[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H513-H521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ADJUSTMENT ACT

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 693, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 2954) to amend the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 
1975 to specify which depository institutions are subject to the 
maintenance of records and disclosure requirements of such Act, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 693, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Financial Services, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 
printed in part B of House Report 115-518, is adopted, and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2954

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Home Mortgage Disclosure 
     Adjustment Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS SUBJECT TO MAINTENANCE OF 
                   RECORDS AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Home Mortgage 
     Disclosure Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2803) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (i) as paragraph (3) and 
     adjusting the margins accordingly; and
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (3), as so redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(i) Exemptions.--
       ``(1) Closed-end mortgage loans.--With respect to a 
     depository institution, the requirements of paragraphs (5) 
     and (6) of subsection (b) shall not apply with respect to 
     closed-end mortgage loans if the depository institution 
     originated less than 500 closed-end mortgage loans in each of 
     the 2 preceding calendar years.
       ``(2) Open-end lines of credit.--With respect to a 
     depository institution, the requirements of paragraphs (5) 
     and (6) of subsection (b) shall not apply with respect to 
     open-end lines of credit if the depository institution 
     originated less than 500 open-end lines of credit in each of 
     the 2 preceding calendar years.''.
       (b) Technical Correction.--Section 304(i)(3) of the Home 
     Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, as so redesignated by 
     subsection (a)(1), is amended by striking ``section 
     303(2)(A)'' and inserting ``section 303(3)(A)''.

     SEC. 3. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RESERVE FUND.

       Notwithstanding section 4(i)(2)(B)(i) of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78d(i)(2)(B)(i)), the amount 
     deposited in the Securities and Exchange Commission Reserve 
     Fund for fiscal year 2018 may not exceed $48,000,000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Financial Services.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 18, 2018, on page H513, the following appeared: The 
SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of 
the Committee on Financial Services.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro 
tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Financial Services.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 2954, 
the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act.
  H.R. 2954, which was introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Emmer), a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee, 
is a very important piece of legislation

[[Page H514]]

that will provide much-needed regulatory relief for our community banks 
and credit unions from onerous CFPB regulations that are impeding their 
ability to make home loans to our constituents.
  On January 1 of this year, draconian changes went into effect related 
to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act known as HMDA. These changes, which 
were mandated by Dodd-Frank and blindly implemented by the CFPB, 
radically expanded the information that lenders are required to 
collect, record, and report about mortgage applications and loans. But 
like many things the CFPB is involved in, the rule went far, far beyond 
what was originally intended by Congress, and effects have far-reaching 
and negative consequences on community financial institutions and home 
buyers.
  To be more specific, the CFPB's updated HMDA rule now requires 
financial institutions to collect 48--48--unique, different data fields 
on each mortgage loan they make. This is more than double--double--the 
number, Mr. Speaker, of data fields lenders were required to collect 
before the rule went into effect.
  Now, as if adding 25--two dozen--more data fields weren't enough, the 
CFPB rule also modified 20 of the 23 existing fields in this constant, 
constant changing of the regulatory scheme to fit the narrative of 
regulators rather than focus on the cost and benefits to our 
constituents of existing statutes.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Speaker, again, the constant changing of this regulatory scheme, 
the increased complexity and cost, we do not fully appreciate the 
impact on our community financial institutions, and we do not fully 
appreciate how this is impeding the success and growth of our community 
financial institutions in the communities we represent.
  You don't have to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. A community 
banker in Kansas has said that: ``As crazy as it seems, our current 
HMDA process includes four people verifying HMDA data on each loan.''
  Mr. Speaker, that was before the changes we are discussing today.
  According to that same community banker, who is trying to fund homes 
in his local community, doubling the number of data fields, as required 
in the CFPB's HMDA rule, ``will almost be overwhelming for a bank such 
as ours.''
  As a community banker from Nebraska has stated: ``All the new 
mortgage lending rules have made it almost impossible to provide timely 
service to our local customers.''
  So home buyers are feeling this effect, Mr. Speaker. As one community 
banker from Ohio explained, he was working with a woman who recently 
went through the tragedy of divorce. She was trying to refinance her 
home in order to make ends meet. But after filing mountains and 
mountains of paperwork and wading through all the different forms, she 
looked up at the banker and said: ``Jim, just tell me it will be 
okay.''
  As Jim put it: ``At that point, I realized just how overwhelming all 
the forms and disclosures were to a customer.''
  Sadly, we all have--the lawmakers, the regulators, and the bankers--
forgotten the most important item in this entire process: the customer.
  This community banker is right, Mr. Speaker. Our local financial 
institutions, our community banks, our smallest financial institutions 
especially, they have to spend less time in resources meeting 
Washington's complex, burdensome, onerous paperwork requirements. 
Instead, we need to give them more freedom to do what they do best, and 
that is to help people in their communities get into homes they can 
actually afford to keep.
  But doubling--doubling--HMDA data requirements needlessly--
needlessly--makes home buying more expensive, more confusing, and more 
difficult for the very people that we should be trying to help.
  Home buyers like April from Kentucky wrote that the process to get a 
home: ``Is almost impossible and extremely frustrating.''
  Or a home buyer from Michigan by the name of Rob, who explained: 
``The very people this was supposed to be helpful to, lower income 
working Americans, have been the parties most devastated by the 
overreach.''
  And that is exactly what this is, Mr. Speaker, overreach. And it is 
not only these individuals, but even charities--great charities like 
Habitat for Humanity, who said: ``Thanks to the CFPB's burdensome 
regulations and rules, charities such as Habitat that provide these 
loans have found it more difficult to do their important work.''
  H.R. 2954, from the gentleman from Minnesota, simply addresses the 
fact that in order to make home loans, small financial institutions 
should not and cannot afford to keep pace with the massive laws that 
disregard their businesses, their business models, and create an uneven 
playing field.
  Mr. Speaker, for this reason and for the others I have stated, I urge 
all colleagues to help struggling would-be home buyers in our districts 
and to support H.R. 2954.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2954, the Home 
Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, which would undermine efforts to 
monitor trends in mortgage lending, combat discriminatory and predatory 
lending, and ensure that consumers who reside in low- and moderate-
income communities have fair access to mortgage credit.
  In 1975, Congress enacted the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, also 
known as HMDA, in response to concerns that despite their 
responsibility to provide adequate home financing to qualified 
applicants on reasonable terms and conditions, some lenders' failure to 
do so had contributed to a decline in housing conditions in communities 
of color.
  HMDA data provide the only comprehensive picture of the rates at 
which American consumers' requests for mortgages are approved and 
denied. As a result, it has many important uses.
  HMDA data provide information on mortgage lending patterns and trends 
that allow regulators, lenders, researchers, and the public to better 
understand and address redlining concerns by identifying possible 
discriminatory lending patterns, and monitoring compliance with and 
enforcement of statutes, like the Community Reinvestment Act; and 
Federal antidiscrimination laws, like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 
and the Fair Housing Act.
  Local governments also use HMDA data to determine which financial 
institutions are meeting the needs of their communities and should 
receive important benefits funded by the taxpayers of those 
communities.
  For example, in Antioch, California, the local government uses HMDA 
data when selecting banks for contracts and participation in local 
programs.
  HMDA data are also used by government officials to determine areas of 
disinvestment that are in need of targeted assistance. Take Flint, 
Michigan, for example. There, HMDA data has been used to target funds 
to remediate blight.
  Communities also use HMDA data to identify discriminatory lending 
patterns and enforce antidiscrimination statutes. HMDA data, for 
example, were used in Chicago to identify discrimination and lending 
patterns in its neighborhoods, leading to a large discriminatory 
lending settlement.
  It was precisely because of HMDA data that Congress learned during 
the run-up to the financial crisis that African Americans were 
routinely steered into predatory subprime loans, even when they 
qualified for prime mortgages, and they received these loans at higher 
rates than White borrowers.
  Following the financial crisis, Congress updated HMDA when it passed 
the Dodd-Frank Act, directing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
to close information gaps about mortgage lending patterns and practices 
that contributed to the 2007-2008 financial crisis, as well as other 
data that could better identify discrimination.
  Accordingly, in 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
finalized a rule that required sufficient information to shed light on 
predatory practices in the mortgage market, and it considered 
compliance costs and burdens imposed on institutions that collect, 
maintain, and report the data. Through this rule, the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau added and

[[Page H515]]

implemented additional data fields that must be reported in order to 
further close information gaps about mortgage lending patterns and 
practices.
  The new data fields include basic loan facts, such as the address of 
the property, interest rate of the mortgage, and the borrower's credit 
score.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule only excluded truly 
small lenders; banks that originate fewer than 25 closed-end loans, 
like mortgages; and 100 open-end lines of credit, like home equity 
lines, because providing broader relief would negatively affect low- 
and moderate-income communities.
  Specifically, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wrote: ``The 
loss of data in communities at closed-end mortgage loan volume 
thresholds higher than 25 would substantially impede the public's and 
public officials' ability to understand access to credit in their 
communities.''
  Despite the harm posed to low- and moderate-income communities around 
the country, H.R. 2954 would permanently raise the threshold for new 
HMDA data for both mortgage loan-type data and lines of credit to 500 
without a good understanding about the real impact of doing so.
  At this level, 85 percent or 5,400 depository institutions and 48 
percent of nonbanks or 497 institutions would be exempt. That is 6,000 
financial institutions that would no longer report important lending 
data.
  By prohibiting these important new data fields from being reported 
under HMDA, regulators would not be able to fully determine the extent 
of redlining, discrimination, and other harmful practices. This will 
make it harder for fair lending violations to be detected, as HMDA data 
are routinely used by the Department of Justice to identify and remedy 
discrimination in lending.
  These new data fields are essential for shedding light on the kinds 
of discrimination, like age, that now flies under the radar. It is not 
surprising that over 170 civil rights, fair housing, consumer and 
community organizations across the country have come out strongly 
against this bill. These groups have stated that: ``The updated HMDA 
data will provide critical information about whether similarly situated 
borrowers in underserved communities are receiving equitable access to 
mortgage credit, data that we lacked a decade ago when the crisis 
hit.''
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize the need for Congress to consider tailored 
and sensible regulatory relief to community financial institutions, but 
this bill is not that relief.
  Financial institutions are already required to collect this data as 
part of existing mortgage regulations or as part of the mortgage 
underwriting process.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot support H.R. 2954 because it undermines 
effective fair lending enforcement by reducing HMDA data. This bill 
will contribute to unequal access to affordable credit for people of 
color, low- to moderate-income families, and borrowers in rural areas.
  History has repeatedly shown us that when financial institutions are 
merely trusted to operate in good faith, American consumers are left 
vulnerable to discriminatory and predatory lending, communities are 
stripped of wealth, and our economy is weakened.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this 
rollback of a key fair lending tool and to join me in opposing H.R. 
2954.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), a very valuable member of our committee and the 
sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, every citizen in our Nation desires the 
chance to achieve their American Dream. For thousands across this 
country, their American Dream consists of owning a home or starting 
their own business.
  Some laws have proven helpful in achieving this dream; others have 
created obstacles by codifying government overreach.
  In 1975, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act was enacted. This important 
law exposed and helped eliminate discriminatory lending practices, 
particularly against minorities. In short, this law helped more 
Americans realize their dream of owning a home.
  Over the years, however, the disclosures required by the law have 
expanded away from the original intent and have actually become an 
obstacle, preventing small, medium, and local lenders from helping 
aspiring landowners and business entrepreneurs.
  In 2015, the Dodd-Frank-created agency, the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, CFPB, demanded from lenders more than double the 
amount of data originally required under the Home Mortgage Disclosure 
Act.
  That double-the-data rule took effect on the 1st of this month. 
Larger lenders are able to adapt. In fact, most, if not all, continue 
to be in the home mortgage business today.
  But for smaller lenders, for the family-owned bank on Main Street, 
the double-the-data rule means making fewer mortgages or none at all. 
This unintended result is something each of us has heard over and over 
again in our home districts.
  Again, these are not the Wells Fargos, the Bank of Americas, or the 
J.P.Morgans. These are the small guys, the little guys on Main Street 
Minnesota and Main Streets all across this country.
  We all remember the financial crisis of 2008 and the devastation it 
brought to this Nation. Our economy suffered greatly.

                              {time}  1545

  No one wants that again. Unfortunately, Congress reacted by demanding 
that small banks and credit unions, quite literally, pay for a crisis 
they didn't cause. In the great State of Minnesota, the ``Land of 
10,000 Lakes,'' I consistently hear from small banks and credit unions 
that want to do what they do best: help Minnesotans achieve the 
American Dream.
  Due to the increased cost of compliance with the CFPB's double-the-
data rule--an estimated additional $326 million--many small banks in 
Minnesota are reconsidering their ability to continue to make mortgages 
and other covered loans.
  In 2014, Minnesota credit unions were on the hook for $7.2 billion in 
compliance costs. That is before the double-the-data rule. Not only are 
the additional HMDA compliance burdens ill-suited and unnecessary for 
these institutions, the CFPB's rule does very little to provide 
additional protection, all while potentially exposing consumers to 
potential identity theft or fraud.
  This information comes from those on the ground, the ones who are 
seeing this misguided rule in action. As a direct result of having 
fewer and fewer small, medium, and local lenders in the home mortgage 
business or offering capital for their neighbor's small business to get 
off the ground, the CFPB's rule has put the American Dream out of reach 
for thousands across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have to rightsize government regulation to 
create more opportunity. We have the opportunity to encourage small- 
and medium-sized financial institutions in our local communities to 
keep their doors open, to make mortgages again, to make loans to would-
be entrepreneurs, in short, to fund the dreams of their neighbors and 
friends.
  We have an opportunity to expand, not the law, but rather, and 
instead, the number of Americans who can own a home or start their own 
business.
  I first introduced the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act when I 
came to Congress in 2015. It is a bill that would keep the original 
intent of the 1975 law. Nothing will overwrite or exempt any financial 
institution, big or small, from reporting data related to race and 
gender. It is a bill that will put a stop to the loss of small- and 
medium-sized lenders by providing desperately needed regulatory relief 
for Main Street banks and credit unions.
  I am pleased to say it is a bill that has been perfected with the 
input from both sides of the aisle, present company excluded, and in 
both Chambers. Our goal today shouldn't be to expand the law. Our goal 
today should be to expand the number of Americans who want to get one 
step closer to achieving their American Dream, whether it is owning a 
home or starting a business.
  Mr. Speaker, that is our goal, and today we can take a big step 
forward in reaching that goal. If my fellow colleagues share this goal, 
then I urge you to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2954, and pass the

[[Page H516]]

Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from 
Minnesota who described his district, he failed to mention that the 
China-Asia Economic Development Association and the Jewish Community 
Action group all oppose this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Crist), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. CRIST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Ranking Member Waters 
for her steadfast leadership.
  While I have great respect for the gentleman from Minnesota, I rise 
in strong opposition to this bill before us today. I feel so lucky and 
fortunate to represent Florida's 13th Congressional District which 
includes my hometown of St. Petersburg, ``The Sunshine City.'' It is a 
beautiful place to grow up, to visit, to live, to work, and to retire.
  It is also a place that still bears some scars of segregation. The 
Fair Housing Act was signed 50 years ago this spring. Why then are so 
many neighborhoods still segregated? Why are so many of our 
constituents still victimized by redlining and unequal access to 
credit? Fair housing data is a critical tool to right the wrongs of the 
past, to see how well banks are serving all of our communities.
  It helps root out the occasional bad apple and the occasional bad 
institution. This data is worth the effort. In a perfect world, we 
wouldn't need laws to protect the vulnerable, or data to enforce those 
laws. But having fought and won discrimination suits on behalf of the 
people as Florida's attorney general, I will tell you, this is not a 
perfect world.
  While I share my colleagues' desire to make regulatory compliance 
less burdensome, let's not make it easier on banks by making it harder 
for fair housing.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of our 
Financial Services' Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer 
Credit.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his hard work 
on our committee and leadership as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Emmer) for sponsoring this very important legislation. Banks and 
credit unions of all sizes are drowning in a sea of paperwork. We hear 
about it every day from lenders that appear before the Financial 
Services Committee. The reality is that, because of the regulatory 
environment, mortgage lending is simply too burdensome for some 
community banks and credit unions. Lenders have little choice but to 
limit the products and services made available to customers or, in some 
cases, exit the mortgage business all together, which some have 
actually done.
  The changes we have seen on the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 
requirements are a great example of regulation run amuck. On every 
loan, lenders must check a lengthy series of boxes. One mistake lands a 
bank or credit union out of compliance, in hot water with the field 
examiners, and potentially exposed to litigation.
  In committee, I had a matrix. It is almost 300 boxes of things that 
they have to look at. Then if there is one box that is out of 
compliance, you could be exposed.
  The Obama administration CFPB significantly expanded regulatory 
requirements associated with HMDA. Financial institutions now have to 
report a total of 48 different data fields for each individual 
borrower. In fact, today's HMDA requirements are more than double the 
statutory requirements established by Congress.
  What do we get for all of this box checking? Not a lot, beyond a more 
burdensome process that, in the best case scenario, slows the borrowing 
process. These rules and regulations make it more and more difficult 
for small institutions to absorb costs and results in constricted 
credit and higher price for consumers' and customers' needs.
  Compliance with HMDA requirements is one of the top concerns and 
frustrations I hear from community banks in Missouri. And, in fact, we 
had a hearing recently, where we had the president of an institution in 
there, and he had a file that was this thick, Mr. Speaker, over 3-
inches thick. And I asked him: How many pages do you have in that file? 
And he said: Congressman, we don't measure it by the page anymore. We 
measure it by the pound.
  This legislation aims to address some of those concerns. H.R. 2954 
would exempt small community banks and credit unions from new HMDA 
reporting requirements. It is my understanding that this relief would 
apply to other mortgage lending institutions as well, including lenders 
who make loans on manufactured housing.
  We have an opportunity today to put our vote where our mouth is and 
support legislation that will grant relief to the Nation's smallest 
financial institutions and enable more access to credit for our 
customers and members of our local communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, again, the gentleman from Minnesota for 
his outstanding work on this legislation and his work on behalf of our 
financial institutions and their customers.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of the Home Mortgage Disclosure 
Adjustment Act.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Mr. Emmer's bill, 
H.R. 2954.
  Dodd-Frank added unprecedented new regulations on industry. As has 
been said already by my colleagues, institutions now have to collect 25 
additional fields of data. This is more than double what the banks and 
credit unions and other lenders had to report prior to passage of Dodd-
Frank. Not only do these added requirements increase costs for all 
financial institutions, but it has taken lots of time for smaller 
community lenders to prepare for them.
  This House should be well aware of two surveys of small financial 
institutions that reported an alarming inability of those entities to 
meet these new requirements.
  In fact, in my meetings with small banks and credit unions from 
Oklahoma, all of them have raised these specific rules and requirements 
as being costly enough to affect their business decisions: such as how 
many mortgages they could feasibly originate.
  All of this makes this bill not only timely, but immensely necessary. 
I represent a district that is full of institutions that originate 
fewer than 500 closed-end mortgages or open-end lines of credit in 2 
years. While these new requirements were certainly well-intentioned, 
their impact on small institutions cannot be overstated and should not 
be lessened.
  We as a body should continue to find ways to grow the ability of 
Americans to receive and to utilize financial instruments, such as 
mortgages. These requirements, if put on all institutions nationwide, 
will disproportionately affect those who are served by small financial 
entities.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Emmer's bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the vice chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling for his 
leadership on this issue as well.
  Mr. Speaker, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act continues to be an 
important resource for regulators to identify discriminatory lending 
activity. But the previous administration's interpretation of the act's 
reporting requirements has become overly burdensome for smaller 
financial institutions.
  Community banks and credit unions are weighed down with the same 
compliance burdens as larger institutions, without the advantages of 
massive compliance departments. The Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau's rulemaking of October 2015 on the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 
would require financial institutions to report

[[Page H517]]

33 new data fields for each borrower, more than double the statutory 
requirement laid out by Congress on top of an already detailed HMDA 
data collection requirement.
  Fortunately, Mr. Emmer's bill, the Home Mortgage Disclosure 
Adjustment Act, would remove some of the compliance burdens placed on 
our Nation's smallest financial institutions by exempting depository 
institutions that have originated fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage 
loans and fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit from disclosure 
requirements and maintenance of mortgage loan records under the 2015 
HMDA rule.
  The CFPB's October 2015 rulemaking requires financial institutions to 
report on over 100 total data points for any loan application, 
regardless of whether the institution agrees to make the loan or not.
  To put that in perspective, the time and resources required by a 
community financial institution to fill out all 100 of these data 
points for each application could be the difference between being able 
to make one more loan in a community or not. And in small communities 
across America, small communities like I represent, every single loan 
counts.

  With Mr. Emmer's legislation, the community financial institutions 
least able to absorb compliance burdens would be able to turn their 
attention and resources back to providing loans for hardworking 
families, rather than meeting overly burdensome regulatory 
requirements.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud Mr. Emmer for introducing this 
legislation and encourage my colleagues to be able to support this 
measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) will control the time for the 
minority.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation that we are talking about today, the 
Home Mortgage Adjustment Act, has to be looked at in the light of the 
history that this country has had.
  Our country has a HMDA bill, a home mortgage act, a Home Mortgage 
Disclosure Act, because of years, literally centuries, of 
discrimination and racism which has allowed for Americans to be 
excluded from the hope of homeownership.
  When people say: Look, I believe I have been the victim of mortgage 
discrimination, they have been very difficult and hard-pressed to prove 
it because the people who issue mortgages say: Well, that wasn't the 
reason. Well, I know that your credit score and your downpayment and 
everything is just like other people, but that is not the reason.
  Well, the truth is that it is the data that the Home Mortgage 
Disclosure Act provides for that puts people in a position where they 
can say: Look, I have been discriminated against. How come there is 
this wide racial disparity?

                              {time}  1600

  As a result of it, justice has been yielded to people who have been 
victims of discrimination seeking nothing more than the American Dream 
of homeownership.
  So along comes the bill today, the bill we are considering at this 
moment, which essentially says that we are going to backtrack on the 
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. We are not going to enforce it, even 
though we know that it has yielded justice for people, equal protection 
under the law for people, but we think that the needs of businesses are 
just going to be so important that we are going to backslide on the 
issue of justice.
  So, Mr. Speaker, today I have to urge a very strong ``no'' vote on 
this bill because this bill says that America's commitment to liberty 
and justice for all is not something that this House wants to live up 
to. We are going to say that we can't abide government regulations even 
if it means we are going to advance the cause of a civil and human 
equality for all Americans.
  Now, of course, the folks might say: Well, it is not all HMDA that we 
are trying to change. What we are trying to do is just stop the 
implementation of HMDA data, and it is only going to be for 
institutions that are of a smaller size; and even then, it is only 
going to be certain data.
  Yes, they will minimize the negative impact of this legislation. But 
there is no doubt that this is backing off of a commitment that this 
Nation has made so that all people in our country can freely 
participate in homeownership.
  They will try to minimize and say: It is only credit unions and banks 
that only issue about 500 or fewer mortgages. When you add all those 
folks up, that adds up to being a whole lot of mortgages, Mr. Speaker. 
It is only certain kinds of data, and that data is critical to making 
sure that people are included in the American Dream. So I am urging a 
very powerful ``no'' vote.
  Now, the people who advocate this legislation say: Well, it is just 
too much burden on business. We can't be bothered with having business 
fill out forms. It is quite inconvenient.
  But the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that, if this were such a problem, 
we would all come together and figure out how to make it easier to meet 
the requirements of HMDA. But that is not what is going on. They just 
want to delay the implementation of collection of critical data which 
will lead to the furtherance of the American Dream, which is 
homeownership.
  Mr. Speaker, it was only 8 years ago that we went through the largest 
foreclosure crisis in the history of our country other than the Great 
Depression, just 8 years ago. It wasn't decades ago. It was really a 
few years ago, well within the memory of people who serve in this body 
right now. Many of us were serving in this body during that foreclosure 
crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, all Americans were hurt. They were hurt when the value 
of their homes went down, and they were hurt when they saw unemployment 
go up. All Americans were hurt. But if we are perfectly honest, Mr. 
Speaker, not all Americans were hurt the same. African-American and 
Latino household wealth took the biggest hit of all. Because of this 
devastating blow, because of this shot, we saw the stripping away of 
African-American wealth to extreme degrees, not to mention people from 
Latino families.
  We cannot say, on the one hand, ``Pull yourself up by the bootstraps, 
work hard, save, and own a home,'' and, on the other hand, take away 
the tools by which people can get that home. But that is exactly what 
we are doing right here. We are saying that we are going to take the 
tools that you need to make for a fairer, more open and more just 
neighborhood, we are going to take those tools that you rely on, and we 
are going to say that you cannot have those tools because the demands 
of business require that we don't do that; it is just too expensive, it 
is too burdensome, and it is too inconvenient.
  Let me tell you this: 250 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow, 
and another 70 years of social discrimination are pretty doggone 
inconvenient, too. If HMDA is a tool that we use to make our society a 
more equal and more perfect Union, then why would we backtrack on it? 
Why would we backslide on it? Why would we do those things?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it 
was a most interesting and passionate speech that my colleague gave.
  I have some good news for him. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to 
the Constitution are not repealed by this bill, and neither is HMDA. 
HMDA is not repealed. Even the new CFPB regulations that double the 
data of HMDA are not repeal.
  I would urge the gentleman from Minnesota to actually read the bill, 
which happens to be four pages long, and he would find out that a 
current--a current--exemption that exists under current law for our 
smallest financial institutions that are trying to make loans to the 
very people he claims he wants to protect, that is slightly enlarged.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hill), who is the majority whip of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished chairman for 
yielding, and I appreciate my friend, Mr. Emmer, for introducing this 
bill to make this very modest change which does help community banks 
allocate capital and

[[Page H518]]

make more mortgage loans out there in our country.
  I would say to my friend from Minnesota, who knows I have great 
respect for him and his eloquence, that no one on this side of the 
aisle is any less interested in justice than he is.
  I must say, Mr. Speaker, that, as the chairman noted, this bill does 
nothing about eliminating protections under the Fair Housing Act or 
protections under the fair lending act for discrimination in housing or 
lending for minorities in this Nation.
  This is really, instead, about continuing the theme of the Home 
Mortgage Disclosure Act, which is to relieve some burden for the 
smallest financial institutions across the country. The act, for 
example, exempts institutions with less than $50 million in assets that 
are in an MSA from requiring any reporting. The act, for example, 
exempts small banks under $50 million that are not in an MSA from any 
reporting.

  So Mr. Emmer's bill simply continues on that theme while protecting 
justice and while protecting the ability to have data to make sure that 
we, in fact, in this country, have fair lending.
  If this requirement were enacted, community lenders would be required 
to collect more than double the amount of data points they do now. It 
is some 300,000 fields of data on a loan activity report, a LAR, which 
is how banks measure their compliance with HMDA--300,000 lines of 
activity. If you have a 10 percent error rate, Mr. Speaker, you are a 
bad actor and can submit many more challenges to maintain your 
independence as a bank.
  I would also argue that, on the backs of other regulatory burdens on 
small banks like TILA-RESPA, which was supposed to be a big improvement 
for consumers, it has actually hurt lending, raised costs, and limited 
credit. This comes on the back of that.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 2954 provides needed relief for our 
smallest financial institutions and preserves more lending options for 
the markets that these banks serve.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Emmer, for his thoughtful work.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 
the underlying bill, the bill that is being attempted to be amended 
today, didn't drop out of the sky. We have it because there was 
historic, provable, and demonstrable discrimination. That is why we had 
it.
  This bill, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act--a completely 
different piece which, I argue, backslides on our commitment to fair 
housing--would undermine our ability to stop discrimination by 
exempting 85 percent of the Nation's banks and credit unions and 48 
percent of the Nation's nonbank lenders from having to follow the 
updated reporting requirements.
  What are these reporting requirements? They are things that banks 
collect already. They are pieces of information being collected now. 
All they have to do is take one piece of paper that they have already 
prepared the documentation for and put it into another document. That 
is it.
  Now, the application borrower's age, that is an important thing to 
combat age discrimination.
  Credit score, name, and version of the credit scoring model, that is 
an important piece of information. That is already in the underwriting 
file and in FCRA.
  The debt-to-income ratio is already in the underwriting file and is 
required by QM compliance.
  Automated underwriting system name, that is in the underwriting file.
  Other information about the property, securing the loan, and the 
value of the property to secure the loan, that is in the underwriting 
file and it is in TILA requirement.
  Combined loan-to-value ratio, that is in there already because of 
underwriting.
  Manufactured home property type, land or without land, that is in the 
underwriting of the file.
  Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that information is critical because, 
in the manufactured housing industry, we know there is predatory 
lending and unfairness to borrowers a lot, so we need that kind of 
information to protect borrowers.
  I reject the argument that somehow, if we don't have commonsense 
regulations and disclosure, that is going to result in more--more--
loans being issued. There is no evidence to support that. What it will 
likely result in is more discrimination happening and perhaps people 
who own the banks and the credit unions just pocketing more money. But 
the fact that less regulation and oversight is going to yield more 
justice for people who have historically been excluded, there is no 
basis to believe that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), who is another hardworking member of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
time to speak in support of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act 
sponsored by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Emmer.
  As I sit and I listen to the debates that we are having in here and I 
think of what people back home must be thinking, it is hard, quite 
often, for us here to actually see what it is like, the boots on the 
ground back home. So I tend to go back home, and I talk to the source. 
What is it that we do up here that can hurt you or help you in your 
business and your life?
  Recently, I had a gathering of small-business owners, executives from 
larger businesses from across my district, and I posed a question to 
them: If we could only do one thing to help your business, what would 
that be? Would you rather us lower taxes or reduce regulation?
  Without exception, every person in that room said: Reduce regulation 
on my business.
  That surprised me.
  So I asked them why. They said: Because, by lowering our taxes, you 
can help our bottom line, but it is the regulation that hurts our 
ability to actually meet the needs of our customer.
  Now, when I talk to the small banks who predominantly loan to the 
small guy, the small-business guy, they say: It is things such as this 
that actually get in the way of my helping the customer.
  So it is not about inconvenience to the business. It is about serving 
the needs of the small guy, and it is about serving the needs and 
actually providing access to the capital that the small-business owner, 
the backbone of America, actually needs.
  Now, this bill is a perfect example of how we are simply reducing the 
burden on these businesses so they can meet the needs of the consumer 
much better. It doesn't do away with the regulation. It just reduces 
some of the reporting requirements that are onerous and that are 
duplicative. Basically, it tailors this data toward the small bank and 
the small business.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mitchell). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Georgia an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, currently, only mortgage lenders that 
have made fewer than 25 loans a year are exempt from this onerous data 
reporting requirement. All this bill does is extend that to 500 because 
I want our small banks to be making more than 25 loans a year to the 
small guy. I want them to make many more loans. Especially as this 
economy is improving, we want to support the small guy.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this 
commonsense piece of legislation.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman made a point that I thought was definitely 
worth mentioning. He said that he wanted to know how the law plays out 
boots on the ground back at home. He talked about: Does it hurt you or 
does it help you? The gentleman made a specific point about getting 
real-life, tangible experience people have with the law.
  I am glad he mentioned that, and the reason why is that I talked to a 
woman earlier this week as I prepared to be here today. She said she 
scrubbed floors in a hospital for 30 years. She scrubbed floors in a 
hospital for 30 years. She got up every day, and she saved her money. 
Her family never owned a home; they rented. That is all they could ever 
afford to do. She applied for a loan in a bank for a home once she got 
her money together.

[[Page H519]]

  


                              {time}  1615

  She was hopeful. She was optimistic. She even had a home picked out 
that she wanted to own and have her grandchildren and kids live with 
her in that home. She was denied. She had a good credit score. She 
saved her money. She shared with me that she felt like it was because 
of her race.
  Now, of course, nobody is going to admit that. When it comes to 
mortgage lending, Mr. Speaker, the people who make decisions that 
exclude one group of people and include another one don't use the 
nasty, ugly language that all of us condemn. They don't come in here 
and use the N word. They don't say ugly stuff.
  These people wear suits. They wear ties. They have nice, pressed 
white shirts. Many of them have monograms on those shirts. These are 
the members of the country club. Yet this lady who worked so hard for 
so long to own a home was denied.
  It was when statistical analysis was brought forth that people 
decided maybe they should just give her that loan after all. It was 
when she went to legal aid and complained.
  I can tell you this, it is the kind of thing that is important.
  How do people on the ground experience the Home Mortgage Disclosure 
Act?
  They experience it as something that gives them a chance to have a 
good life, too. If you never felt the sting of discrimination, maybe it 
is just a business regulation to you. But if you have been looked in 
the eye and told ``no,'' and you know that this is not right and you 
know it is probably because of who you are, then, and only then, will 
you understand why it is important not to weaken the Home Mortgage 
Disclosure Act.
  I don't doubt that people who are offering this amendment to relieve 
the regulatory ``burden'' have animus in their heart. I really don't 
believe they do. But I will tell you this: they are listening to the 
folks in the country club. They are listening to the folks who are on 
the other side of the table. They are not listening to the people who 
need that mortgage, who work for that mortgage, who deserve that 
mortgage.
  That is not who they are talking to. If they would sit down and 
listen to folks who just want to own a home, maybe they wouldn't see 
this as just some sort of a bothersome regulation. It is getting in the 
way of business.
  How can we possibly ever allow that?
  To the folks who would say that, discrimination is a theoretical 
concept. It might happen to some people, but none of the fine people 
they know in the banking industry would ever do that.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill came up because people were living 
with mortgage discrimination. It came up because people were being 
denied. It came up because people that were being told ``no'' should 
have been told ``yes.'' That is what is going on right here. This is 
why this bill, this Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, needs to 
be defeated.
  If you want to talk about ease of regulation, we can always talk 
about how to help people comply with the law. I am not against that. 
But what I am against is backsliding and backtracking on the progress 
that this country has made in favor of equal access to credit and 
mortgage lending. This bill is a threat to that.
  There shouldn't be anyone who votes for this piece of legislation who 
seriously considers how damaging discrimination has been historically 
and who seriously considers how the lives of people who spent so much 
time simply trying to be part of this country have been told ``no.''
  There are a lot of groups that agree. There are 173 national and 
State-based civil rights, fair housing, and consumer and community 
organizations that agree. There are 25 community labor and public 
interest groups that agree. They say this:

       H.R. 2954 would nearly quadruple the number of banks 
     exempted from the key mortgage disclosures designed to detect 
     predatory and discriminatory lending, leading to 5,400 banks 
     being exempted, as well as an additional 487 nonbanks.

  This is not a small thing. I just say that I give everybody credit 
for good intentions. I really do. But I think that folks need to really 
think about what it means to be on the other side of that desk when you 
are applying for that mortgage, not just the businessmen and -women who 
deny mortgages or grant them as they see fit.
  Public Citizen says:

       This bill would eliminate race and gender home mortgage 
     reporting requirements for lenders who make fewer than 500 
     closed-end mortgage loans and fewer than 500 open-end lines 
     of credit. There is really no benefit to such an exemption, 
     as the reporting requirements are negligible.
       Lenders who write mortgages obtain significant data on 
     their customers, as they should. Reporting a few items of 
     this data is not cumbersome. The potential harm, on the other 
     hand, is to subvert the basic intent of the Home Mortgage 
     Disclosure Act, which is to publicize whether a bank is truly 
     serving its geographic market on a race and gender blind 
     basis.

  What about CAP, the Center for American Progress?
  They say:

       While on its face this appears to be a simple regulatory 
     relief bill, this provision would exempt the majority of 
     mortgage lenders from new Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 
     reporting requirements.
       The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act reporting is the primary 
     source of information on the availability and quality of 
     mortgage lending and serves a vital function in fair lending 
     assessments.
       This bill would effectively paint an incomplete or 
     inaccurate picture of lending activity in the communities 
     across the country, making it vastly more difficult for 
     regulators and researchers alike to assess the state of the 
     mortgage market.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this piece of 
legislation. It is wrong. It is not the right thing. There are other 
ways to do what the authors want to do. But simply saying, ``All these 
people are exempt and you don't have to comply,'' is not the right way 
to go. It will set us back as a nation. It will turn us back as a 
nation. I am urging a ``no'' vote.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ellison for 
the time he has spent with us today opposing this legislation. His 
history is such that everyone understands that he represents the least 
of these, that he represents working people, that he represents poor 
people. Whenever there is an opportunity to speak up for them, he 
always does.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we need to remember what this is all about, so 
let me state the facts.
  HMDA data allows us to monitor mortgage lending patterns to identify 
underserved communities and populations to combat discriminatory 
lending.
  HMDA data was used to determine when many of us suspected during the 
subprime bubble that persons of color, particularly African Americans, 
received predatory subprime loans at higher rates than White borrowers. 
They received these loans even when they qualified for prime mortgages.
  The Department of Justice and the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau have used HMDA data to bring fair lending cases against banks 
for redlining, steering, and other violations of the Fair Housing Act.
  It might be true that H.R. 2954 could provide relief to some 
financial institutions by exempting lenders from the updated HMDA 
reporting requirements. What is true is that the bill would likely also 
have far-reaching adverse consequences for consumers, particularly 
those in low-income census tracts and rural areas.
  Equally disconcerting is that the reduced HMDA data could stop 
regulators' ability to identify and stop any emerging predatory or 
discriminatory practices faced by those consumers.
  Borrowers who take out home equity lines of credit, the HELOCs, are 
at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure when property values 
decline. In fact, the expansion of HELOCs in the mid-2000s contributed 
to the foreclosure crisis that many communities experienced in the last 
2000s.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau noted that:

       Had open-end line of credit data like HELOCs been reported 
     in HMDA, the public officials could have had a much earlier 
     warning and a better understanding of potential risk, and 
     public and private mortgage relief programs could have better 
     assisted distressed borrowers in the aftermath of the crisis.


[[Page H520]]


  While I am a longtime advocate for community banks, this bill does 
not reduce burdens. All of the HMDA data points being discussed today 
will continue to be collected by banks because they need this data to 
originate mortgages for their customers.
  I also understand that personal banking does not mean that 
discriminatory lending does not occur in smaller-sized institutions. In 
fact, the Obama administration's Department of Justice sued a community 
bank located in Chaska, Minnesota, with assets of $1.9 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, you have heard the arguments. We are on the side of the 
people. I don't know who they represent over there. I simply ask for a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Diaz-Balart). The gentleman from Texas 
has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating listening to my friends on the other 
side of the aisle. It is fascinating because they tell us they want to 
protect the single mothers. They tell us they want to protect the 
people of color. They tell us they want to help and protect the poor, 
but they are protecting them out of their home ownership opportunities.
  Because of the increased HMDA compliance on our smallest community 
financial institutions, they are ceasing to make these loans. But they 
will sleep well tonight in their apartments and in their rental homes, 
knowing that my good friends on the other side of the aisle protect 
them out of their ability to finally realize their portion of the 
American Dream and have that shot at home ownership.
  Mr. Speaker, how many people have to lose their home ownership 
opportunities due to the onslaught of the onerous Federal regulations?
  What is fascinating about this debate is that what they would 
discover is that HMDA is still the law of the land. Again, I would 
encourage my friends to actually read the bill. I think it is 3 pages 
long; maybe 3\1/2\ pages long.

  HMDA doesn't go away if we enact H.R. 2954. But what it says is that 
for our smallest financial institutions, the HMDA requirements, the 
doubling of HMDA requirements, the increased burden, will not be placed 
on our smallest financial institutions, as we are losing one every 
single day. As we lose them, we lose that credit opportunity for the 
least of these that my friends, I know in their heart, want to help, 
but they are not helping them.
  Listen to those who are actually trying to make these loans. By the 
way, I don't know of a successful business model for any bank that 
says: You know what? I am going to make more money if I don't lend it 
to you. If I refuse to make loans, if I refuse to serve my community, 
if I practice active racism, that will be good for my bottom line.
  I am not seeing it in the Fifth District of Texas, and I highly 
suspect that it is difficult to find in the United States of America in 
the 21st century.
  So I hear from the community banker in Nebraska, who says:

       Go to any community bank reporting HMDA and have them sit 
     down and watch bank staff review a loan file. Then document 
     the data showing how difficult it is to prevent errors.

  This bank got out of the business of loaning. They said:

       We don't need the ulcers created by such stress from the 
     fear of the regulators.

  I heard from a community bank in Oklahoma that said:

       Because of Dodd-Frank, we no longer offer-purchase house 
     loans. We are servicing only the ones we have on the books.

  Thank you Dodd-Frank and HMDA. May I have another.
  I heard from a community bank in Nevada that said:

       The mortgage regulations intended to help the consumer have 
     been particularly harmful. My bank is a very small community 
     bank servicing communities in rural Nevada. We used to do 
     quite a bit of residential mortgage lending, but hardly any 
     now, due to the restrictive regulations.

                              {time}  1630

  So, again, I would just ask that my friends on the other side of the 
aisle open up both their hearts and their heads and see how many people 
are being hurt by the cumulative impact of this regulatory tsunami 
hitting those who loan the money to the least of these to make sure 
that they can achieve their version of the American Dream.
  And where was all the angst, Mr. Speaker? Where was all the angst? My 
friends on the other side of the aisle talk about statistics. Well, 
here is a statistic that comes from the Federal Reserve: When the 
qualified mortgage rule of the CFPB is fully implemented, 30 percent 
fewer Blacks and Hispanics, people of color, will be able to get 
mortgages versus 2010. There is a statistic.
  And I would say, Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is even a more valuable 
statistic when it comes to looking at the increased HMDA burden placed 
by the CFPB on our community financial institutions. Maybe that is a 
more important statistic than even the 20-some-odd new fields of HMDA 
data that CFPB is requiring on the smallest banks and credit unions in 
America.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle say: Oh, we care about the 
plight of these community banks. Well, why are we still losing one a 
day, and why do you tell us that you care about their plight and their 
ability to loan money but you don't vote with us?
  Fortunately, some Members on the other side of the aisle in the other 
body over my shoulder, Mr. Speaker--there is actually a bipartisan bill 
in the Senate that does exactly what H.R. 2954 does. I am very happy to 
say that it was a bipartisan bill coming out of the Financial Services 
Committee, also enjoying some Democratic support.
  But, again, I just don't think my friends who are debating now have 
read the bill. I encourage them to read the bill, and every Member 
ought to support H.R. 2954 and support the opportunity to buy a home in 
the American Dream.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 693, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. ELLISON. Yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Ellison moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2954 to the 
     Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:

       Page 3, beginning on line 11, strike ``paragraph (3)'' and 
     insert ``paragraph (4)''.
       Page 3, line 13, strike ``paragraph (3)'' and insert 
     ``paragraph (4)''.
       Page 4, line 4, strike the quotation mark and ending period 
     and insert after such line the following:
       ``(3) Attestation requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--For each year with respect to which a 
     depository institution is exempt from the requirements of 
     paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (b) by reason of 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection, the president and 
     chief executive officer for such depository institution shall 
     submit a written attestation to the Bureau and the 
     appropriate Federal financial services regulator that--
       ``(i) the institution is in compliance with all relevant 
     Federal fair lending laws and regulations;
       ``(ii) the institution has established adequate internal 
     controls to detect whether the institution's business models 
     and personnel policies and practices operate in a fair manner 
     and provide equal opportunities for minorities and women in 
     the institution's workplace; and
       ``(iii) the senior executives, managers, loan officers, and 
     other employees of the institution who are substantially 
     involved in the underwriting of residential mortgage loans 
     for the institution have completed anti-discrimination and 
     diversity training on an annual basis.
       ``(B) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `appropriate Federal financial services regulator' means--
       ``(i) with respect to a bank or savings association, the 
     appropriate Federal banking agency (as defined under section 
     3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act); and
       ``(ii) with respect to a credit union, the National Credit 
     Union Administration.''.

[[Page H521]]

       Page 4, line 5, strike ``Section 304(i)(3)'' and insert 
     ``Section 304(i)(4)''.

  Mr. ELLISON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading at this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
  As we have heard today, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act is a 
critical civil rights bill. It is a civil rights bill designed to 
increase opportunity for all Americans. It is about liberty and justice 
for all. It is about the Equal Protection Clause. It is about those 
things that men and women laid their whole lives down for to make this 
country more fair, more equal.
  The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act's intent was to ensure that equal 
opportunity was given to everyone with respect to mortgages. The law is 
necessary, given our country's long history of discrimination. Through 
slavery, we took away rights and freedoms of Black men and women for 
250 years. We made them property rather than human beings. It was 
followed by nearly a century of segregation and disenfranchisement.
  As a result of it, people stood up to say we have got to have laws to 
protect people. We might not be able to change hearts and minds, but we 
can change behavior. And HMDA helped change behavior.
  We are still fighting to make sure we have a more equal society. The 
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act empowers the Department of Justice, State 
attorneys general, Consumer Bureau, and the public to fight back 
against discriminatory lending and monitor access to mortgage credit by 
traditionally underserved communities and populations.
  If a financial institution denies a family a mortgage, they can 
provide a number of excuses for that denial. Only the data collected 
through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act proves that there is a broader 
issue of discrimination at play.
  This bill, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, exempts 
institutions from certain HMDA reporting requirements if they originate 
500 or fewer closed-end loans, which includes mortgages and car loans, 
and institutions that issue 500 or fewer open-ended loans. That is 
nearly 6,000 institutions across America that will stop reporting HMDA 
data if this bill goes into effect.
  This opens the door for discrimination. It opens the door for red-
lining, and it is not acceptable. That is why I am offering a motion to 
recommit that would ensure that individual banks affected by this bill 
take steps to reduce discrimination in mortgage lending. If opening the 
door for discrimination is not the intent of the bill, there should be 
no issues why my amendment is not passed.
  My amendment simply says that the CEO and the president of any 
financial institution now exempted from collecting and reporting 
important HMDA data fields must attest that, one, the institution is 
compliant with all relevant fair-lending laws; two, the institution has 
established adequate internal controls to detect whether the 
institution provides equal opportunity; and, three, the institution's 
senior executives, managers, and loan officers and other employees who 
are substantially involved in underwriting residential mortgage loans 
complete an antidiscrimination and diversity training.
  Ultimately, my amendment is meant to ensure that each exempted 
institution is properly incentivized to do what they're supposed to do: 
lend to all qualified borrowers. By holding the CEO accountable, my 
amendment ensures that lenders will take the actions necessary to begin 
to overcome historic racism, sexism, and other discrimination just like 
HMDA was intended.
  If it is a fact that the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act is 
not designed to open the door and green-light discrimination, then this 
amendment is a commonsense proposal to make sure that that does not 
happen and that the leader of the institution maintains responsibility 
for that not happening.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to vote for this motion to recommit, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend and colleague 
from Minnesota restating, in his motion to recommit, what is 
essentially already current law; but, unfortunately, he adds on yet one 
more form for community financial institutions to fill out on top of 
the 18.7 gazillion forms they already have to fill out, the cost of 
which ultimately is imposed upon those who are trying to find credit 
and find affordable credit.
  And I would remind the gentleman from Minnesota again, every single 
financial institution impacted by H.R. 2954 still must submit HMDA 
data. They are still subject to HMDA. For the third time, they are 
still subject to HMDA. And I am sure that all will be glad to hear 
Federal regulators still have statutory authority to take any formal 
enforcement actions against entities for violations of the laws or 
rules.
  But why, when we are trying to make it easier for the least of these 
to buy a home, are we trying to, instead, my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, make it more difficult by adding yet more forms, forms 
that also say: Do you know what? Even though this is America, you are 
guilty until proven innocent.
  That is a whole different argument, and I wish we had time to develop 
it here today, Mr. Speaker.
  But here is what we need to do. We need to make sure that struggling, 
hardworking Americans have homeownership opportunities, and the 
regulatory burden that came out of the previous administration is 
making it more difficult. So, now, to think that we would double the 
HMDA requirement data--double--for our smallest financial institutions 
that are fighting for survival, that are trying to help our 
constituents buy homes is unthinkable; to add yet one more Federal law, 
one more Federal form on top of all the others that we have, is just 
unfathomable. It is unthinkable. It will only harm those whom we are 
trying to help, and I would urge all Members to reject the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________