertently fail to comply because 
these rules are new and unfamiliar should not be subject to public 
enforcement actions during the implementation period. And indeed CFPB 
has given its assurance that it will grant very wide latitude to 
lenders during this period.
   If that were all this bill did, I could support it. But in the bill 
is a troubling section that I cannot support even though I agree with 
the rest of its provisions. Unfortunately this bill suspends until next 
February the private right of action that allows aggrieved borrowers to 
recover damages when lenders violate the law in bad faith. This means 
that consumers who borrow during that period of time have absolutely no 
recourse whatsoever, even if the lender has engaged in blatant 
violations of the law. That isn't right, and it isn't fair for our 
constituents who are buying homes in the next four months to have to 
face that risk.
   Although I agree that lenders acting in good faith who inadvertently 
violate the new rules should be given a reprieve over the next few 
months, I cannot endorse letting all violators off the hook for any 
action they take that harms borrowers. I hope we can continue to work 
to improve this bill, and I hope that we will soon consider a better 
version on the House floor to provide relief to lenders without also 
harming borrowers.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose the bill in its current form.

                          ____________________