[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5719-5722]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  MORTGAGE SERVICING CLARIFICATION ACT

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill

[[Page 5720]]

(H.R. 1025) to amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt 
mortgage servicers from certain requirements of the Act with respect to 
federally related mortgage loans secured by a first lien, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1025

       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 ``Mortgage Servicing 
     Clarification Act''.

     SEC. 2. MORTGAGE SERVICING CLARIFICATION.

       (a) In General.--The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1692 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 818 as section 819; and
       (2) by inserting after section 817 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 818. Mortgage servicer exemption

       ``(a) Exemption.--A covered mortgage servicer who, whether 
     by assignment, sale or transfer, becomes the person 
     responsible for servicing federally related mortgage loans 
     secured by first liens that include loans that were in 
     default at the time such person became responsible for the 
     servicing of such federally related mortgage loans shall be 
     exempt from the requirements of section 807(11) in connection 
     with the collection of any debt arising from such defaulted 
     federally related mortgage loans.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Covered mortgage servicer.--The term `covered 
     mortgage servicer' means any servicer of federally related 
     mortgage loans secured by first liens--
       ``(A) who is also a debt collector; and
       ``(B) for whom the collection of delinquent debts is 
     incidental to the servicer's primary function of servicing 
     current federally related mortgage loans.
       ``(2) Federally related mortgage loan.--The term `federally 
     related mortgage loan' has the meaning given to such term in 
     section 3(1) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 
     1974, except that, for purposes of this section, such term 
     includes only loans secured by first liens.
       ``(3) Person.--The term `person' has the meaning given to 
     such term in section 3(5) of the Real Estate Settlement 
     Procedures Act of 1974.
       ``(4) Servicer; servicing.--The terms `servicer' and 
     `servicing' have the meanings given to such terms in section 
     6(i) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for the Fair 
     Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating the item relating to section 818 as 
     section 819; and
       (2) by inserting after the item relating to section 817 the 
     following new item:

``818. Mortgage servicer exemption.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous material in the Record on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation, 
H.R. 1025. This is the Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act, which I 
have introduced with my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski). 
This carefully written legislation addresses a specific problem for 
consumers and businesses involved in the mortgage servicing industry by 
simply clarifying the existing law governing mortgage servicing. This 
noncontroversial bill enjoys strong bipartisan support. It has been 
approved for consideration under the suspension of the rules by both 
the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Financial 
Services.
  Mr. Speaker, I introduced this bill to fix a problem in the mortgage 
servicing industry which has hampered the abilities of this industry to 
serve its clients effectively and to conduct its business efficiently 
for far too long.
  Currently, when a mortgage servicing company acquires the rights to 
service a portfolio of home loans, it is exempt from the unnecessary 
strictures of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act under the creditor 
exemption that was also extended to the originator of the mortgage. The 
new mortgage servicer is extended this exemption because its 
relationship to the borrower is more like a relationship between a 
borrower and a lender than like the relationship between a borrower and 
a true debt collection agency.
  The law already recognizes this reality. However, in the typical loan 
servicing portfolio transfer, a small percentage of the loans acquired 
by a new servicer will inevitably be delinquent or technically in 
default at the time of transfer. The law currently treats these loans 
as being subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and 
subsequently the new servicers of these loans are required to provide 
certain form notices, known as Miranda warnings, to the borrower.
  The law also currently requires that in every subsequent contact, 
both written and oral, whether initiated by the servicer or the 
borrower, the servicer is required to provide a shorter mini-Miranda 
notice disclosing that the communication is an attempt to collect a 
debt and that any information provided by the borrower will be used 
toward that end. The purpose of these cookie-cutter warnings is to 
prevent unscrupulous debt collectors from using false or misleading 
tactics, such as a phony winning sweepstakes claim or other such 
tactics, to trick consumers into divulging private financial 
information or personal details like their home address or their phone 
number.
  The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act has worked extremely well in 
preventing bad actors in the debt collections business from using lies 
and deceit to harm consumers, and this legislation would in no way 
prevent it from continuing to protect American consumers.
  However, as I have already mentioned, mortgage servicers are not like 
debt collectors. Their role to consumers is much more like that of a 
mortgage originator; and in the context of the mortgage servicing 
transfer, these Miranda notices are both detrimental to consumers and 
unnecessary and inefficient for mortgage servicers' operations.
  First, the notice misleads the borrower about the nature of the 
relationship between him or herself and the new servicer. Unlike true 
debt collectors, mortgage servicers have a long-term relationship with 
their client, and these harshly worded notices often have the effect of 
discouraging a borrower who was slightly late on a mortgage payment 
from contacting their new servicer for fear that the servicer is a true 
third-party debt collector. This ends up frustrating the servicer's 
efforts to work with delinquent borrowers on developing strategies to 
bring their loans current and keep their credit ratings intact.
  A mortgage servicer's biggest hurdle in helping delinquent borrowers 
to help themselves is getting them on the phone, and these threatening 
Miranda notices only contribute to that unnecessary fear without doing 
anything to help the borrower. Additionally, the information protected 
by the Miranda notices is information already in the servicer's 
possession. So nothing new is truly protected by requiring these 
additional legalistic and threatening notices be provided. 
Additionally, these warnings simply make consumers feel unnecessarily 
defensive and antagonistic toward their new servicer during the first 
step of their new association, which can have a chilling effect on the 
rest of their relationship.
  Mortgage servicers typically send these Miranda notices along with a 
new customer's welcome letter as required by the Real Estate Settlement 
Procedures Act, and this letter also includes important consumer 
information about the new servicer and the borrower's monthly payment 
arrangements. This preliminary contact is the first opportunity that a 
servicer has to create a positive relationship with a new client, and 
the harsh language used in the Miranda warning can create animosity 
toward the servicer where none need exist.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, because the mini-Miranda is required in all 
subsequent contacts, they can continue for

[[Page 5721]]

decades, even after customers bring their loans current and keep them 
that way for years. This bill will resolve that problem.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1025, the Mortgage Servicing 
Clarification Act. I would like to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Kanjorski) for his leadership on this bill. My thanks also go to 
the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce), who has worked in a very strong bipartisan way 
to bring this bill to the floor. I commend him for that. I also want to 
thank the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Financial 
Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the other cosponsors of the bill from 
both sides of the aisle for their support and help with bringing this 
bill before the House.
  The bill before us is largely technical in nature and seeks to 
address a change in market practices not anticipated by the original 
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or FDCPA. The bill addresses a 
conflict between the disclosure requirements of the Real Estate 
Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA, and the Fair Debt Collection 
Practices Act, FDCPA. This conflict only applies to a limited number of 
companies that act as both mortgage servicers and collectors of 
mortgage-related debt.
  Section 6 of RESPA requires that any entity that is assigned or 
acquires servicing rights to a mortgage must notify the borrower of the 
transfer of mortgage servicing. The new entity must identify itself as 
the new loan servicer and disclose to borrowers that they have the 
right to dispute or obtain additional information about the terms of 
the debt being transferred.
  Section 807, part 11 of FDCPA requires that any person seeking to 
collect a debt must identify themselves in any initial communication as 
a debt collector, identify the debt to be collected, and notify the 
debtor of their right to validate the debt and other protections 
provided by FDCPA. Since mortgage servicers often acquire servicing 
rights for entire portfolios of loans, a number of loans are likely to 
be in default at the time of transfer. Subsequent efforts by the 
acquiring servicer to collect on the defaulted debts have at times been 
thwarted on technical grounds with claims that the collection effort 
violated FDCPA. This is so because the initial communication received 
by the debtor was the notice of servicing transfer rather than the 
required notice of debtor rights.
  The compromise that was negotiated 3 years ago to address this 
problem and which the House has previously passed under suspension 
would create a narrow exemption from the requirement to provide a 
notice of debtor rights under the FDCPA for a mortgage service who 
acquires responsibility for servicing a mortgage by assignment, sale, 
or transfer.

                              {time}  1300

  Under this exemption, a mortgage servicer could not be held liable 
for not providing a notice of debtor right for any loan that is 
actually in default at the time of the transfer of servicing rights. 
This means that the exemption is narrowly drawn so as to affect a very 
small number of mortgages.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fine bill. I urge support for H.R. 1025.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend the 
gentleman from California, who must feel like it is Ground Hog Day 
because he has actually been out here two prior times on this bill. In 
the 107th Congress, it passed by voice vote. In the 108th Congress, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) was here, and his bill passed 424 
to nothing, and yet it died in the other body, not because there was 
opposition, but it simply got caught up in the paperwork. I want to 
commend him on his persistence.
  And he is doing this because without this bill, when a mortgage is 
transferred or assigned or bought, there are always a few people who 
are not only in default, but even those who are just simply delinquent, 
behind on a payment, and it misleads those people into believing that 
they are receiving a call from a debt collector who has to make 
Miranda-like warnings, and when they do that, they have a tendency not 
to talk to them.
  And, in fact, and I will read a letter from some of our Democratic 
colleagues who are also cosponsoring this bill, in fact, the very thing 
that we would want these people to do is talk to their new mortgage 
servicer and establish a relationship to work out of that default and 
to work out of that delinquency, because there are actually rules that 
these servicers are supposed to make every attempt to establish such a 
relationship; yet the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, it was not 
meant to be. This was an unforeseen technicality in the interpretation.
  So the FTC came to the Congress and enlisted the help of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) to remedy this. Let me read the 
letter because I think it says it very well. It was drafted by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), who has worked tirelessly 
on this bill for the last two Congresses. It has a signature of the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Sherman), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks). These are all Democrats and all 
members of the Committee on Financial Services.
  They said this about the present state of the law and the need for 
the gentleman from California's (Mr. Royce) legislation: One, the 
present Miranda notice misleads borrowers about the nature of the new 
servicer's relationship. The most important thing a delinquent mortgage 
borrower can do is call his or her servicer to work out options. The 
harshly worded warnings actually discourage borrowers from doing just 
that, from contacting the new servicer out of fear that the company is 
simply another debt collector. Two, the notice protects borrowers from 
providing information that the mortgage servicer already has in its 
possession. Mortgage servicers already possess detailed information 
about the borrower in the loan files. Third, the notice hurts customer 
relationships for the remaining term of the mortgage. The mini-Miranda 
warning is required in all subsequent contacts with the borrower even 
after the customer has brought their loan current and maintained them 
for years. In other words, under the present state of the law, these 
customers are treated for years to come as if they are delinquent or in 
default, and that is an insulting thing when they have brought their 
mortgages up to speed.
  In closing, I will summarize the entire bill this way: In today's 
market, Mr. Speaker, mortgages are transferred, they are assigned, they 
are bought. And when that happens, those customers have a right to know 
whether they are dealing with a debt collector or they are dealing with 
their mortgage service provider, and that is a big difference. And this 
law will actually allow that to happen.
  So I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), and I 
commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) particularly for his 
diligence in this matter, and I would ask the Members of this body to 
do what the last two Congresses have done, and that is unanimously 
approve this legislation, which is truly bipartisan and ought to be a 
model for this Congress as it works to do what is best for our citizens 
without regard to political party.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for his comments and in 
conclusion just say the way in which H.R. 1025 resolves the problem 
that we have

[[Page 5722]]

discussed is that it creates a narrow exemption for Miranda notices for 
the services of federally related first lien mortgages whose primary 
function is servicing current loans, not collecting third-party debts. 
It exempts these servicers only from the Miranda notices, leaving in 
place all other substantive borrower protections required by the Fair 
Debt Collection Practices Act.
  This legislation is consistent with the long-standing recommendations 
from the Federal Trade Commission to improve the mortgage servicing 
process, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this bipartisan legislation to improve the mortgage servicing process 
for both the consumer and companies who serve them.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1025, the 
``Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act,'' providing a narrow but 
necessary exemption for mortgage servicers from certain requirements of 
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) with respect to 
federally related mortgage loans secured by a first lien.
  I want to commend Congressman Royce and Congressman Kanjorski for 
introducing this legislation, as well as Ranking Member Frank for 
helping to guide this important measure through the legislative 
process. This legislation passed by a voice vote in the 107th Congress 
and passed last Congress on a vote of 424-0.
  When a mortgage servicer acquires the right to service a loan 
portfolio, the servicer is generally exempt from complying with the 
FDCPA because the Act extends the creditor's exemption to the new 
servicer. The problem arises because in a typical loan servicing 
transfer, a percentage of the loans transferred are delinquent or in 
default. These loans are technically covered by FDCPA provisions 
requiring the new mortgage servicer to include harshly worded notices 
to its borrowers identifying the servicer as a ``debt collector'' and 
warning the borrower that any information he or she discloses to the 
servicer will be used in the debt collection process. These notices are 
commonly referred to as ``Miranda notices,'' and they can have the 
unintended consequences of discouraging borrowers from contacting their 
new service provider.
  Under the exemption made by H.R. 1025, a mortgage servicer would not 
be required to provide a Miranda notice upon the first contact with its 
new customer, as well as in all subsequent contacts, on those loans 
that were in default at the time of transfer. However, mortgage 
services would not qualify for this exemption with respect to other 
loans that may go into default after the transfer occurs.
  Let me close by saying that this bill is drafted to be consistent 
with previous recommendations by the Federal Trade Commission, the 
agency charged with the enforcement of the FDCPA, and is supported by a 
variety of financial services trade groups, including the Consumer 
Mortgage Coalition, American Financial Services Association, and 
Mortgage Bankers Association.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, as the leading Democratic supporter of 
H.R. 1025, I rise today in strong support of the Mortgage Servicing 
Clarification Act. It is a good piece of legislation that will fix a 
technical problem under existing law.
  Under the current Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, when a 
mortgage servicer acquires the rights to service a loan portfolio it is 
generally exempt from complying with the law's requirements because the 
act extends the creditor's exemption to the new servicer. In a typical 
loan servicing transfer, however, a certain percentage of loans will be 
delinquent or in default at the time of the transfer. These loans are 
therefore technically covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices 
Act, even though the new servicer has a fundamentally different 
relationship with the borrower than a true debt collector.
  H.R. 1025 would resolve this problem by establishing a very narrow 
exemption for servicers of first lien mortgages from the notice 
requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. All other 
substantive borrower protections provided by the Fair Debt Collection 
Practices Act would remain in full force. Additionally, the exemption 
is available only to servicers that are primarily engaged servicing 
current loans.
  We worked for several years to narrow the exemption created by this 
bill in order to address the concerns of all interested parties. The 
legislation also passed the House in the 107th Congress and the 108th 
Congress, and when we last passed this bill it was approved by a vote 
of 424 to 0. I expect that we will again today pass this bill in the 
109th Congress with similar bipartisan support.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of H.R. 1025 are consistent 
with longstanding recommendations by the Federal Trade Commission, 
under the Clinton and Bush Administrations, to improve the application 
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to mortgage servicing 
activities. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense, 
technical-fix legislation.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1025, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________