[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15836-15847]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       HOMEBUYERS ASSISTANCE ACT

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 462, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 3192) to provide for a temporary safe harbor from the 
enforcement of integrated disclosure requirements for mortgage loan 
transactions under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 
and the Truth in Lending 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 462, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3192

       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 ``Homebuyers Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT SAFE HARBOR.

       The integrated disclosure requirements for mortgage loan 
     transactions under section 4(a) of the Real Estate Settlement 
     Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2603(a)), section 105(b) of 
     the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1604(b)), and regulations 
     issued under such sections may not be enforced against any 
     person until February 1, 2016, and no suit may be filed 
     against any person for a violation of such requirements 
     occurring before such date, so long as such person has made a 
     good faith effort to comply with such requirements.

  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.
  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 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
submit extraneous materials 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 rise today in strong support of H.R. 3192, the 
Homebuyers Assistance Act. It is a very modest act, and it also happens 
to be a very bipartisan act, that would bring some temporary relief to 
mortgage market participants who are attempting to secure financing and 
close on their homes. It will help allow there to be a transition 
period for a very complicated rule that has been promulgated by the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that went into effect Saturday.
  Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that hardworking Americans do not 
lose out on the opportunity for their portion of the American Dream, 
including home ownership, as this new rule is brought to bear.
  Now, let me be the first to say that as a Member of this body who 
finds very little good to be found in the Dodd-Frank Act, directing the 
CFPB to try to make disclosures more simple and more easily and readily 
understandable is a good thing. But the problem, Mr. Speaker, is in 
trying to integrate something called TILA, the Truth in Lending Act, 
disclosures with something called RESPA, the Real Estate Settlement 
Procedures Act, two different acts.
  To try to reconcile those two, the CFPB promulgated a 1,888-page 
rule, complete with guidance. So now those who are involved in the 
marketplace trying to help finance homes are left with this behemoth to 
try to put into their computer systems, their IT systems, into 
training. Being able to streamline disclosures is a very, very 
important thing to do, but it is fairly difficult to do when there are 
almost 2,000 pages of complex, compound, complicated language.
  We know that when these new systems are put into place, Mr. Speaker, 
there can be glitches. There can be temporary setbacks. Sometimes the 
software doesn't quite work as intended. Just ask those in charge of 
the ObamaCare rollout. ObamaCare was on the books as law for many, many 
years before the rollout came, and it was a disastrous rollout. I have 
no doubt people were operating in good faith, but they rolled it out 
and it failed.
  So all over America, title agencies and mortgage lenders are having 
to change their software, having to change their process and 
procedures. We don't want low- and moderate-income people who finally 
put enough money away for a down payment to be set back in their 
attempt to get their mortgage.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), who is the 
author of the bill. It is, again, a very, very bipartisan bill. I want 
to thank him for his leadership. And before that, the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) had been very, very engaged in this issue. I 
want to thank them for their leadership, because without it, again, 
what we are looking at here is people losing out on the opportunity to 
close on their homes.
  And so the bill is a simple bill. It says: You know what? For 4 
months let's create a temporary, trial period and safe harbor for those 
who act in good faith in trying to implement this new 1,888-page 
behemoth rule. Let's allow a little bit of a transition period to hold 
these people harmless if they act in good faith.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, if they are acting in good faith.
  Yes, I assume the CFPB, which promulgated the rule, acted in good 
faith. But guess what, Mr. Speaker, they violated the law in rolling 
out this rule, and yet they were held harmless in their so-called trial 
period. Can't we do the same for those who are trying to make the 
American Dream of home ownership come true?

[[Page 15837]]

  If we do not pass this bill, I am afraid what we will hear is what I 
have heard from different people back in my home State of Texas. What I 
heard from one Texas land title man is:

       No question, more conservative lending in sales volumes 
     will result. This will impact both buyers and sellers. And 
     the new rules could have a cost impact. Lenders may decide to 
     raise fees to cover potential exposure.

                              {time}  1430

  Another real estate individual in Texas went on to say large lenders 
have already announced they are not going to do one-time closings 
anymore due to the uncertainty.
  We are hearing all kinds of language, and that is one of the reasons 
that 255 Members of this body, Mr. Speaker, including 91 Democrats, 
wrote to the head of the CFPB asking him to do exactly what this bill 
would do.
  It is not just limited to the House side. Forty-one Senators signed 
almost an identical letter asking the CFPB director for this very short 
period of time for people who operate in good faith to be held harmless 
and not to be sued, not to be fined, not to be persecuted, so that the 
American people can enjoy their right of home ownership.
  It is a modest bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It is for the 
homeowner. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 
minutes for an opening statement.
  I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3192, a proposal that I believe 
erodes consumers' ability to have their day in court and that 
undermines efforts to comply with the CFPB's new TILA-RESPA Integrated 
Disclosure act.
  When I say TILA and RESPA, I am talking about the Truth in Lending 
Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand in full support of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau's decision to engage in restrained enforcement of the 
new disclosure rules until 2016, and I support the FFIEC's recent 
announcement that prudential regulators' supervision of financial 
institutions' compliance with the new rules will recognize the scope 
and scale of the changes necessary for financial institutions and other 
affected entities to effectively comply.
  Simply speaking, when the business community and Democrats and 
Republicans all basically said, ``We believe that these integrated 
rules are complicated. It is going to take industry time to get up to 
speed,'' they have got to change their paper. They have got to train 
their employees, et cetera, et cetera. We all agree that there should 
be a grace period.
  So, with that, my support for a temporary period of restrained 
administrative enforcement and supervision reflects the recognition of 
the massive undertaking that lenders and other settlement providers 
have undergone in preparation for the new disclosure rules.
  Now, given the administrative liability that lenders would face under 
both the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending 
Act, I fully understand the real concerns that affected entities have, 
given the scale and scope of the changes called for under the new 
disclosure rules.
  Mr. Speaker, industry requests to date that the Bureau and other 
Federal regulators take a more thoughtful approach with respect to 
their enforcement and supervision is reasonable.
  My support for the actions taken to date by regulators to consider 
good faith compliance efforts by lenders and other entities affected by 
the new disclosure rules does not, however, extend to suspending, even 
temporarily, one of the more important consumer protections available 
to the Truth in Lending Act, which is a consumer's right to bring an 
action protecting themselves in the event that a lender makes an 
inaccurate, untimely, misleading disclosure.
  Basically, what we are talking about now is who is going to protect 
the consumer in all of this. We are saying that there is a need to 
protect consumers. Those who oppose the amendment that I tried to bring 
to the floor to do just that are saying they are not on the side of the 
consumer.
  While the good faith provision in H.R. 3192 does allow consumers to 
bring actions in response to egregious violations of the Truth in 
Lending Act, consumers can still rely on inaccurate or misleading 
disclosure errors that are made in good faith.
  Under current law, borrowers can bring an action where a disclosure 
is inaccurate or misleading, even if the error is made in good faith, 
and the burden under current law is on the lender to prove that their 
disclosure is consistent with the Truth in Lending Act.
  Now we have a change. In contrast, under H.R. 3192, this legislation, 
the burden is placed on the consumer to demonstrate from the onset of 
an action that the error was not made in good faith, a bar that is 
virtually impossible for most consumers to overcome. That is a drastic 
departure from current law.
  The private right of action under the Truth in Lending Act serves two 
important purposes:
  First, it allows consumers to protect themselves from inaccurate, 
untimely, or misleading mortgage disclosures.
  Second, through the act's provision of statutory and class-action 
damages, as well as attorneys' fees and court costs, TILA also provides 
clear incentives for lenders to ensure that the disclosures they 
provide are timely and accurate.
  I just want to take a look at what the TILA-RESPA Integrated 
Disclosure would require. Let us take a look at what we are talking 
about.
  In this document, they identify the amounts for the loan, the 
interest rates, the monthly principal and interest, whether or not 
there are prepayment penalties, whether or not there is a balloon 
payment, on and on and on. It gets down to exactly what is being 
disclosed to the consumer.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say 
that, if the ranking member is supportive of a safe harbor, she has a 
funny way of showing it.
  I would remind her that there is no private right of action under 
RESPA. There is one under TILA. But under TILA, there is an exception, 
a safe harbor for unintentional violations and bona fide errors, which 
will be found in section 1640 of title 15.
  There is another safe harbor for good faith compliance with rule 
regulation and interpretation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hill), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me some time 
on this important measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3192, the Homebuyers 
Assistance Act, this commonsense, bipartisan bill which will provide 
certainty for the short transition period for the real estate industry, 
preventing costly market disruptions and delays for American 
homebuyers.
  I thank Mr. Sherman for his help in design and leadership. I also 
thank my friends, Mr. Vargas and Mr. Pearce, who worked on this bill as 
well.
  This straightforward measure will provide a temporary hold harmless 
period from enforcement action and litigation during the initial 
implementation of this new TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure form. This 
rule, by the way, became effective this past Saturday.
  Companies out in the real world are trying to get this closing regime 
right and have spent billions of dollars in updating their systems and 
hundreds of man-hours training employees to comply with this 1,800-page 
rule.
  Again, I remind my colleagues that, at the height of the Depression, 
in rewriting all of America's banking laws, the Banking Act of 1933 
consumed only 37 pages.
  There is no opportunity to test. This is a bright-line rule that just 
turns on. You have to have new forms and new, substantive changes, and 
these compliance challenges are many.
  This temporary grace period will allow the industry to work with the 
CFPB to ensure a smooth transition. As previously noted, 300 bipartisan

[[Page 15838]]

Members have urged this grace period, including the ranking member.
  We are here today by the inadequate response of the CFPB to a lot of 
concerns across our Nation, from Realtors, mortgage lenders, title 
companies, people in the appraisal business.
  Mr. Cordray could have provided this certainty, just like HUD did for 
the revised RESPA disclosures back in 2010. But statements from Mr. 
Cordray like the industry can ``read between the lines'' doesn't 
constitute certainty in the real world.
  It might here in the Beltway. But as a Member of Congress who until 
the end of 2014 was CEO of a community bank, I can assure you that kind 
of ``read between the lines'' certainty doesn't work in the real world.
  A recent survey by the American Bankers Association indicated over 40 
percent of institutions have not yet received compliance software 
needed to implement TRID. It is very frustrating to Members on both 
sides of the aisle, particularly after the number of years that we have 
talked about a new TRID form. But, nonetheless, it is a fact. Ninety 
percent of institutions were still testing the incorporation into their 
lending platforms.
  I can tell you this is more complicated than it looks to someone who 
is a bureaucrat in Washington. You have got a loan operating system and 
a loan doc prep system typically from two different vendors. Both 
require software changes.
  Three-quarters of those surveyed in the mortgage banking industry 
said they needed an additional 3 weeks to 4 months for additional 
debugging and testing. So this commonsense bill will allow them to 
perform that task, not disrupt closings, and allow people to have a 
safe harbor from potential litigation or enforcement penalties.
  One bank in Arkansas called me Monday, 2 days after TRID went live, 
to say they are still not expected to get the final fix from their 
software providers until Thanksgiving.
  In addition to these kinds of operating implementation issues, many 
are still out there waiting for clarification from the CFPB on certain 
issues.
  The chairman mentioned one-time close. One of the most popular 
products in banking today, particularly among community banks, is a 
construction-to-permanent mortgage closing, where one can build their 
home and go to a permanent loan closing all with one application and 
one set of forms and a single closing.
  But because of confusion over how to properly disclose information 
under the new TRID form, I think this is a problem. Several banks, as 
noted, are going to cease one-time construction-to-permanent loan 
making, again, one of the most popular products in community banking.
  I want to emphasize that this temporary protection only applies to 
those making a good faith effort to comply to this very complex rule. 
It in no way alters the underlying rule.
  While I disagree with much of Dodd-Frank, I support the general 
purpose of this rule, which is to attempt to streamline and simplify 
mortgage disclosures for consumers, albeit, comparing the forms side by 
side, I don't know if that was accomplished or not. But it is 
absolutely a worthy objective.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HILL. Our title companies, bankers, and others in the industry 
who are earnestly trying to comply with these new TRID rules need to 
have the confidence and certainty that they can go into this closing 
regime giving excellent customer service, and not be looking over their 
shoulder for an inadvertent penalty or civil litigation.
  Mr. Speaker, we are pro-consumer. 400,000 consumers buy a home every 
month in this country, and over 230,000 consumers refinance a mortgage. 
All will be positively impacted by this temporary measure. I urge its 
consideration.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding, and for her leadership as ranking member on 
the Financial Services Committee.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 3192. The Democrats have worked very 
hard to protect consumers and, in fact, in Dodd-Frank, created the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has already returned $11 
billion to 25 million consumers in just the first 4 years of its 
existence. Their goal is to protect consumers, and that is what they 
have done in the new rule that they came out with.
  Democrats believe that consumers deserve easy-to-understand 
disclosures of the cost of buying and financing a home. So, in response 
to the mortgage crisis, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has 
proposed to streamline and combine the disclosures that consumers get 
when they are buying a home so it is easier for them to understand.

                              {time}  1445

  They used to get multiple disclosure forms, some under the Truth in 
Lending Act and some under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 
or RESPA. Now the CFPB has streamlined them into a new Integrated 
Disclosure, which is important because it will make it far easier for 
Americans to understand the loan terms and the fees that they are 
paying when they buy a home.
  But implementing a brand-new Integrated Disclosure form will also be 
complicated, and it will take the industry some time to adjust to the 
new rules. And industry raised those concerns to us.
  This bill would give lenders a safe harbor from the CFPB's Integrated 
Disclosure rule until February 21, 2016.
  While I think that this bill addresses an important issue because 
implementing the new Integrated Disclosure forms will be complex, the 
truth is that the CFPB has already given the industry significant 
relief on the rule. They have already done it.
  Along with my colleague and very good friend from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, 
we led a bipartisan letter which was signed by 254 Members of this 
body, including Ranking Member Waters, requesting a grace period on the 
Integrated Disclosure requirement.
  I include for the Record the letter that the gentleman from Kentucky 
and I circulated with all 254 signatures, as well as the letter we 
received in response.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2015.
     Hon. Richard Cordray,
     Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
       Dear Director Cordray: The undersigned Members of Congress 
     acknowledge that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
     (CFPB or Bureau) has done significant work on the TILA-RESPA 
     Integrated Disclosure (TRID) regulation. Nevertheless, this 
     complicated and extensive rule is likely to cause challenges 
     during implementation, which is currently scheduled for 
     August 1, 2015, that could negatively impact consumers. As 
     you know, the housing market is highly seasonal, with August, 
     September, and October consistently being some of the busiest 
     months of the year for home sales and settlements. By 
     contrast, January and February are consistently the slowest 
     months of the year for real estate activity. We therefore 
     encourage the Bureau to announce and implement a ``grace 
     period'' for those seeking to comply in good faith from 
     August 1st through the end of 2015.
       Even with significant advance notice, understanding how to 
     implement and comply with this regulation will only become 
     clear when the industry gains experience using these new 
     forms and processes in real-life situations. As the TRID 
     regulation does not provide lenders an opportunity to start 
     using the new disclosure form prior to the August 1st 
     implementation date, market participants will not be able to 
     test their systems and procedures ahead of time, which 
     increases the risk of unanticipated disruptions on August 
     1st. That is why we believe that a grace period for those 
     seeking to comply in good faith from August 1st through the 
     end of 2015 would be particularly useful in these 
     circumstances. During this time, industry can provide data to 
     the CFPB on issues that arise so that the Bureau and industry 
     can work together to remove impediments to the effectiveness 
     of the rule.
       Thank you for your time and consideration. If we may be of 
     assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
                                  Signed: 254 Members of Congress.

[[Page 15839]]

     
                                  ____
                                                Consumer Financial


                                            Protection Bureau,

                                     Washington, DC, June 3, 2015.
     Hon. Andy Barr,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Barr and Maloney: Thank you for your 
     letter about implementation of the TILA-RESPA Integrated 
     Disclosure Rule, which we finalized nineteen months ago to 
     carry out the law enacted by Congress. We share your desire 
     for a smooth and successful implementation of the Rule, and 
     we continue to work closely with all stakeholders to support 
     that goal. Like you, we recognize that successful 
     implementation poses challenges to industry and benefits both 
     industry and consumers, but in any event requires close 
     collaboration between industry and the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau.
       As you may know, the Bureau has taken many steps to support 
     industry implementation and to help creditors, vendors, and 
     others affected by the Rule to better understand, 
     operationalize, and prepare to comply with the Rule's new 
     streamlined disclosures. Since the Rule was first published 
     in November 2013, we have made it a point to engage directly 
     and intensively with financial institutions and vendors 
     through a formal regulatory implementation project. The 
     Bureau's regulatory implementation project for the Rule 
     includes the following:
       Inter-agency coordination. In-depth exam procedures were 
     approved by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination 
     Council in February 2015 and published by CFPB on April 1, 
     2015. The Bureau's own examination procedures incorporating 
     the FFIEC exam procedures were published on May 4, 2015.
       Publish ``readiness guide,'' plain-language guides, and 
     other resources. The ``readiness guide'' includes a broad 
     check-list of things for industry to do prior to the Rule's 
     effective date. The Bureau has also published a compliance 
     guide, a guide to the new integrated disclosure forms, and an 
     illustrative timeline.
       Publish amendments and updates to the Rule in response to 
     industry requests. In January 2015, after extensive outreach 
     to stakeholders, the Bureau adopted two minor modifications 
     and technical amendments to the Rule to smooth compliance for 
     industry.
       Provide unofficial staff guidance. Bureau staff attorneys 
     have provided oral guidance in response to over 750 
     regulatory interpretation inquiries, received from trade 
     associations and through the CFPB_ RegI[email protected] 
     email address since the Rule was issued.
       Engage with stakeholders. Bureau staff have provided 
     remarks and addressed questions about the Rule and related 
     implementation matters at over 40 formal events and over 50 
     informal stakeholder meetings since the Rule was issued.
       Conduct webinars. The Bureau has conducted a series of five 
     free, publicly available webinars, available for viewing 
     through the Bureau's website, that provide guidance on how to 
     interpret and apply specific provisions.
       Clarify misunderstandings. Today we are releasing a fact 
     sheet explaining the limited circumstances when the Rule 
     requires that the consumer be provided an additional three-
     day review period. Only three specific changes require an 
     additional three-day review period: (1) an increase in the 
     APR of greater than 1/8 of a percentage point for a fixed-
     rate loan or 1/4 of a percentage point for an adjustable-rate 
     loan (decreases in the APR based on a decrease in the 
     interest rate or fees charged do not trigger a delay); (2) 
     the addition of a prepayment penalty; and (3) changes in the 
     loan product, from a fixed-rate to an adjustable-rate loan, 
     for example. Importantly, no other changes require a delay 
     for re-disclosure.
       Your letter raises a further important matter. As you have 
     suggested, the Bureau's work to support the implementation of 
     the Rule does not end on the effective date of August 1, as 
     we continue to work with industry, consumers, and other 
     stakeholders to answer questions, provide guidance, and 
     support a smooth transition for the mortgage market. As we do 
     so, and in response to considerable input we have received 
     from you and your constituents, I have spoken with our fellow 
     regulators to clarify that our oversight of the 
     implementation of the Rule will be sensitive to the progress 
     made by those entities that have squarely focused on making 
     good-faith efforts to come into compliance with the Rule on 
     time. My statement here of this approach is intended to ease 
     some of the concerns we have heard about this transition to 
     new processes in the coming months and is consistent with the 
     approach we took to implementation of the Title XIV mortgage 
     rules in the early months after the effective dates in 
     January 2014, which has worked out well.
       As always, thank you for your strong interest in the 
     Bureau's work, and I personally appreciate your oversight 
     efforts. I hope you can see, here again, that we listen 
     closely and consider carefully how we can best address the 
     issues that you raise as we all pursue this important advance 
     in consumer protection and disclosure authorized by Congress. 
     Please contact me if you have any additional questions or 
     Bureau staff can meet with your staff, should that be helpful 
     to you.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Richard Cordray,
                                                         Director.

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Within 2 weeks, we received a 
letter back from the CFPB, promising that they would do a grace period.
  I thank Director Cordray for responding so quickly to the gentleman 
from Kentucky's concerns and my concerns.
  The grace period that the Bureau did for the qualified mortgage rule, 
which they gave earlier, was very successful, and I have no doubt that 
the grace period for the Integrated Disclosure rule will be just as 
successful.
  In fact, the Integrated Disclosure rule took effect last Saturday, 
which means that the grace period that Director Cordray promised--which 
this bill would codify--is already in effect. The grace period is 
happening right now, and that is why this bill is just absolutely not 
necessary.
  It is also important to note that the bill would prohibit consumers 
from suing for improper disclosure during the grace period. Now, that 
is of deep concern to me because that takes a right away from 
consumers.
  I certainly did not come to Congress to vote in any way to limit or 
roll back consumer protections. So this was something that I am 
incredibly uncomfortable with because I don't think it is a good idea 
to suspend both public enforcement and private enforcement through 
lawsuits at the same time. I don't think that is good policy because it 
takes away all the guardrails for consumers during this grace period.
  This is also something that the White House strongly opposes. In 
fact, they have issued a veto threat on this bill because they feel so 
strongly about maintaining consumers' private right to sue.
  And I will place into the Record a statement from President Obama's 
White House, stating that he is opposed to rolling back any rights of 
consumers.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                  Washington, DC, October 6, 2015.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


                  H.R. 3192--Homebuyers Assistance Act

                  (Rep. Hill, R-AR, and one cosponsor)

       Americans deserve clear and easy to understand disclosures 
     of the cost of buying and financing a home, which is why the 
     Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
     directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to 
     streamline conflicting disclosures that were required under 
     the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement 
     Procedures Act. The Know Before You Owe regulation issued by 
     the CFPB almost two years ago fulfills this mandate by 
     requiring mortgage lenders and settlement agents to provide 
     homebuyers with simpler forms that explain the true cost of 
     buying their home at least three days before closing. This 
     summer, the CFPB extended the effective date for these 
     requirements by two months, to last Saturday, October 3, 
     2015, to provide for a smooth transition and avoid 
     unnecessary disruptions to busy families seeking to close on 
     a new home at the beginning of the school year.
       H.R. 3192 would revise the effective date for the Know 
     Before You Owe rule to February 1, 2016, and would shield 
     lenders from liability for violations for loans originated 
     before February 1 so long as lenders made a good faith effort 
     to comply.
       The CFPB has already clearly stated that initial 
     examinations will evaluate good faith efforts by lenders. The 
     Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3192, as it would 
     unnecessarily delay implementation of important consumer 
     protections designed to eradicate opaque lending practices 
     that contribute to risky mortgages, hurt homeowners by 
     removing the private right of action for violations, and 
     undercut the Nation's financial stability.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 3192, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. So while I am very sympathetic 
to the concerns that motivated this bill, I have to oppose the bill 
because I believe it is unnecessary.
  They say the purpose is to codify it. Mr. Cordray responded to 
Congress' request. They responded to industry's request, and they 
granted the grace period. We have it. So this bill does nothing but 
roll back consumer protections.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I applaud my 
colleagues that signed the letter that led to the relief we have today.

[[Page 15840]]


  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say we 
certainly don't see a grace period from Mr. Cordray. We see ``I am 
going to be sensitive and read between the lines.''
  So the worst charge here is this bill is redundant. This bill does 
nothing to constrain consumer rights, but what it does do is constrain 
trial lawyers who are going to take away home ownership opportunities.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the 
chairman of the Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I guess we have a new definition. We just 
heard that the CFPB has streamlined things for local banks. I guess 
this is Washington's version of streamlining regulations: 1,888 pages. 
My gosh.
  So I come to the floor today to commend the chairman of the committee 
and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) for moving this legislation 
before us, H.R. 3192, and for Members on both side of the aisle who 
have supported this type of legislation as well.
  Let us understand what this legislation does not do. It does not 
remove any authority from the CFPB to take enforcement actions against 
bad actors under the new Integrated Disclosure rules. Secondly, it does 
not remove any kind of incentives for lenders to comply with the new 
rule.
  So I think it is important that we recognize what it does not do, 
despite some of the claims that we are hearing from the other side of 
the aisle.
  So what does the bill do? It simply provides a grace period, if you 
will, for lenders, your local bankers, if you will, who act in good 
faith to comply with this 1,888-page simplification of the new rules 
that the CFPB has put out there.
  I think it is ironic that the CFPB took over 1,800 pages of 
rulemaking authority and analysis and all the time, yet the agency is 
unwilling to provide the lenders--your local banks, if you will--a 
brief period in order to comply with all the rigamarole, the red tape, 
the technology, the compliance for them to get up to speed on this.
  Clearly, the length of the rulemaking suggests it was a complicated 
project for the CFPB. It took them a long time to complete it. So why 
are they not willing to in writing basically say: Here, you folks, you 
local bankers, you also will have the same leniency as well?
  This is a very straightforward and simple bill. It is intended to 
provide a brief, 4-month grace period for your banks, lenders that act 
in good faith to comply, nothing more, nothing less.
  At the end of the day, who are we really helping here? No. It is not 
the bankers. It is not the lenders. Really, who we are really helping 
is all the American people who are trying to get a loan, who are trying 
to go and get financing. Those are the people that this legislation 
would help.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of 
the Small Business Committee.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3192 to protect Americans' 
investment in their homes.
  The new TILA-RESPA disclosure rules are critical consumer protections 
that will provide consumers with expanded information before buying a 
home.
  What we are doing today with this legislation is to use dilatory 
tactics to prevent CFPB from doing their job in protecting consumers.
  This legislation, however, is a solution in search of a problem. Just 
last week, before a Financial Services Committee hearing, Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau Director Cordray indicated that the agency 
will implement a hold harmless period so that the industry could 
implement rules without risk of enforcement.
  H.R. 3192, which will further extend the grace period, is, therefore, 
unnecessary. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has already 
indicated a willingness to work hand in hand with the industry. But I 
guess that is not enough.
  If this bill is enacted, the private right of action will be blocked, 
denying consumers their basic right to a day in court. That is not 
right, and this body should not stand for it. This will undermine the 
intent of the Integrated Disclosure, which is to provide clear, 
straightforward information to consumers regarding their mortgage.
  How could you call this piece of legislation ``Protect Americans' 
Investment in Their Homes'' and, yet, use all these dilatory tactics to 
prevent consumers from having their right in court and from having the 
information that they need in order to make a wise decision?
  We are trying to make the process better for consumers, and there is 
already a path before us that strikes a balance between the needs of 
industry and millions of homebuyers.
  I am confident that CFPB Director Cordray will not deviate from this 
course. If he does, then we can hold the agency accountable. For these 
reasons, I urge the Members of this House to oppose this bill.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would be happy to yield to any of my Democratic colleagues who 
would show me where Director Cordray has ever used the words ``hold 
harmless,'' where he has ever used the words ``grace period.''
  I continue to hear these words bandied about. But he has appeared 
before the House Financial Services Committee, the Senate Banking 
Committee. He has written letters, conducted interviews. He has never 
said this, never said this.
  So, at worst, again, Mr. Speaker, the bill is redundant. If so, if my 
colleagues will yield back their time, I will be happy to yield back my 
time. We will have the vote, and we will get on with the other business 
of the House if the worst they can say is this bill is redundant.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  You said you would yield to a Democrat who could quote Mr. Cordray.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I said I would yield to a Democrat who can give me 
the Cordray quote where he says he will ``hold harmless'' or uses the 
term ``grace period.''
  So if the gentleman has the quote, I would be glad to yield to him.
  Mr. SHERMAN. I am so close to that, you should yield to me.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SHERMAN. He has responded to my question and said of this grace 
period, so it will ``be diagnostic and corrective, not punitive, and 
there will be time for them to work to get it right.''
  Mr. HENSARLING. Reclaiming my time, so I continue to hear 
``diagnostic'' and read between the lines. So, again, at worst, the 
bill is redundant.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Neugebauer), the chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer 
Credit Subcommittee.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the distinguished chairman for his work on 
this important piece of legislation as well as my good friend from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. Speaker, for a good portion of my life before Congress I was in 
the housing business and had the opportunity to help a lot of American 
families buy their first home and sometimes their second home. I had 
the opportunity to buy my first home.
  I was thinking earlier today that, when you look at the history of 
the closings over the years since I have been in the housing business, 
the first house I bought was in 1973.
  I came away with six pieces of paper: a copy of the note that I 
signed that said I would promise to pay monthly payments of x; the deed 
of trust, which gave the bank security for the loan that I was taking 
out; a copy of the closing statement, which was on one page.
  And over the years, I watched that grow and grow and grow until 
today--and I wish I had had an opportunity to do that--that, in many 
cases, the families walked out of closings with hundreds of pages of 
closing documents because we have gotten more and more new regulations 
and nuances into the buying a home process.

[[Page 15841]]

  But let me talk about what I hear a lot of my colleagues on the other 
side say that this bill does.
  Let me tell you what it doesn't do. It doesn't do one thing that 
inhibits the protections that are in TILA and RESPA for home buyers in 
this country. It does nothing.
  What it also does not do is it does not give anybody safe harbor if 
they are not acting in good faith. Basically, what this bill says is: 
Look, we have got a new process.
  And I think it was a good idea. I have supported it. In fact, I 
worked on working together to see if we could come up with one 
disclosure statement because two are sometimes confusing to the home 
buyer. So one made a lot of sense.
  What didn't make sense was to take 1,888 pages to describe what we 
ought to do on one form, a combined form.
  But what this does do is it says: We have got a very sophisticated 
process now because we have added all of these documents to closings 
and all of these disclosures. What it says is: Now, effective Saturday, 
we are going to implement a new system, and that new system is 
complicated. It has a lot of moving parts.
  And buying a home can have a lot of different parts because each 
borrower, each buyer of a home, has different circumstances and 
different verifications that are needed and different transactional 
pieces of that. And trying to bring those all together in a new 
environment with new software is very difficult.
  So what we said is: Look, if you are trying to act in good faith and 
you are trying to implement this and you are working on all the 
glitches in your processes and in your computer system possibly and you 
are doing that and if, for some reason, you missed one of the 
guidelines in this combined statement, we are not going to give you a 
penalty.

                              {time}  1500

  I think that makes sense. The American people are tired of an 
oppressive government. They are tired of the government being the 
enemy. What we need for the CFPB to be doing in this circumstance is 
working with the financial industry to make sure that this process is 
smooth. If there are nuances or glitches in the system, hey, it makes 
the system better when we share those.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3192 and encourage my 
colleagues to vote for it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker and Members, my friends 
on the opposite side of the aisle keep making the argument about the 
grace period. That should not even be discussed here because we have 
agreed, Mr. Cordray from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has 
agreed and everybody has agreed, that there should have been a grace 
period. That is not what my amendment was about that they would not 
allow me to take up on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment is about consumer protection. They know it, 
and they are trying to keep people misled by coming in here with their 
props and saying that this bill is 1,800 pages when, in fact, it is 
not. So I want everybody to be clear that this is not about the grace 
period, and this is not about not giving the industry an opportunity to 
get its act together. Really, the debate should be about whether or not 
they protect consumers, and they don't.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, back in the old days, this bill would have 
just passed on suspension. It is bipartisan, it is small, and it is 
temporary. Both sides have praised the CFPB's efforts in coming out 
with this rule. Both sides believe in a grace period, and the question 
before us is whether we should codify that grace period and apply it to 
trial lawyer enforcement, or whether we should have it be more vague 
than the chairman would want, and whether this grace period should 
apply to private enforcement or only government enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, 91 Democrats called for this grace period. Half the 
Democrats on the committee voted for the bill. The bill applies only 
until the end of January. It is small, it is temporary, and it applies 
only to lenders who operate in good faith. I said until the end of 
January. Some would say it applies until February 1. Either way, it is 
a temporary bill.
  I know the pressure the Democrats are under. Anybody who shows up at 
Democratic club meetings, they are thinking that any bill, no matter 
how small, temporary, or practical, that is favored by the financial 
services industry must be a complete sellout to banks. Well, as one of 
the leaders against the $700 billion TARP bill, I can go to any 
Democratic club holding my head up high even if I vote for bills that 
are practical and yet may clash with some ideology.
  The CFPB recognized the importance of this grace period, saying in 
the letter of October 1:

       We recognize that the industry needs to make significant 
     systems and operational changes.

  They document all those changes and review them. That is why they 
provide for a grace period which they have indicated may last longer 
than 4 months. So why are smaller participants in the industry, small 
escrow companies and small lenders, backing away, abandoning consumers 
to only the biggest who know how to comply with this complicated 1,888-
page regulation without worrying about a period of a shakedown cruise 
to get organized? Why? Because although they have got the restrained 
administrative enforcement that has been praised, they don't have the 
restrained trial lawyer enforcement.
  This bill effectuates what the CFPB is trying to do: let people go, 
do a shakedown cruise, make sure that things operate correctly, and do 
so knowing that if they act in good faith, they won't face retribution. 
But the CFPB can do that only with regard to governmental enforcement. 
It is up to this Congress to make sure that it applies to private 
enforcement. That is the purpose of this bill.
  Let us achieve the purpose that the CFPB had when they issued their 
letter of October 1. Let us make sure that those who act in good faith 
will not face retribution. Let us make sure that the smaller mortgage 
lenders and smaller escrow companies can continue to operate if they 
try to do so in good faith. Let us not hand a huge competitive 
advantage to those players in the industry that have the most lawyers 
and the most sophisticated computer programmers.
  If we are going to have a grace period, it needs to apply to both 
private enforcement through lawsuits as well as public enforcement 
through the CFPB. That is why I hope that Members will vote for this 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, I enter into the Record this letter of October 1.

                                               Consumer Financial 


                                            Protection Bureau,

                                  Washington, DC, October 1, 2015.
     Re Your inquiry regarding supervisory practices.

     Frank Keating,
     President and CEO, American Bankers Association, Washington, 
         DC 20036
       Dear Mr. Keating: Thank you for your letters of August 12th 
     and, with the trade associations copied below, September 8th 
     regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Know 
     Before You Owe TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (the 
     Rule). The letters request that the FFIEC articulate its 
     policy for its member agencies' examination and supervision 
     of financial institutions for the initial months after the 
     Rule becomes effective on October 3, 2015.
       The member agencies of the FFIEC recognize that the 
     mortgage industry has needed to make significant systems and 
     operational changes to adjust to the requirements of the 
     Rule, and that implementation requires extensive coordination 
     with third parties. We recognize that the mortgage industry 
     has dedicated substantial resources to understand the 
     requirements, adapt systems, and train affected personnel, 
     and that additional technical and other questions are likely 
     to be identified once the new forms are used in practice 
     after the effective date.
       During initial examinations for compliance with the Rule, 
     the agencies' examiners will evaluate an institution's 
     compliance management system and overall efforts to come into 
     compliance, recognizing the scope and scale of changes 
     necessary for each supervised institution to achieve 
     effective compliance. Examiners will expect supervised 
     entities to make good faith efforts to

[[Page 15842]]

     comply with the Rule's requirements in a timely manner. 
     Specifically, examiners will consider: the institution's 
     implementation plan, including actions taken to update 
     policies, procedures, and processes; its training of 
     appropriate staff; and, its handling of early technical 
     problems or other implementation challenges.
       As you may recall, this is similar to the approach the 
     member agencies took in initial examinations for compliance 
     with the mortgage rules that became effective at the 
     beginning of January, 2014. Our experience at that time was 
     that our institutions did make good faith efforts to comply 
     and were typically successful in doing so.
       Again, thank you for your letter.
           Sincerely,

                                              Richard Cordray,

                                      Director, Consumer Financial
                                                Protection Bureau.
       cc: American Land Title Association; American Escrow 
     Association; The Appraisal Firm Coalition; Appraisal 
     Institute; Collateral Risk Network; Consumer Bankers 
     Association; Community Home Lenders Association; Consumer 
     Mortgage Coalition; Community Mortgage Lenders; Credit Union 
     National Association; Housing Policy Council; Independent 
     Community Bankers of America; Mortgage Bankers Association; 
     National Association of Home Builders; National Association 
     of Mortgage Brokers; National Association of REALTORS; Real 
     Estate Services Providers Council, Inc.

  Mr. SHERMAN. I do want to quote out of it. The CFPB recognizes that 
``the mortgage industry has needed to make significant systems and 
operational changes to adjust to the requirements of the Rule.''
  It goes on to set forward why we need this grace period; and we need 
to make sure the grace period applies to both private and public 
enforcement.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of the Monetary 
Policy and Trade Subcommittee.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
3192.
  Madam Speaker, just to reinforce what my colleague from California 
was just talking about, this is a period here where we are going to be 
moving forward to make sure what the CFPB is doing with its 1,888-
page--sorry, that is me straining trying to pick all that up--rule is 
moving forward.
  I would ask what is more pro-consumer: moving forward with a 
clarified rule that grants certainty to those businesses and those 
individuals like Realtors--I am a former Realtor, and mortgage folks 
like myself, I used to be in the business--or not doing the deal and 
not doing the closing. Because that is what is going to happen. That is 
what is going to happen is you are going to see these companies say: 
Wait a minute. We are not sure what our legal exposure is here.
  Mr. Cordray, the head of the CFPB, has said that he will give a 
certain grace and understanding and, I believe the word was 
``sensitivity'' to this moving forward. That is not a grace period. 
That is not clarity. Anybody who has a lawyer advising them or a CPA or 
anybody else who has a fiduciary responsibility to make sure that their 
client understands what is happening in the intent would not say that 
that is going to stand up in court.
  I also know as a former Realtor that the home-buying process, buying 
or selling, can be one of the most challenging, confusing, and 
stressful times, especially for a first-time home buyer. The three most 
stressful points in life are marriage, death, and changing where you 
live. That is a very difficult time.
  As we are moving forward on this, there often has to be this domino 
effect of homes closing to then get that closing settled, to then move 
beyond to the next deal, and you will have two, three, four, five, 
sometimes five or six homes all lined up, five or six families waiting 
for this one closing to happen. What that is going to do is just cause 
more confusion.
  Madam Speaker, I support the intent and the spirit of the rule 
because I have sat at that closing table having to go through form 
after form after form. Everybody gets writer's cramp signing their name 
on all of these different forms. This was a good thing about Dodd-
Frank, and combining these various forms and these various legal 
documents that have to be signed makes total sense.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the intent and the spirit of the rule 
makes a lot of sense. Having something that is going to negatively 
impact those home buyers, especially those first-time home buyers, is 
not pro-consumer. It is not pro-growth. What we are trying to do with 
this particular bill--and I applaud my new colleague for this--is to 
allow the stakeholders, which is the buyer, the seller, and the 
companies that have the legal responsibility to do this closing 
properly to move forward and make sure that this is done in the proper 
way for those consumers.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
salute her for her relentless championing of the rights of consumers in 
our country as our ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.
  I come to the floor on this legislation because it is something that 
runs deep in terms of our commitment and our responsibility to the 
consumers in our country.
  It is very curious to me that this is called the Homeowners 
Assistance Act because it is exactly the opposite of that. I say that 
with regret because I think that there could have been some good 
features of this bill--and there had been that we all agreed on, that 
if there is legislation, as there has been, Dodd-Frank, and the 
regulations that spring from it, as there must be, that we have 
adequate time for the regulations to be implemented, to listen to the 
private sector, to say: What are the ramifications of these 
regulations, and do you need more time? We all subscribe that a certain 
amount of time, not an amount of time that is going to deter ever 
implementing the regulations, but a good faith attempt to come to 
terms.
  What is unfortunate about this legislation, though, Madam Speaker, is 
that in taking that goodwill and turning it into a bill, what the 
Republicans have decided to do is to take away the right of private 
action for a homeowner, for a consumer. They are trying to destroy 
homeowners' rights to be heard in court when they think they have been 
tricked or misled in any kind of a transaction.
  This is so really important. It was in September of 2008 when we had 
a meeting in my office then at the time, Democrats and Republicans, 
House and Senate, to talk about what was happening to the financial 
institutions in our country. There was a meltdown of such seriousness 
as was described by the Secretary of the Treasury that when I asked the 
chairman of the Fed, who was in the room, Mr. Bernanke, did he agree 
with that characterization of the situation we were in, he said: If we 
do not act immediately, we may not have an economy by Monday.
  This was Thursday night.
  So we went forward, largely with Democratic votes, to support a 
Republican President, President Bush, whose administration put forth 
legislation, and we worked together to make it something that we could 
pass on the floor, overwhelmingly Democratic votes supporting a 
Republican President in order to protect our economy.
  What we couldn't do in that legislation or since was include the 
ability for a homeowner to declare bankruptcy--not that we wanted them 
to, and not that we hoped they ever needed to, but they had the 
leverage, they had the leverage in a negotiation with their lender to 
do so. Many of them were seriously abused by bundling and all kinds of 
other things that had happened that it was no longer my home loan from 
my neighborhood banker or my community banker or something like that. 
These notes, these mortgages, were sold and sold and sold, so nobody 
even knew who their lender was. But we, the Congress, refused to give 
them the right of bankruptcy.
  Here we are again, Madam Speaker, these years later since September 
of

[[Page 15843]]

2008 to October of 2015, 7 years later. We have passed that bill that 
pulled back the financial institutions from their serious meltdown, 
helping Main Street as well as our financial institutions necessary for 
our economy. We passed the TARP bill, and we passed Dodd-Frank to make 
sure that the abuses that occurred that caused that meltdown in 2008 
would not happen again because of what it did to our economy, to our 
working families, and to our financial institutions in our country.
  So with Dodd-Frank, we had something that was really a breakthrough 
to protect the consumers, that Financial Consumer Protection Agency, 
and there is something really important, to protect average people, 
consumers. So when the regulations are released and the private sector 
said they needed more time, take more time. The administrator of the 
agency said: Okay, take more time. Then our Republican friends said: 
Oh, no, let's bring it to the floor and turn it into a bill to take 
more time. But then, to put this, like a Trojan horse, this bill comes 
in here with this underbelly of taking away the right of private action 
for a consumer.

                              {time}  1515

  How many people have we heard from, one reason or another engaged in 
a contract, a financial transaction, where not the devil was in the 
details, hell was in the details. Terrible for them, and they had no 
right of private action. This just isn't right.
  So we may have our differences of opinion as to the amount of 
regulation or the timing of regulation. That is a legitimate debate for 
us to have, and to listen to the private sector in our public-private 
discussions to make sure that the intent of Congress and the intent of 
protecting the American people is intact. I don't paint everyone in the 
private sector with the same brush as I come out against those who say 
let's take away that right for consumers to have their day in court.
  So I ask my colleagues, think about the consumer, what it means to 
the consumer to have his or her day in court. We are not supposed to be 
constricting leverage for the consumer in our country; we are supposed 
to be expanding opportunity for them so that when they engage in a 
transaction, they are respected because they have leverage at the 
table. Don't diminish their leverage by passing this legislation.
  I am so pleased that the President's staff has said that they would 
recommend a veto should this bill come to the President's desk. Remove 
all doubt in the consumers' mind. We are not here to deter them, but to 
empower them.
  I thank the gentlewoman again for her leadership and the members of 
the committee who have been so protective of America's consumers, 
because do you know what? The consumers are the lifeblood of our 
economy. We are a consumer economy. And until consumers have the 
consumer confidence to invest, to spend, to buy a home, to inject 
demand into the economy, our economy will never turn around.
  We are a middle class economy. We are a consumer economy. Let's 
strengthen that by voting ``no'' on this bill and saying ``yes'' to 
consumers. We want them to be as strong at the negotiating table as 
they can be.
  With that, I commend the gentlewoman from California, Ranking Member 
Waters.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 9\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say, 
I know it is the custom of my friends on the other side of the aisle to 
want to vote on a bill before they read a bill, but I would suggest if 
they actually read H.R. 3192, they will discover the private right of 
action is preserved. There is merely a hold harmless section for those 
who act in good faith. I would commend to the distinguished minority 
leader and all Democrats they actually read the bill and they might 
discover that.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), 
the chairman of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
  Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the sponsor of this bill, 
Mr. Hill, for his good work and our chairman for driving this 
legislation. It is bipartisan.
  Listening to the remarks that just took place from the minority 
leader, I know there is a comment, Madam Speaker, about consumers, but 
I think this is more of a play for the trial bar. Because if this 4-
month hold harmless doesn't move forward, it is the consumers who are 
going to get hurt. It is the divorcee who needs the proceeds from the 
sale of her home from her husband to actually work on putting her life 
back together that now won't have that sale go through.
  In communities like mine in rural America where you don't have really 
large lenders and large title companies and large Realtors, we have 
small institutions. It is those communities that are going to be hurt 
the worst if we don't have this 4-month hold harmless. You have given 
up your lease. You expect to close on a house, and that closing is not 
going to happen. Or you are getting a new job and you are moving to 
rural America and you didn't secure a lease because you are buying a 
house, but you can't buy a house because you have the whole sector of 
this base that is not willing to take the risk.
  We are beating a horse here of 1,800-plus pages. It is a significant 
rule. It is very complex, and it baffles me that we wouldn't make sure 
that, as the system is implemented, we have a hold harmless provision, 
as long as those folks who are imposing new systems are making a good 
faith effort to comply.
  I think you were listening to the debate. We are all saying the same 
thing. We want to make sure we protect consumers. We want to make sure 
the private sector can actually implement the rule effectively.
  Mr. Cordray has come forward and indicated he is in support of a hold 
harmless, but I think the gentleman from California made a good point. 
It is not just the exposure that you have on the governmental side. It 
is also the exposure that you have the private side from private 
litigation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  

  Mr. DUFFY. And so I am concerned that we will have consumers who are 
set to buy a home who won't have that sale go through, and it is those 
families who are hurt the worst.
  There is a lot of stuff that we have to fight about that we disagree 
on, but it seems like we are so close on this one. Let's just go 
forward and do what is right for the consumers and right for the 
private sector and make sure that we have a 4-month hold harmless 
provision.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the 
committee for her hard work on this.
  I urge Members to vote ``no,'' and the reason why is that we have 
been considering and considering and trying to implement Dodd-Frank for 
such a long time. Every step of the way we have seen delay. Every step 
of the way we have seen things that just couldn't happen now for all 
these good reasons. But the fact of the matter is that what brought us 
to Dodd-Frank were serious abuses in the financial industry, and this 
bill and all the rules associated need to be implemented.
  Now, the Know Before You Owe rule is a huge victory for home buyers. 
It is a good thing for home buyers to know exactly what is going on 
before they execute on a home loan. Anyone who has bought a home 
remembers the anxiety of wondering if they are going to have enough 
cash to close, to cover all the expenses. They also remember feeling 
bewildered by all of the various fees of $100 or $200, all these 
surprises. Home buyers need access to clear disclosures in plenty of 
time to comparison shop and challenge junk fees.

[[Page 15844]]

  The bill we consider today would remove the legal right of homeowners 
to seek legal redress if they do not receive accurate disclosures until 
February 2016. The consumer protections are already in place now. We 
shouldn't postpone them.
  If we really want to ``assist'' home buyers--and this bill is 
ironically called the Homebuyer Assistance Act--don't postpone what is 
already in the law today. Home buyers should get a clear home estimate 
when they apply for the loan. Home buyers should get their actual 
closing costs 3 days prior to settlement. And if a home buyer is 
mistreated in the closing process, the home buyer should retain the 
right to go to court and seek a remedy.
  I remain concerned that home buyers are overcharged at closing. Not 
all; I am not one of those who paints with a broad brush. I believe 
many of our folks in the industry are excellent, but there are enough 
exceptions to that to concern all of us.
  I strongly oppose a lot of lenders, mortgage brokers, builders who 
receive a financial benefit for a referral. Affiliated business 
arrangements and reverse competition are not good for home buyers. 
Consumers need information to protect themselves from overcharges and 
kickback schemes.
  Please stand up for home buyers and vote ``no'' on H.R. 3192.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
  Mr. GUINTA. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hill) for introducing this very important and significant piece of 
legislation.
  H.R. 3192 acknowledges the learning curve that accompanies 
implementation of any new Federal regulation.
  The TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule has been in effect now for 
4 days. At this early stage, agencies are unable to protect the 
industry from liability risk that will follow during the early days of 
compliance, and Director Cordray has acknowledged that compliance would 
be difficult during these days of implementation. The loss should take 
into account Director Cordray's statement and protect home buyers, 
sellers, and the industry from regulatory and civil liability as they 
make good faith efforts to comply with the latest CFPB requirements.
  I met with New Hampshire bankers, credit unions, and Realtors in 
September. They shared their concerns about what could happen if, 
misinterpreting the new rules, they made an unfortunate or 
unintentional error.
  Compliance costs from other CFPB rules currently in effect have 
hobbled New Hampshire's financial institutions. The risks of this new 
rule could even lead some to quit the residential lending business, and 
that has already happened in one circumstance in my district. That 
means less consumer choice and fewer options for home buyers in a 
shrinking real estate market, inevitably raising the price for the very 
consumer we try to protect.
  Madam Speaker, I want to remind everyone that the private right of 
action is preserved in this piece of legislation and that this bill 
passed the House Financial Services Committee on a strong bipartisan 
vote of 45-13.
  I want to thank Mr. Hill and Mr. Sherman for this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it to prevent frustrating 
and costly delays for the American consumer.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I think it is important for us all to really understand what is 
taking place here today.
  First of all, I want to warn against misleading information. When we 
keep hearing that those stack of papers represent the bill--that the 
bill is 1,800 pages long--that is not the case. As a matter of fact, 
the chairman of the committee knows that 171 pages are simply sample 
model forms to say to the banks: These are the kind of forms that you 
need, and you can take these samples and use them: 63 pages are 
description of the rationale behind the rule, why do we have this rule; 
15 pages are summarizing the rulemaking process; 308 pages with 
section-by-section analysis.
  So that is not the bill, those pages that you see, the props that are 
being used.
  If we go to the beginning of this, you have to understand that it was 
Dodd-Frank that decided they wanted to make this process more easily 
understood by the consumers. Out of the Dodd-Frank legislation, they 
are the ones that combined both TILA and RESPA into this integrated 
disclosure form to make it simpler.
  So despite the fact that the banks and the industry have--
particularly the big banks--thousands of employees, millions of 
dollars, doing big trades, et cetera, et cetera, they said: We really 
can't get our act together in the length of time that is given us with 
this rule.
  So for some of us who thought, well, you know, they are very well-
staffed, they have a lot of money, they could really do this, but we 
will take them at their word. And not only that, some of us on the 
Democratic side said we would take them at their word, Mr. Cordray led 
the effort in saying, all right, there should be a grace period.
  I don't care what my chairman said. If Mr. Cordray did not say it in 
the exact words the way that he wanted him to say it, that is just too 
bad; but the fact of the matter is he did say it, that he would support 
a grace period, and that is what we have all done.
  So given that he has said that, given that we have support for it on 
the Democratic side and the Republican side, really, there is no need 
for the bill. This is just taking up precious time and energy for 
something that is not needed.
  I think I know why there is such a fight for this legislation. 
Because it includes in it something that would protect the lenders even 
when they make a big mistake.

                              {time}  1530

  We talk about good faith, but I want to tell you what is included in 
this Integrated Disclosure. People are talking about real issues here.
  Will the loan amount be the same that the consumer has agreed upon? 
Will the interest rate be the same? Or will somehow there be a little 
mistake; instead of 3.8 in interest rates, it is going to end up 4.2 or 
4.3? If that happens, what can the consumer do if you don't give them 
the right to go into court? Basically, they can do nothing, and the 
lender can say ``too bad about that.''
  We cannot treat consumers that way. We have to give them the right to 
have their day in court. And even with the burden being on the consumer 
to have to prove that the lender acted in good faith, the consumer 
needs to have the right to go and make the case.
  And so my amendment that was not allowed in the Rules Committee and 
we did not get a chance to come to the floor and debate it because they 
closed down the rule simply means that my friends on the opposite side 
of the aisle said: We don't care what you are saying about protecting 
the consumers. We know that there could be some mistakes. However, we 
say, if those mistakes are made, it was in good faith. They didn't 
really mean to do it and, no, the consumer doesn't have a right to go 
into the court and make the case.
  That is not right. It should not happen.
  As our leader has said, we have gone through a period of time where 
this country almost had a depression. We certainly did have a recession 
because the big banks and too many of the banks and financial 
institutions in this country came up with all of these exotic products. 
People were misled. They signed on the dotted line for mortgages that 
many of them could not afford. These mortgages reset, and people ended 
up paying higher interest rates 6 months or a year after they signed on 
the dotted line. They didn't know. They didn't understand.
  So you can say that the banks who treated the consumers this way were 
acting in good faith and they didn't intend to do it, but we know 
enough now that we cannot depend on representations of ``I didn't mean 
it.'' If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have done it. And if you did 
it, you need to

[[Page 15845]]

be able to be dealt with in a court of law.
  So here we are with this legislation. And if you had not put that 
part in the legislation, there would not even have to be a discussion. 
You are absolutely right; it could have been on suspension or there 
could not have been a bill at all.
  But, no, the concern about the consumer is not what appears to be 
foremost in the minds of those who would dismiss their opportunity to 
go to court. We should not treat our consumers that way. We should have 
learned our lesson. We should have learned our lesson.
  Folks who are buying a home maybe for the first time and this is the 
biggest decision and this is the biggest credit action that they are 
going to make in their lifetime, they need to have some assurances that 
they are being treated right.
  Why do you think we have all of these disclosure laws? Before these 
disclosure laws were developed, people were misled. They ended up with 
balloon payments, prepayment penalties, on and on and on.
  We are saying, yes, let's have a grace period; let's allow the banks 
to use this time to get their house in order. They can train their 
staff. They can get their papers together. We agree to all of that. 
That is not an issue, and we say it over and over again because we 
don't want anybody to be misled that somehow we are standing in the way 
of the great spirit. We are not doing that. We agree to that. What we 
are standing in the way of is abuse of our consumers.
  We created this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because our 
consumers did not have the protection that they needed. Our regulators 
didn't pay attention to consumers. They were supposed to be there, not 
only to deal with the possible risks in the system, et cetera, and the 
consumers, but nobody was looking out for the consumers.
  So this is the centerpiece of Dodd-Frank reforms, the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau. The centerpiece of Dodd-Frank is to 
protect consumers and not allow them to be tricked, not allow them to 
be misled, not allow them to be prevented from going to court. You can 
describe it any way that you want to describe it, but the fact of the 
matter is you are either with the consumers or you are not.
  We on this side of the aisle, for the most part, are telling you over 
and over again that we are with the great spirit. We are not with your 
actions and that part of the bill that will not allow our consumers to 
be protected.
  And you can protest all you want. You cannot tell me if Ms. Jones, in 
signing on the dotted line, ends up with a higher interest rate than 
she thought she was getting and if she does not have the right to go 
into court, what happens. Who is going to protect her if she does not 
have the right to go into court and make the case and show that this is 
not simply an error of a comma or a period? This is an action that does 
not show good faith. This is an action that will cause me to pay 
hundreds of more dollars for my loan that I had not anticipated.
  Consumers should not be treated that way. Consumers should be 
protected in every possible way that we can because, in the final 
analysis, that is why they send us to Congress, to be able to be their 
voice, to speak for them. We on this side of the aisle will continue to 
do that in spite of the tricks of the trade that are being employed by 
others.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  H.R. 3192, the Homebuyers Assistance Act, is bipartisan. Half of the 
Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee supported it. Over 
200 Members of this body wrote to the head of the CFPB asking for a 
hold harmless period.
  So what we have is a modest, bipartisan bill that says, you know 
what? For 120 days--actually, fewer than 120 days now, Madam Speaker--
for those who in good faith are trying to implement the most dramatic 
changes in our disclosure laws in a decade, if they act in good faith, 
you know what, for 120 days we are going to let you get your systems 
in. We are going to hold you harmless as long as you are acting in good 
faith.
  If you purposely violate the law, if you intentionally violate the 
law, that is something different. But if you are acting in good faith, 
you know, during this transition period, during this rollout, we are 
going to hold you harmless because we want to help people close their 
homes.
  We want people to be able to partake in that portion of the American 
Dream, which is home ownership. And whether you call it rule, guidance, 
forms, there are 1,888 pages of text from the CFPB that must be 
digested by all kinds of very expensive attorneys that have to be 
integrated into the information technology systems. There are 1,888 
pages, courtesy of the CFPB, in order to simplify forms.
  Madam Speaker, it is a good idea to simplify forms. I am not sure the 
CFPB got it right. The bottom line is the CFPB prevented people in the 
industry from even having a trial of their systems. They were not 
allowed to go live before October 3. So this is the first time they 
have had to do it.
  If anything, the Federal Government ought to know something about 
failed rollouts. Look at ObamaCare. Yet, somehow, those people were 
held harmless for the mistakes they made on rolling out something that 
was very complex.
  What is going to happen here if we don't pass this bill? Again, I 
have talked to people in Texas involved in the industry. What I heard 
at a workshop dealing with this Integrated Disclosure rule, a gentleman 
from El Paso indicated their institution was going to stop residential 
mortgage lending for a time ``until they could get a good feeling for 
how the regulations were going to be officially interpreted.''
  I know my friends on the other side of the aisle keep talking about 
this grace period from Mr. Cordray. I don't see it. He appeared before 
our committee just days ago and said, ``I don't think it is appropriate 
for me to say I won't enforce the law when my job is to enforce the 
law.'' I didn't find the words ``grace period'' anywhere there, Madam 
Speaker, so it doesn't exist. And if it did, the worst they can say 
about this bill is it is redundant.
  People who have been wronged by those who act purposely have a right 
to private litigation, but that doesn't appear in RESPA; it only 
appears in TILA. And you can't tell me, in these new forms, which is 
which. You can't tell me, and so it is completely confusing.
  So it comes down to this, Madam Speaker: Whose side are you on? Are 
you on the side of the wealthy, litigious trial lawyers who are looking 
for their next big class-action payday? Are you looking to help low-and 
moderate-income people who have worked hard to put together a nest egg 
to finally save for their piece of the American Dream? Who are you for?
  Well, I am happy that at least half of the Democrats on this 
committee that serve with the ranking member have said: You know what? 
We want to be with the homeowner. We don't necessarily want to be with 
the litigious trial attorneys. So that is really the choice we are 
making here. It is, again, Madam Speaker, such a modest bipartisan 
bill.
  I have heard the ranking member say it is a waste of time. Well, 
then, why didn't she yield back her time?
  This should be on what we call the suspension calendar. Something 
that is bipartisan and modest should have been on the suspension 
calendar and should have already been taken care of. But somebody 
wishes to protect the wealthy trial attorneys.
  So you have got to make a choice, Madam Speaker, and I hope that the 
House today comes down thoroughly on the side of the American home 
buyer and enacts H.R. 3192 from the gentleman from Arkansas.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, there is no doubt reform of TILA and 
RESPA

[[Page 15846]]

is needed. Change has been advocated by all parties, and by Members on 
both sides of the aisle.
  Like many of you, I continue to hear from lenders, real estate 
professionals, and title insurance companies in my district that third 
parties were not fully prepared for the October 3rd implementation of 
TRID. This is particularly true for small businesses with fewer 
resources.
  Beyond preparedness issues, there remain questions over TRID 
processes and associated liability. Countless concerns have also been 
raised over the lack of a formalized restrained enforcement period. A 
hold harmless period would allow a better understanding of the changes 
associated with TRID, and help to ensure consumer confidence and 
stability in the housing market.
  In addition to a wide array of financial services industries, a 
bipartisan group of lawmakers has expressed the need for a hold 
harmless period like the one included in H.R. 3192. In fact, more than 
250 Members of Congress, 92 of whom were Democrats, expressed strong 
support for the idea in a letter led by Mr. Barr of Kentucky and Mrs. 
Maloney of New York.
  CFPB Director Richard Cordray indicated in an April 22nd letter that 
the Bureau ``expects to continue working with industry . . . to answer 
questions, provide guidance, and evaluate any issues . . .'', but that 
he would not use his authority to institute a grace period.
  This summer, a bipartisan group of Financial Services Committee 
members met with Director Cordray to make an appeal for a commonsense 
approach to implementation of this rule. The request was reiterated at 
a Committee hearing just last week. In both instances, Director Cordray 
indicated that he would institute a hold harmless period; and in both 
instances, despite assurances, he failed to do so.
  The changes to the home-buying process in TRID will affect millions 
of Americans. We owe it to consumers to ensure that the rule put in 
place serves its purpose without causing unintended consequences.
  The practice of buying or selling a home is confusing. Buyers and 
sellers put pen to paper on pages they've not read and don't 
understand. Make no mistake, we all believe the procedure needs to 
change; but, on something this important, CFPB needs to move slowly and 
deliberately, taking into account concerns from consumer groups and 
industry alike.
  It's my sincere hope that implementation of this rule moves forward 
without complication; however, the unfortunate reality is that a change 
of this magnitude will create issues for consumers, lenders, and the 
CFPB alike.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hill, and the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, for their work on this 
legislation, as well as the many other Members, including Mr. Pearce of 
New Mexico, for their leadership on this front.
  This is not a partisan issue; it's a consumer issue, a small business 
issue. I ask my colleagues for their support of H.R. 3192.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 3192, the Homebuyers Assistance Act, which would delay, until 
February 1, 2016 enforcement of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau's (CFPB) integrated rule regarding disclosures that mortgage 
lenders must provide to homebuyers.
  I oppose this legislation for two principal reasons.
  First, H.R. 3192 contains a provision that hurts homeowners by 
removing their private right of action for violations of the CFPB's 
Truth in Lending Act--RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) regulations.
  Second, I oppose the legislation because it is unnecessary since the 
CFPB has previously announced its intention to take into account good 
faith efforts by lenders in evaluating compliance by lenders with the 
TRID regulations.
  Madam Speaker, it should be noted that CFPB gave the mortgage 
industry approximately two years notice to implement the new disclosure 
requirements, and this past summer extended that deadline until October 
3, 2015.
  H.R. 3192 would revise the effective date for the Know Before You Owe 
rule to February 1, 2016, and would shield lenders from liability for 
violations for loans originated before February 1 so long as lenders 
made a good faith effort to comply.
  In extending the effective date of the Know Before You Owe rule by an 
additional 4 months, H.R. 3192 unnecessarily delays implementation of 
important consumer protections designed to eradicate opaque lending 
practices that contribute to risky mortgages and hurt homeowners by 
removing their private right of action for violations, and undercuts 
the Nation's financial stability.
  The delay of enforcement harms consumers by encouraging some lenders 
to attempt to evade the new rule and reduces the incentive to comply 
promptly.
  Having witnessed the economic and financial devastation inflicted on 
the economy, businesses, and households in 2008 resulting from 
inadequate oversight of the financial industry, we simply cannot afford 
to repeat that mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to protect consumers and homebuyers from 
predatory and unfair lending practices by voting against H.R. 3192.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 
3192, the Homebuyers Assistance Act.
  The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
required the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 
to consolidate and streamline the disclosures that a lender is required 
to make to a homebuyer under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the 
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The CFPB has crafted a 
rule that will ultimately make it easier for borrowers to understand 
the terms of a mortgage and provide them with additional protections at 
each step of the process.
  But mortgages are complicated instruments, and the procedures for 
home loans have been established for a long time. There is no question 
that the new rules are complex and will ultimately result in some 
unintended violations during implementation. The CFPB has extended the 
timeline for compliance once, and I agree that it is reasonable to 
extend that compliance period again, as this bill does, until February 
of 2016.
  I also agree that lenders who inadvertently fail to comply because 
these rules are new and unfamiliar should not be subject to public 
enforcement actions during the implementation period. And indeed CFPB 
has given its assurance that it will grant very wide latitude to 
lenders during this period.
  If that were all this bill did, I could support it. But in the bill 
is a troubling section that I cannot support even though I agree with 
the rest of its provisions. Unfortunately this bill suspends until next 
February the private right of action that allows aggrieved borrowers to 
recover damages when lenders violate the law in bad faith. This means 
that consumers who borrow during that period of time have absolutely no 
recourse whatsoever, even if the lender has engaged in blatant 
violations of the law. That isn't right, and it isn't fair for our 
constituents who are buying homes in the next four months to have to 
face that risk.
  Although I agree that lenders acting in good faith who inadvertently 
violate the new rules should be given a reprieve over the next few 
months, I cannot endorse letting all violators off the hook for any 
action they take that harms borrowers. I hope we can continue to work 
to improve this bill, and I hope that we will soon consider a better 
version on the House floor to provide relief to lenders without also 
harming borrowers.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose the bill in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 462, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on 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. MOULTON. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. MOULTON. Madam Speaker, I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Moulton moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3192 to the 
     Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end of the bill the following new section:

     SEC. 3. PROTECTING SERVICEMEMBERS AND OTHERS.

       The safe harbor provided by section 2 shall not apply to 
     private suits filed by servicemembers, veterans, seniors, 
     students, and family members of servicemembers, veterans, 
     seniors, and students.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. MOULTON. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. 
It will not kill the bill or send it back to

[[Page 15847]]

committee. If adopted, the bill will proceed immediately to final 
passage as amended.
  We all agree that the men and women who serve in our Nation's 
military should be afforded every opportunity to live the American 
Dream that they risked their lives to defend. Unfortunately, too often 
our servicemembers, veterans, and their families fall victim to unfair 
and abusive financial practices.
  In 2014 alone, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau received more 
than 17,000 complaints from servicemembers, veterans, and their 
families on a variety of issues, from deceptive subprime auto lending 
to troublesome credit card fees and predatory mortgage loans. That same 
year, the CFPB was able to return more than $1.6 million to these 
families. The CFPB is a vital watchdog for American consumers.

                              {time}  1545

  The bill before us today would delay the enforcement of the CFPB's 
rule regarding disclosures that mortgage lenders must provide to home 
buyers. Additionally, the bill would permanently eliminate a borrower's 
ability to enforce his or her legal rights if a lender fails to 
disclose or obscures important information for all loans originated 
over the next 5 months so long as the error is made ``in good faith,'' 
a term that the bill does not define and that substantially narrows 
existing protections for consumers afforded under the Truth in Lending 
Act.
  The mortgage industry has had nearly 2 years to implement these new 
disclosure requirements and was given an additional grace period this 
year. Despite assurances from the CFPB Director that the agency would 
implement a restrained enforcement process that takes into account the 
industry's good faith effort to comply, this legislation could leave 
millions of American home buyers without the legal protections to which 
all citizens are entitled.
  The amendment I am offering today would allow our servicemembers, 
veterans, seniors, and students--some of our Nation's most vulnerable 
populations--with the opportunity to seek their day in court if a 
mortgage lender acts in bad faith.
  As we learned following the 2008 financial crisis, far too often the 
people with the fewest resources pay the heaviest price when they are 
deceived by bad actors in the financial marketplace.
  While reasonable people can disagree on the merits of the underlying 
bill, I hope we can all agree that our servicemembers, veterans, 
students, and seniors deserve the consumer financial protections the 
CFPB offers.
  That is what this amendment would help to achieve, and I urge your 
support.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, again, this underlying bill, H.R. 
3192, modest, bipartisan. Grace period for those who act in good faith 
in trying to implement the most dramatic changes in our real estate 
disclosure laws in a decade, 1,888 pages worth.
  We know, Madam Speaker, if we do not enact this bill, people are 
going to be denied homeownership opportunities. We have already heard 
within our committee. We have heard from our constituents already. For 
example:

       Large lenders have already announced they are not going to 
     do one-time closings anymore due to the uncertainty.

  That comes from an individual in Tyler, Texas.
  I quoted earlier one from El Paso, who stated:

       Presented in El Paso, an institution is going to stop 
     residential mortgage lending for a time until they can get a 
     good feeling on how the regulation is going to be officially 
     interpreted.

  Americans are being denied homeownership opportunities, and all the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the author of H.R. 3192, says is: 
Let's have, for those who operate in good faith, a temporary grace 
period in trying to roll this out.
  So what the motion to recommit does--and I know this is not the 
gentleman's purpose, but what his motion to recommit does, if adopted 
by the House, is actually discriminate against the very people that he 
says he wishes to help because now, all of a sudden, it is going to be 
our servicemembers, our veterans, our seniors, our students, and family 
members of servicemembers, veterans, seniors, and students who are 
going to be denied their homeownership opportunities.
  Now, maybe in the gentleman's district they prefer the lawsuit. In my 
district, in the Fifth District of Texas, they prefer the homeownership 
opportunity. Any bad actors can still be sued under TILA in a private 
right-of-action, but when we are trying to ensure that people are not 
denied their homeownership opportunities, why would we want to 
discriminate against our servicemembers and veterans? Because all of a 
sudden, then, there is extra liability.
  So everybody will know now that if you are going to lend on a home 
mortgage to a veteran, you are going to have extra liability. Are you 
going to make that loan? Are you going to charge them more? This House 
should reject any discrimination against our servicemembers, veterans, 
seniors, students, and family members of servicemembers, veterans, 
seniors, and students, and reject this motion to recommit.
  Madam 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. MOULTON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________