[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18440-18450]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               PORTFOLIO LENDING AND MORTGAGE ACCESS ACT

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 529, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 1210) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to provide a 
safe harbor from certain requirements related to qualified mortgages 
for residential mortgage loans held on an originating depository 
institution's portfolio, 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 529, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 114-34 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1210

       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 ``Portfolio Lending and 
     Mortgage Access Act''.

     SEC. 2. SAFE HARBOR FOR CERTAIN LOANS HELD ON PORTFOLIO.

       (a) In General.--Section 129C of the Truth in Lending Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1639c) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(j) Safe Harbor for Certain Loans Held on Portfolio.--
       ``(1) Safe harbor for creditors that are depository 
     institutions.--
       ``(A) In general.--A creditor that is a depository 
     institution shall not be subject to suit for failure to 
     comply with subsection (a), (c)(1), or (f)(2) of this section 
     or section 129H with respect to a residential mortgage loan, 
     and the banking regulators shall treat such loan as a 
     qualified mortgage, if--
       ``(i) the creditor has, since the origination of the loan, 
     held the loan on the balance sheet of the creditor; and
       ``(ii) all prepayment penalties with respect to the loan 
     comply with the limitations described under subsection 
     (c)(3).
       ``(B) Exception for certain transfers.--In the case of a 
     depository institution that transfers a loan originated by 
     that institution to another depository institution by reason 
     of the bankruptcy or failure of the originating depository 
     institution or the purchase of the originating depository 
     institution, the depository institution transferring such 
     loan shall be deemed to have complied with the requirement 
     under subparagraph (A)(i).
       ``(2) Safe harbor for mortgage originators.--A mortgage 
     originator shall not be subject to suit for a violation of 
     section 129B(c)(3)(B) for steering a consumer to a 
     residential mortgage loan if--
       ``(A) the creditor of such loan is a depository institution 
     and has informed the mortgage originator that the creditor 
     intends to hold the loan on the balance sheet of the creditor 
     for the life of the loan; and
       ``(B) the mortgage originator informs the consumer that the 
     creditor intends to hold the loan on the balance sheet of the 
     creditor for the life of the loan.
       ``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) Banking regulators.--The term `banking regulators' 
     means the Federal banking agencies, the Bureau, and the 
     National Credit Union Administration.
       ``(B) Depository institution.--The term `depository 
     institution' has the meaning given that term under section 
     19(b)(1) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 505(b)(1)).
       ``(C) Federal banking agencies.--The term `Federal banking 
     agencies' has the meaning given that term under section 3 of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.''.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in the amendment made by 
     this Act may be construed as preventing a balloon loan from 
     qualifying for the safe harbor provided under section 129C(j) 
     of the Truth in Lending Act if the balloon loan otherwise 
     meets all of the requirements under such subsection (j), 
     regardless of whether the balloon loan meets the requirements 
     described under clauses (i) through (iv) of section 
     129C(b)(2)(E) of such Act.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within 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.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 1210, the Portfolio Lending and 
Mortgage Access Act, a bill approved by the Committee on Financial 
Services, which I chair, on a bipartisan vote of 38-18.
  First, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), an 
outstanding member of our committee, for his leadership in finding 
simple ways to allow aspiring home buyers across the Nation to obtain 
mortgages more easily, absent the onerous regulations that are 
presently being applied so that they can qualify a mortgage through 
market competition.
  The aim of H.R. 1210 is simple. Banks and credit unions should be 
free to originate mortgages as long as they keep them on their books, 
as long as they keep the risk. This is responsible lending, Mr. 
Speaker, and it helps more qualified borrowers obtain mortgages so that 
perhaps they can get their piece of the American Dream.
  H.R. 1210, again, does this by allowing lenders, particularly 
hometown community banks and credit unions, to treat mortgages held on 
their balance sheets as ``qualified mortgages'' for purposes of the 
CFPB's mortgage lending rules.
  As we know, the Dodd-Frank Act made significant changes to our 
mortgage lending marketplace. One specific provision in section 1411 of 
Dodd-Frank requires mortgage lenders to determine at the time a loan is 
made that the borrower has a reasonable ability to repay it. The 
ability to repay requirements are intended to ensure a lender takes 
into account the borrower's capacity to actually repay the loan.
  Section 1412 of Dodd-Frank creates a legal safe harbor for compliance 
with the ability to repay rule for lenders who issue so-called 
qualified mortgages, or QMs.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems obvious that loans that are held by a 
lender should be regulated differently than loans that are originated 
and then sold to a third party. They have completely different 
characteristics.
  Again, lenders that hold the loans on their own books in their own 
portfolio assume all--all--of the exposure of risk to nonperformance 
and default. Lending 101 tells us that when the borrower is unable to 
repay the loan, the bank that made the loan, if it keeps it on its 
books, is the one that is going to lose the money and any future profit 
that would be derived from the loan.
  Portfolio lenders with poor underwriting thus will not stay in 
business very long. In this sense, mortgages that are held in portfolio 
are already prudently regulated by market discipline. Yet without a 
safe harbor from the threat of litigation, which H.R. 1210 would 
provide, lenders will not make loans to otherwise creditworthy 
individuals.
  We hear this from community banks and credit unions every day. If 
they don't meet the QM standards, the loans simply aren't going to get 
made as a practical matter.
  So let me stress, the CFPB's restrictions on mortgage lending will 
have a disproportionate impact on low- and moderate-income home buyers, 
especially those from rural and certain urban areas.
  According to the Federal Reserve, within a few years under this QM 
rule, roughly one-third of Black and Hispanic borrowers may find 
themselves disqualified from obtaining a mortgage because of the 
qualified mortgage rule. This is based simply on a rigid debt-to-income 
requirement.
  A recent survey tells us that 73 percent of community bankers have 
actually decreased their mortgage business or completely stopped, Mr. 
Speaker, completely stopped their mortgage business or providing 
mortgage loans due to the expense of complying with the QM, qualified 
mortgage, regulatory burden. That is why a lot of community banks and 
credit unions across the

[[Page 18441]]

country say that QM doesn't stand for ``qualified mortgage''; it stands 
for ``quitting mortgages.''
  It should not be the job of Congress or unelected and unaccountable 
Washington regulators to decide who gets a mortgage and who does not or 
to force community banks and credit unions to function like regulated 
utilities, issuing only plain vanilla mortgages, rubberstamped in 
Washington for select groups.
  Now, opponents of this bill will attempt to derail it in branding it 
some kind of gift to Wall Street. Let me be clear. H.R. 1210 is a gift 
to home buyers, all home buyers looking for a more transparent and 
competitive market.
  When it comes to loans that are held on the books, the size of the 
institution does not matter. A loan held in portfolio will carry the 
exact same amount of risk and profit regardless of the size of the bank 
that holds it.
  The commonsense legislation that is before us recognizes that the 
most effective way to ensure a borrower has the ability to repay is not 
one-size-fits-all, top-down regulation from Washington.
  Let's, again, remember that the financial crisis was primarily caused 
by misguided Washington policies helping put people into homes they 
could not afford to keep, hurting underwriting standards. Portfolio 
lending did not cause the crisis.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation of the 
gentleman from Kentucky. Support the American Dream.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1210. Today we are 
again wasting time on the floor discussing a bill that President Obama 
has already pledged to veto because it would undermine important 
financial reforms and put consumers and the economy at risk.
  H.R. 1210 would allow lenders to deal in the same kind of risky loans 
that sank Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Countrywide, and eventually the 
entire economy in 2008. The bill undermines the antipredatory lending 
provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and virtually eliminates one of the 
most significant consumer protection rules implemented by the CFPB.
  The bill also revives an industry practice under which mortgage 
brokers can earn hefty bonuses by steering borrowers into riskier, more 
expensive loans regardless of whether they qualify for better rates. My 
colleagues seem to forget that we went through a terrible financial 
crisis.
  While we did spend hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue the 
banking system, millions of victims of predatory lending were left to 
fend for themselves as they were displaced from their homes and saw 
their life savings disappear.

                              {time}  1530

  Many reforms in the Dodd-Frank Act ensure that the financial industry 
will never again be allowed to take the kinds of risks that drove us to 
national crisis, but the mortgage lending rules are designed 
specifically to protect families from financial crisis.
  The fact is that many banks, whether they held loans on their books 
or sold them off to investors, were able to profit from loans they knew 
borrowers could not repay. Rather than perform careful underwriting, 
many banks demanded high upfront fees and relied on rising home prices 
and private mortgage insurance to protect them from losses when 
borrowers inevitably defaulted.
  Banks also targeted families in financial trouble that owned their 
homes free and clear, offering them cash-outs, refinancing with high 
origination fees and unaffordable terms.
  Refinances accounted for 70 percent of subprime lending in the 3 
years before the crisis and ended up sapping the life savings from many 
families who relied on these products to pay for unexpected medical 
bills or financial hardships.
  Department of Justice investigations found that lenders specifically 
targeted, again, minorities with predatory loans, destroying a 
generation's worth of wealth in many communities of color.
  Under the new mortgage rules, it is illegal to pay bonuses to brokers 
for steering borrowers into loans with bad terms. CFPB rules establish 
sensible underwriting standards so lenders are incentivized to design 
products that perform over the long run and make sense for consumers.
  In cases where banks want to make riskier loans with higher fees, 
they are allowed to do so, but the consumer will have extra protections 
if the loan goes bad. These include the right to sue for financial harm 
and a defense against foreclosure.
  The mortgage rules make good sense by protecting consumers while 
still allowing them access to credit and ensuring the economy can grow. 
These are exactly the types of regulations we should want from our 
regulators, and the CFPB should be commended for its success.
  Republicans continue to declare that the Dodd-Frank Act and the CFPB 
have been bad for the economy. During the last Republican Presidential 
debate, a rightwing group aired a commercial painting the CFPB as a 
communist bureaucracy and claiming the CFPB staff were responsible for 
denying loans to consumers. The facts show a much different picture.
  Even the conservative Wall Street Journal recently reported that 
industry analysts and experts agree that compliance costs aren't the 
greatest challenge facing community banks. The same article notes that 
loan balances at community banks grew twice as fast as their large 
counterparts over the last year and that their profitability is much 
closer to larger banks than it was prior to the passage of the Dodd-
Frank Act.
  The Mortgage Bankers Association recently revised their expectations 
for 2016 and 2017 to expect even more growth in housing credits. And 
this week, at the National Association of Realtors' annual conference, 
industry economists pointed to a strong housing market, with high 
prospects for continued growth.
  It is time for Republicans to realize that Dodd-Frank and the CFPB 
are not the problem. They are the solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself 30 seconds to say I am fascinated to 
hear the specter of discrimination continually waved by the other side, 
yet the Federal Reserve says, when the qualified mortgage rule is fully 
implemented, fully one-third of all Blacks and Hispanics won't be able 
to qualify for a mortgage. Yet we hear silence from the other side.
  The reason we had the meltdown is because so many of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle wanted to roll the dice on so-called 
affordable housing goals of Fannie and Freddie. It turned out to be the 
largest bailout in American history.
  If people are going to make bad loans, here is an idea: Let's not 
bail them out with taxpayers' money, but give everybody a fair shot at 
home ownership. That means, if a bank makes the loan, they hold it on 
their books. Let them keep it. Let it be a qualified mortgage.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the 
sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of our 
committee, for his leadership and support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the best policies serve both the interests of the 
individual and the broader national interests. In this case, it is in 
the interest of the borrower to have an affordable, right-sized 
mortgage. It is also in the interest of the Nation to have a sound 
financial system safe from the excesses that led to the crisis in 2008. 
It is possible to satisfy both objectives, but it will require the 
Federal Government to acknowledge that changes must be made to the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's interpretation of the Dodd-Frank 
law.
  The ability to repay requirements in Dodd-Frank are designed to 
ensure that a lender takes into account the

[[Page 18442]]

borrower's ability to repay a loan. Simple enough. But the CFPB has 
implemented the ability to pay rule provision by promulgating a one-
size-fits-all, top-down, Washington-directed qualified mortgage rule.
  Under the CFPB's approach, mortgages have been made safer by 
effectively making them unavailable to a substantial number of would-be 
home buyers. According to the Federal Reserve, 22 percent of those who 
borrowed to buy a home in 2010--one out of every five borrowers--would 
not have met the underwriting requirements for a qualified mortgage.
  There is no debating that for the benefit of a mortgage borrower or 
his or her lender and the financial system, a borrower should have a 
demonstrable ability to repay that loan. The only question is who is in 
the better position to determine whether that borrower is able to repay 
the loan. Is it a Washington bureaucrat without any relationship with 
the borrower, or is it a lender with a full view of the customer's 
finances and a bank or credit union that must bear 100 percent of the 
downside risk of default?
  Dodd-Frank answered that question by taking sides with the Washington 
bureaucrats. The result has been a housing market struggling to recover 
as a result of scarce mortgage credit, impacting job creation and 
affordable housing, and the loss of the consolidation of community 
banks and credit unions.
  It is time to try something different. H.R. 1210, the Portfolio 
Lending and Mortgage Access Act, is the solution. This legislation 
would treat mortgages held on the balance sheets of financial 
institutions as qualified mortgages for purposes of the Bureau's 
mortgage lending rules.
  Because mortgage lenders retain all of the risk of the loans held on 
portfolio, they have a strong incentive to ensure that the loan is 
repaid. Such a policy would drive private sector risk retention--a goal 
of the Dodd-Frank Act itself--and mark a return to relationship lending 
where a bank or credit union can tailor products to a customer's needs 
and credit risk without running afoul of the one-size-fits-all 
government requirements.
  Small banks and credit unions have been disproportionately impacted 
by these rules. It is no coincidence that Harvard researchers have 
found that, since Dodd-Frank's passage, community banks have lost 
market share at a rate double that experienced prior to Dodd-Frank's 
passage in 2006 to 2010, a period including the entirety of the 
financial crisis.
  By bearing the risk, financial institutions have every incentive to 
make sure that the borrower can afford to repay that loan. And no less 
than Chairman Barney Frank endorsed this concept at a hearing before 
the Financial Services Committee last year, saying he would like the 
main safeguard against bad loans to be risk retention because that 
leaves the decision in the hands of whoever is making the loan.
  The Bureau, itself, made this key point in its own rulemaking where 
it recognized that portfolio lenders have a strong incentive to 
carefully consider whether a consumer will be able to repay a portfolio 
loan, at least, in part, because the small creditor retains the risk of 
default.
  This bill also importantly provides a viable alternative to the 
originate-to-distribute mortgage lending model that contributed to the 
bubble in residential real estate and massive taxpayer bailouts. 
Indeed, this legislation embraces an approach that more effectively 
ensures that borrowers have the ability to repay than the CFPB's 
restrictive rule. The result will be expanded access to mortgage credit 
without additional risk to the financial system or the taxpayer.
  I would just note that the ranking member talks about putting 
taxpayers at risk again. But the cause of the financial crisis was not 
portfolio lending by community banks and credit unions; it was 
government policy: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying billions of 
subprime, improperly underwritten mortgages.
  This policy, the GSE exemption to the qualified mortgage rule, 
continues to do this day. My bill offers an alternative to this risky 
practice of incentivizing origination without underwriting and 
distribution to taxpayer-backed GSEs. This is particularly important 
because the commonsense bill that is before the Congress recognizes 
that the most effective way to ensure that a borrower has an ability to 
repay is not one-size-fits-all Washington mandates.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BARR. Just to conclude, instead, the most effective way to ensure 
that a borrower has the ability to repay is to restore the traditional 
relationship banking that ensures that financial institutions bear the 
downside risks associated with their business decisions.
  H.R. 1210 has the support of the American Bankers Association, the 
Independent Community Bankers of America, the Credit Union National 
Association, the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, the 
National Association of Home Builders, and the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce.
  The housing sector represents a third of the economy, and the lack of 
available mortgage credit is impacting our recovery. I encourage my 
colleagues to join me to expand access to mortgage financing and 
support economic growth.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, I just heard that these bankers have the 
ability to understand and know whether or not the consumers have the 
ability to repay. That is what they told us before 2008. Unfortunately, 
they are the same ones now that are telling us that they can determine 
ability to repay. They didn't do it then, and they won't do it in the 
future.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a 
member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my colleague and classmate 
Mr. Barr in attempting to address this issue. I appreciate the impact 
that the qualified mortgage rule has had in terms of mortgage lending 
for consumers and access to credit. It is especially true for our local 
and community bankers who have longtime personal relationships with 
individuals and families. It is these types of relationships that we 
need to encourage: the personal knowledge of people that banks and 
financial institutions lend to.
  I also appreciate the aspects of the bill intended to increase access 
for consumers that are just shy of the strict qualified mortgage 
standards, and I support the policy of allowing otherwise non-QM-
compliant individuals having access to qualified mortgage products if 
lenders are willing to keep the loans on their books.
  My concern with this legislation, among others, is that it does not 
explicitly disallow the exotic mortgage products that were so much a 
part of the housing crisis.
  There are consumer protections that could improve this legislation in 
terms of how we allow safe borrower protections for banks and mortgage 
originators. I do think we should focus on consumer protection and 
allow non-QM loans to be non-QM only in terms of the borrower--those 
individuals that fall just outside QM standards--and not open up to 
non-QM products, particularly because this is not applicable only to 
those small community banks or credit unions that we are so familiar 
with, but to all institutions.
  Portfolio lending is an important opportunity to find bipartisan 
agreement. I hope we can continue to work on this.
  One other issue that I raise--and it was included in the amendment 
that I offered that the Rules Committee did not make in order--is that 
I would have preferred that the legislation require that the 
institutions making loans under this title collect data on how these 
loans are being made and how they are performing, and get us the 
information to determine whether or not the effect that we are trying 
to create with this sort of approach is actually being met or if, in 
fact, it is not.
  I appreciate the efforts of my friend and colleague. I wish I could 
work with

[[Page 18443]]

him if, in fact, this moves forward in a way that it is open to 
suggestion.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the distinguished chairman of the Monetary 
Policy and Trade Subcommittee of our committee.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity.
  I want you to imagine with me. Imagine a single mom moving out of a 
trailer. She has had some tragedy in life. She has got two kids that 
are watching very, very closely, though, what she is doing and how she 
is handling it.
  Imagine, as a former realtor, the joy that I took in being able to 
get her into her own home, the first thing that she had felt like was 
truly hers and something that her kids could be proud of.
  Well, that is the type of scenario that we are trying to promote, I 
would think, as a country. Unfortunately, with the rules that have been 
promulgated under this qualified mortgage rule, lenders determine a 
borrower's ability to repay using, really, an arbitrary standard set by 
a formula.
  They don't look at the character. They don't look at the background. 
They don't look at the history of that person because it is outside the 
formula. If a lender does not adhere to this bureaucratically 
established formula, a borrower can actually sue the lender.
  This has caused 73 percent of community bankers, those who know their 
customers best, to cut back their mortgage business or simply stop 
providing mortgages altogether. That is the worst-case scenario.
  The Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act removes bureaucrats 
from the equation and allows lenders to work directly with borrowers to 
provide them with loans that they can afford. That is a key element 
here: loans that they can afford.
  How do we know that they are going to do this?
  Well, by keeping the loan on their own portfolio, on their own books, 
the lender assumes the full risk of the loan. Let me repeat that. The 
lender retains the full risk of those loans. If they didn't think that 
that borrower could pay back the loan, they would not lend it to them.
  Now, in my mind, that is the definition of what a qualified mortgage 
test really ought to be. So this bill is going to allow those mortgage 
lenders to extend and cover those loans and really offer those services 
to those people who are looking for that.
  I have heard on the other side of the aisle a claim, as the White 
House did in its veto threat, that this bill would ``open the door to 
risky lending by undermining consumer protections under the rule and 
expanding the amount of loans that would be exempt from it.''
  As was pointed out by my friend from Kentucky, portfolio loans had 
nothing to do with the financial crisis that we went through.
  In addition, loans sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and insured by 
the Federal Housing Administration, which make up the vast majority of 
the market, are already exempt under the QM rule.
  So who exactly are we protecting? Who exactly are we maybe not 
servicing the way that this Congress ought to be servicing and ought to 
be advocating for?
  The originate-to-distribute model incentivized predatory and subprime 
lending, and, because those loans would be readily securitized, moved 
off of their books, they no longer had any responsibility. All they had 
to do was meet kind of a blush of a requirement, and they could move it 
right on off of their books.
  I can tell you this: as a former realtor, I understand that nobody 
has a greater incentive to ensure that a borrower can repay their loan.
  I just pray that my colleagues on both sides will support this bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Waters.
  Today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1210. During the financial crisis 
of 2008, predatory subprime lending was far too prevalent and 
underwriting standards were not adequately adhered to by lenders.
  In response to these practices, the Dodd-Frank Act created a new set 
of mortgage underwriting rules. These qualified mortgage rules are 
critically important to helping ensure that all American consumers are 
protected against harmful mortgage products and abusive lending 
practices. These commonsense rules now require a lender to make a good 
faith effort to determine that a borrower has the ability to repay a 
mortgage.
  Additionally, the final rule contains critically important and 
special provisions and exemptions that are available only to small 
lenders and to lenders that operate predominantly in rural and 
underserved areas, exceptions that are critically important for 
districts like mine.
  The QM rules simply state that, if banks make risky loans, like 
interest only, or adjustable mortgage loans, consumers can hold them 
accountable if those mortgages go bad. Lenders are also responsible for 
accurately researching and documenting borrowers' incomes and their 
ability to repay.
  Unfortunately, as currently drafted, H.R. 1210 would undermine these 
critically important consumer protections by exempting all depository 
financial institutions, large and small, from QM standards as long as 
the mortgage loans in question are held in portfolios by those 
institutions.
  H.R. 1210, broadly defined, would broaden the qualified mortgages to 
include all mortgages held on a lender's balance sheet.
  Under the bill, depository institutions that hold a loan in 
portfolios could arguably receive legal safe harbor, even if the loan 
contains terms and features that are abusive and harmful to consumers.
  Essentially, the bill would limit the rights of borrowers to hold 
harmful those banks that do bad practices.
  We all know that no regulation or law is perfect. We must work 
together to strike a delicate balance and ensure that regulations are 
pragmatic and workable without placing undue harm on financial 
institutions that provide critically important access to capital for 
potential homebuyers.
  Home ownership remains an important goal for most Americans and one 
of the most traditional gateways to the middle class. However, the 
financial crisis of 2008 reminds us that we must have in place sensible 
safeguards to protect consumers against harmful mortgage products.
  I want to thank the ranking member for her leadership on this matter.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1210.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I would like to thank my good friend from Kentucky, the sponsor of 
this legislation, for leading on this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, for many western Pennsylvanians, home ownership is a 
significant aspect of realizing the American Dream. Moving from paying 
rent to owning a home is an investment in the future for these families 
and an investment in their local communities.
  Unfortunately, today that dream is being threatened unnecessarily by 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's qualified mortgage rule, or 
QM. The QM rule is a Washington-knows-best approach to mortgages that 
is hampering access to home loans across this country and hurting 
potential homebuyers and their communities.
  As with many complicated and one-size-fits-all regulations, the QM 
rule has brought substantial unintended consequences. The rule's strict 
arbitrary standards have made it more difficult for many deserving 
consumers to get a mortgage and, as a result, has stalled much-needed 
investment in distressed and recovering communities.
  Notably, a significant amount of low-to-moderate-income borrowers now 
do

[[Page 18444]]

not qualify for a mortgage based on the rule's 43 percent debt-to-
income ratio requirement. In fact, according to the Federal Reserve, 22 
percent of those who borrowed to buy a home in 2010, after the 
financial crisis, 1 out of every 5 borrowers would not have met this 
requirement.
  Mr. Speaker, these are hardworking, everyday people we are talking 
about. These are the people we are fighting for today.
  It is our local community banks and credit unions that have 
longstanding relationships with these everyday people, and they are in 
the best position to judge creditworthiness and ability to repay.
  But the QM rule effectively takes that opportunity away from these 
community institutions and subjects them to an increased potential 
liability should they ever decide to stray outside the regulation. This 
is why, as the American Banker and others have put it well, for 
community financial institutions, QM means quitting mortgages.
  Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, this commonsense legislation that we are 
considering today offers a real opportunity to change this. In short, 
the bill provides a very reasonable tradeoff for financial 
institutions.
  Should an institution decide to hold a mortgage in portfolio and 
retain the risk of default on its balance sheet, the institution 
receives the legal protections that are otherwise afforded by the QM 
rule.
  On the other hand, if that institution decides not to hold the 
mortgage in portfolio, sells it in the secondary market and does not 
retain the risk, the institution does not receive those legal 
protections.
  By providing this option, the legislation will allow institutions to 
meet the credit demands of their consumers while incentivizing them to 
ensure that potential borrowers can meet the monthly obligations of a 
mortgage.
  In other words, it properly realigns the risk, facilitates effective 
underwriting by lenders, and ensures that mortgages will be readily 
available for deserving homebuyers.
  Mr. Speaker, let's pass this legislation so we can help transform 
community through home ownership.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the vice chair of the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus and a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
for her leadership to protect consumers.
  H.R. 1210 would allow the largest banks in the country to deal in the 
types of predatory and risky loans which brought down Washington 
Mutual, Wachovia, Countrywide, Lehman, Bear Stearns and, eventually, 
the entire economy.
  It undermines one of the most important titles of the Dodd-Frank Act 
and one of the most significant consumer protection rules implemented 
by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  Furthermore, this bill contains a provision which explicitly allows 
mortgage brokers to steer borrowers to riskier, more expensive loans, 
regardless of what they qualify for.
  Some supporters of this bill think that, if banks hold these loans 
and, therefore, their risks in their own portfolios, they will be 
careful not to originate bad loans, but this isn't true. It is not 
true.
  Several portfolio lenders went under during the crisis due to a 
failure to underwrite loans because they were focused on short-term 
benefits of up-front fees rather than the long-term performance of the 
mortgages that they originated.
  Investment banks also chased these short-term profits and bought up 
risky derivatives based on loans that were poorly underwritten without 
due diligence.
  More importantly, this bill does not change what types of loans a 
bank is allowed to make. It just removes consumer protections from the 
riskiest subprime loans.
  The CFPB's ability to repay rule is the only line of defense against 
predatory mortgage practices that brought down the economy and 
destroyed billions in homeowners' wealth, and it is working.
  Under the new mortgage rules, defaults are down and lending to 
minorities is up. Last quarter had the most loan originations since the 
third quarter of 2007. The rules are protecting consumers while also 
fostering competition among banks and growing the economy.
  We should not change a rule that is working. If it ain't broke, don't 
fix it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The great American philosopher Ron White has a saying, and it says, 
``You can't fix stupid.'' So I guess that is the reason we can't fix 
the QM rule that has come from the CFPB because it is stupid.
  Here is the reason why. Why would we not want to give a bank or a 
credit union the ability to loan somebody money when they are taking 
100 percent of the responsibility for the person to pay back that loan?
  That is exactly what H.R. 1210 does. It says that a small bank, a 
community bank, or credit union--I don't really care who it is--is 
willing to put up their own money to somebody that they may know in 
their community that might not have the ability to have credit 
otherwise to be able to buy a house.
  I had that personal experience. Before I went in the building 
business, the only thing that I had was a home. So I went and I paid 
about 13 percent interest. I probably paid a number of points at 
closing to be able to open up my building business. In doing that, I 
was able to do that and I was able to pay back that loan. But had these 
rules been in effect, that would not have been possible to do.
  There are other Americans and there are other people out there 
waiting to get their foothold in society by buying a house, becoming 
part of the American Dream. And, to me, part of that dream is home 
ownership.
  So the philosopher is right. You can't fix stupid.
  The CFPB has come up with many stupid rules, but I have got to give 
this one the crown, because why we would want to keep people from 
having credit and the ability to prosper and to move on and to grow in 
their life and provide shelter for their family is beyond me.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the fact is that 2008 was a 
horrendous time here in Congress, but it was even worse across America. 
You can go into neighborhoods not just in my district in Minnesota but 
all over the country--Florida, Arizona, and California--all over the 
country, and the foreclosure crisis was wreaking havoc from sea to 
shining sea. Why? Because of poor underwriting standards. Why else? 
Because we didn't require much of anything to prove that people could 
pay a loan back.
  I remember these days, and I remember them so well that I am not 
really one to want to return to them right away. I think Congress has a 
duty to protect homeowners and protect consumers from predatory 
lenders. I vividly recall panic. I vividly recall the loss in property 
values, and I vividly recall the exploding unemployment numbers. I 
remember the calls from homeowners in my district facing foreclosure.
  In Hennepin County, which is the county in which Minneapolis is 
located, we had more than 35,000 foreclosures since 2007. In many 
cases,

[[Page 18445]]

these home buyers were sold loans with predatory terms even though they 
qualified for better mortgages. They were literally steered to bad 
mortgages.
  I have talked to people both young and elderly, people who had 
English as a second language, and people who have been born speaking 
English their whole lives, in fact, a diverse group of people who were 
steered to cash-out refinancing that stripped them of their wealth and 
left them homeless.
  We acted to stop these predatory practices, and I am proud that we 
did. Dodd-Frank was good legislation to try to stop these irresponsible 
practices. We passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act and created a standard mortgage, one that we call a 
qualified mortgage. This is a good step. It was wise to create a nice, 
boring mortgage loan product. It was a good idea.
  Qualified loans must not at the time of origination be interest only 
or negatively amortizing, have a term longer than 30 years, be a no-
income, no-documentation loan, also known as liar loans, be a balloon 
loan, have a cap on fees and points, and leave the borrower with a 
debt-to-income ratio of greater than 43 percent.
  These are commonsense requirements, and if you get a loan like this, 
it is probably going to be fine. These commonsense requirements are 
going to enable sustainable homeownership and allow people to maintain 
that American Dream that they have been hoping for and saving for for 
so long.
  The fact is, we remember when we had yield spread premium. We 
remember no-doc, NINJA loans. We remember these interest-only loans and 
negative amortization. These things were ruinous and harmed the 
American working and middle classes. These commonsense requirements--
these commonsense requirements--are what we should do.
  Here we are today. H.R. 1210 seeks to repeal these protections. They 
want to take us back in time. They want to put us at risk and tender 
mercies again. The fact is, it is a huge mistake.
  H.R. 1210 would allow banks with assets up to $1 trillion to seek 
mortgage brokers to issue the kinds of exotic products which caused the 
financial collapse.
  Even before the ink on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform bill was 
dry, there were people trying to undermine it. Even before we even 
implemented the rules, all the rules from Dodd-Frank have not even been 
in place yet, we are trying to change it and undermine it, really to 
kick the door open so that the American working and middle class can be 
at the tender mercies of unscrupulous lenders again. That is not to say 
that all home lenders are unscrupulous. Many are good. But it doesn't 
take that many to really ruin the industry.
  These changes that H.R. 1210 proposes would encourage lenders to make 
loans that are not in the best interest of the home buyer, and this I 
have to stand against. But I am not by myself. Not only does our 
ranking member know that this is a bad idea--and many Members of this 
body--but also the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People, the NAACP, is well aware this is bad legislation. The 
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights knows it. Americans for 
Financial Reform knows it. And the Consumer Federation of America and 
dozens more are opposing this piece of legislation.
  Some argue that because these loans will be held in the portfolio of 
the lender, they will be high quality loans. This is not true. This is 
a faulty assumption, and it is wrong. They miss the whole point of the 
qualified mortgage rule enacted in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
and Consumer Protection Act. Mortgage rules are designed to provide 
safeguards that would create a safer mortgage product for the 
borrowers. Simply keeping a loan in a portfolio is not necessarily a 
substitute for the type of sound underwriting mortgage rules are 
designed to establish.
  There is ample evidence that predatory loans can and have been held 
in portfolio. Some of the largest mortgage lenders that failed during 
the financial crisis were large portfolio lenders like Countrywide, 
Washington Mutual, and Wachovia. These lenders can still make money on 
defaulted loans. During the 3 years before the crisis, 70 percent of 
subprime loans were refinanced loans, Mr. Speaker, not purchased loans. 
With refis, borrowers bring the equity to the table. If the bank 
charges upfront fees and recovers the money from a foreclosure, 
predatory loans can be profitable even if they default. The same is 
true for predatory purchase loans when home values aren't falling. And 
that is why we are going to stand here and protect home buyers.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' 
on H.R. 1210. And just remember, it has only been a few years since we 
passed Dodd-Frank. It has only been not even a decade since the 
financial crisis that really, really caused tremendous havoc to the 
American working and middle classes. After the Great Depression of the 
1930s, at least it took them a couple of decades before they tried to 
dismantle all the financial protections. They haven't even taken a 
single decade. They are back at it again and fighting tooth and nail to 
leave the American working and middle class at the tender mercies of 
people who have nothing but the profit motive in mind.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this piece of 
legislation. It is not worthy, and I urge a strong ``no'' vote.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, it is important to respond to the rhetoric 
from the other side because I don't think they are really understanding 
what we are trying to do here. What we are not talking about are the 
predatory, abusive, and risky loans that they are referring to. That is 
not what we are talking about here. We are not talking about opaque 
subprime securitizations. We are not talking about the GSE exemption to 
the qualified mortgage rule.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, where is the outrage with the FHFA, the 
regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for not prohibiting Fannie 
Mae, Freddy Mac, and the GSEs from buying these non-QM mortgages that 
they are complaining about? What we are talking about are portfolio 
loans where the risk is on the shareholder, not on the taxpayer.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my good friend from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr) for his leadership on this important bill for 
consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1210, the Portfolio Lending 
and Mortgage Access Act. Since the creation of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, it seems that all they have done is make it more 
difficult for businesses to grow and create jobs and to restrict 
choices for consumers. America needs an opportunity economy not 
hampered with massive bureaucratic regulations.
  The CFPB's qualified mortgage rule is anti-opportunity. It does 
nothing but force overly burdensome underwriting requirements on 
hardworking American families and community financial institutions, 
making it harder for creditworthy individuals to buy a home they can 
afford to keep.
  The Independent Community Bankers Association reports that 73 percent 
of community bankers have decreased their mortgage business or 
completely stopped providing mortgage loans due to the expense of 
complying with this regulatory burden.
  Mr. Speaker, I sat on a community bank board for over 10 years. We 
knew who was creditworthy. We had personal relationships with our 
customers. We knew their character. Today, Mr. Speaker, it is one size 
fits all.
  We understand the nature of loans and extending credit. Yet what is 
required today is a box to check. If you can't check all the boxes, you 
won't get a loan. The regulators today, just like they did before the 
crisis, are putting mandates on community financial

[[Page 18446]]

institutions, whom you can loan money to and whom you can't loan money 
to. This type of excessive regulation is what is killing the 
opportunities and choices for the American consumers.
  Since I have been in Congress, I regularly hear how Washington's red 
tape prevents community financial institutions from serving their 
customers' needs. H.R. 1210 goes a long way to ensure community banks 
and credit unions, who know their customers and communities, are able 
to serve hardworking American families, and they should not be impeded 
by needless and misguided meddling of Washington bureaucrats.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  Mr. TIPTON. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kentucky, 
Representative Barr, for offering this piece of legislation.
  This bipartisan Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act responsibly 
expands access to mortgage credit without creating additional risk to 
the financial system or to the taxpayer. By allowing insured depository 
institutions to hold residential mortgage loans in portfolio and have 
them treated as qualified mortgages, this bill encourages strong 
underwriting standards for lenders while also giving access to credit 
for young families and first-time home buyers. These are people who may 
not otherwise be able to meet the ability to repay requirements.
  Existing mortgage rules are overly restrictive and have made it 
difficult and, in some cases, impossible for banks to be able to make 
otherwise safe and sound loans to creditworthy borrowers. This bill 
puts the ``community'' back in community lending.
  Mr. Speaker, in my district and many others across the U.S., access 
to mortgage credit is crucial. Unfortunately, many smaller community 
banks have been forced to stop mortgage lending since they could not 
afford the expensive compliance and personnel associated with those 
costs. They simply made too few mortgage loans to be able to cover 
their costs. In rural areas, this is a significant problem because 
customers often do not have the alternative to find a lender to be able 
to approach for mortgage products.
  Thankfully, this legislation promotes the type of lending that will 
boost the housing market in a safe and responsible manner without 
taxpayer exposure. Portfolio lending is among the most traditional and 
lowest risk lending in which a bank can engage. Loans held in portfolio 
are well underwritten and conservative by their very nature since the 
lender retains 100 percent of the credit and interest rate risk on 
their own books.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to lend my support to this bill and encourage 
my colleagues to be able to support this commonsense measure. Again, I 
thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his efforts on this bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1210, the Portfolio Lending 
and Mortgage Access bill, designed by my good friend from Kentucky.
  We have seen in Arkansas loan approval rates decline significantly 
since the QM rules were put in place. One bank noted a 40 percent 
decline in eligible borrowers.
  Today, I just want to tell a story. A community banker in my district 
called this week and said that he has a customer that from time to time 
just needs catch-up money, money to catch up on bills, medical 
expenses, or to help out her kids. But her credit score is in the low 
range of acceptable, and therefore, she doesn't qualify for unsecured 
credit, and therefore, she uses the equity in her house. She has been 
doing it for years and paid back those lines over and over again with 
no problems.
  Now she has to go through the ability-to-repay process, which is long 
and arduous and, unfortunately for her, leading to mistrust between a 
long-term client and her hometown bank.
  As a former chairman, CEO, and president of a community bank in 
Arkansas, I can assure you that members of our boards of directors 
across this country scrutinize all portfolio loans, both those that are 
sold and those kept on the books. But there is no better incentive than 
to have good underwriting and to ensure the customer has the ability to 
repay the loan held on the balance sheet of one of our financial 
institutions.
  That is what we are talking about here today.
  Community institutions know best how to serve their communities and 
their clients--not Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Poliquin).
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I am still scratching my head. I am still scratching my 
head at some of the folks on the other side of the aisle. I have no 
idea why they do not want to help those folks that are less fortunate 
than others in this country.
  This is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for all of us in this Chamber, 
Republicans and Democrats, to step forward and show some compassion for 
folks that want to live in their own home.
  I urge all of my colleagues right here today to support H.R. 1210, 
and I salute Mr. Barr from Kentucky for the hard work that he did to 
put this Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act together. I also 
thank Chairman Hensarling for his leadership in bringing this out of 
the committee and to the floor.
  I enjoy, Mr. Speaker, traveling through my Second District in Maine, 
the most beautiful part of the world, and I love talking to our small 
credit unions and community banks. I talk to the folks up at the Maine 
Family Credit Union in Lewiston or the Bangor Savings Bank, and they 
tell me how difficult it is to navigate through this huge, complex, 
2,300-page Dodd-Frank law that is preventing them from lending money to 
families who are creditworthy and who deserve these loans.
  One specific part of the Dodd-Frank law, Mr. Barr's bill addresses. 
It is called the qualified mortgage rule, or QM. This is a one-size-
fits-all rule that does not work for many of the families in Maine.
  Now, let's say you are a lobster fisherman in the down east part of 
our State and you want to borrow money from the Machias Savings Bank to 
buy a new home because you have a couple of new kids and you need a new 
bathroom, but your monthly income, Mr. Speaker, may vary depending on 
when you set your traps, when you pull your traps, and when you sell 
your catch to a dealer. Now, what the regulators want is they want to 
see a smooth, equal 12 mortgage payments to repay that loan; but that 
might not be the case, Mr. Speaker, because your job doesn't work that 
way.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman from Maine an additional 10 
seconds.
  Mr. POLIQUIN. In addition to that, Machias Savings Bank may have 
known your family for 50 years. Now, on top of this, Mr. Speaker, the 
bank takes all the risk. They own the load. So, God forbid, if a storm 
comes up and sinks your traps and your boat in the harbor and you can't 
make those loan payments, there is no risk to the market because the 
bank owns the loan.
  I ask everybody, Mr. Speaker, to stand up and show compassion for the 
folks around this country who want to buy a home and do qualify for 
these loans.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.

[[Page 18447]]

  Proponents of H.R. 1210 argue that if banks keep loans in portfolio, 
they have every incentive to make sure those mortgages are sustainable 
and good for both the bank and the borrowers. Therefore, loans held in 
portfolio should automatically receive the CFPB's legal safe harbor 
under the qualified mortgage rule. This simply ignores the history of 
the recent crisis. How can banks benefit from loans that are 
unsustainable in the long term?
  Let's look at how it really works:
  Step one, underwrite a mortgage with high, up-front fees. Though an 
honest broker may charge a 1 percent fee, a Better Business Bureau 
study from just before the crisis showed mortgage brokers often making 
5 percent in up-front fees. On a $200,000 mortgage, that is $10,000 
just for one loan. Other examples are appraisal fees, escrow fees, 
settlement fees, homeowners insurance. These fees could go back to the 
loan originator on an unlimited basis, and originators could still have 
legal protection under H.R. 1210.
  Step two, protect your bank from consumer defaults by requiring 
expensive private mortgage insurance.
  Step three, underwrite a large number of loans so that the fees add 
up--volume churn, volume churn. This has the added benefit of keeping 
regional home prices high by flooding the market with buyers.
  Step four, refuse to offer loan modifications. Banks can divest from 
loss mitigation processes and keep the profits from the high up-front 
fees and mortgage volumes.
  Step five, foreclose on the borrower and prevent them from suing the 
lender for lending violations. Once the borrower defaults, the lender 
can then repossess the collateral. If home prices have risen, they can 
sell the home for a profit all the while keeping their up-front fees. 
Meanwhile, H.R. 1210 would provide the lenders with a legal shield 
against CFPB enforcement or private fair lending litigation.
  Over and over, Republicans have attacked the CFPB and the important 
protections it provides to American consumers. Yet again, we are 
wasting time on the floor considering a bill the President has already 
pledged to veto when we could be doing other important business.
  What this bill does is very simple. It forgets all of the lessons of 
the financial crisis of 2008 and allows the country's biggest banks to 
put consumers and the economy at risk by bringing back complex, high-
cost mortgages. The bill resurrects a practice that allows mortgage 
brokers to receive bonuses from the big banks in exchange for steering 
consumers into expensive, risky loans.
  After the financial crisis, the Department of Justice investigated 
these practices and found that minority communities were sought out by 
mortgage brokers and targeted for risky loans, even in the cases where 
the borrowers were qualified for prime loans. These are the same types 
of loans that destroyed the life savings of millions of Americans that 
ended up in foreclosure.
  And then when I studied foreclosure practices at the largest banks, I 
discovered that the same banks that made these mortgages were also 
guilty of robo-signing. Remember that? Robo-signing, wrongfully 
foreclosing on families that were up to date on their payments and 
fabricating paperwork to defraud consumers.
  The Dodd-Frank Act and the CFPB have reined in these predatory 
practices, yet I have had to come down to the floor over and over again 
to defend our work eliminating fraud in the financial system. We have 
already seen what happens when regulators do not do their jobs: 
consumers are left on the hook. We must defend the work we have done in 
the Dodd-Frank Act and the important work that CFPB continues to do. So 
certainly I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
  It has been said over and over again by this side of the aisle that 
it appears that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle are 
forgetting the lessons of 2008, forgetting what happened when we 
brought this country to a recession, almost a depression, forgetting 
the communities that have been destroyed with these foreclosures, 
forgetting these lessons, and coming back to the Congress of the United 
States disregarding all of the harm that we have caused to families and 
communities and presenting legislation that could put them back in the 
same position.
  Well, we wonder why our constituents and consumers don't trust us 
anymore. They don't trust us because of these kinds of attempts to 
present public policy that again could harm our economy and harm these 
families and these communities. They wonder why it is we continue down 
this path.
  We bailed out the biggest banks in America. We bailed out big 
insurance companies in America. We took the taxpayers' money, and we 
literally said to the people who had caused the harm: We forgive you. 
It is okay. We are going to make sure you stay in business. We are 
going to make sure that you have the ability to make money.
  And while the taxpayers watch this, still many are reeling from the 
loss of their homes. And homelessness has increased in my own city of 
Los Angeles, over 12 to 15 percent increase in homelessness. Some of 
those families are there because they are victims of the predatory 
practices that we allowed our regulators to turn their heads and bring 
harm to these families and these communities.
  I don't understand why you don't understand simply ability to repay. 
I don't understand why you would simply say let the biggest banks in 
America have portfolio loans if they don't have to be worried about 
qualified mortgages. I don't get it.
  Why don't you err, if you are going to err, on the side of the 
consumer? What is it about the biggest financial institutions in 
America that can promote this kind of public policy and have so many 
Members, particularly on the opposite side of the aisle, doing their 
bidding? I don't get it. I don't understand, and I don't understand why 
many of your constituents don't really know what is going on.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not easy work. As you know, working on the 
Financial Services Committee is extremely difficult and time-consuming 
work.
  Here we are divided: one side of the aisle going back to the risky 
days, another side of the aisle protecting the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau and saying that we have to protect that Bureau no 
matter how much you attack it.
  Again, I want to remind you, before Dodd-Frank and this centerpiece 
that was organized for reform, where we created the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, think about the name--Consumer, Financial, 
Protection, Bureau--protecting those who had been dropped off the 
protection agenda by our own regulators.
  So we created something, and we named it in such a way that consumers 
and our constituents would understand that we are sorry for what 
happened to them and we don't like the fact that we almost destroyed 
this economy. We support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We 
will not go back to those days prior to 2008; and, whether you like it 
or not, this Bureau is here to stay, and we are going to defend it with 
every ounce of energy that we have.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that the ranking member says ``we 
have to protect the CFPB,'' the very same CFPB that the Federal 
Reserve's inspector general says, ``minorities underrepresented in 
upper pay bands''; the very same CFPB, ``minority applicants not hired 
in proportion to qualifications.'' She wants to protect the CFPB where 
``minority employees receive lower performance ratings,'' wants to 
protect a qualified mortgage rule which the Federal Reserve says one-
third of Blacks and Hispanics will no longer be able to qualify for 
mortgages. Yet the ranking member says we have to protect CFPB.

[[Page 18448]]

  No, we have to protect the American people from CFPB, the CFPB that 
is trying to take away their mortgages.
  I hear almost every week from some credit union or community bank, 
like the First Arkansas Bank and Trust, who wrote:
  ``Our bank has a long history of helping consumers, especially those 
who, for some reason, cannot qualify for secondary market financing at 
the time. Due to the fact that this type of financing is now overly 
burdened by the qualified mortgage standards, we have ceased this type 
of financing.''
  This includes for mobile homes. That is low-income people, Mr. 
Speaker.
  We hear from the Reading Cooperative Bank, ``We have experienced a 
spike in loan declines to women,'' for their investigation identified 
that women attempting to buy the family home to settle their divorce 
and stabilize their family were being declined at a high rate due to 
the Dodd-Frank qualified mortgage rules and ability to pay.

                              {time}  1630

  We hear this stuff all the time. We have to protect the consumer, and 
we protect the consumer by having competitive, transparent, innovative 
free markets that are vigorously policed for force and fraud and 
deception. It is not by having this vaunted CFPB. I am shocked that we 
have the ranking member again talking about discrimination, but, 
apparently, it is okay if the CFPB practices it. That is outrageous, 
Mr. Speaker. It is simply outrageous. The American people will not 
abide by it.
  We have to protect the American consumers in their opportunity for 
the American Dream of homeownership. That is why every single Member 
should vote for the legislation from the gentleman from Kentucky, which 
is so simple. It says, if you make the loan and you keep your books, it 
is a qualified mortgage, and you have your shot at the American Dream. 
I urge the adoption of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
  The Chair understands that the amendment made in order pursuant to 
the first section of House Resolution 529 will not be offered.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill, 
as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit 
at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Thompson of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     1210 to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Page 2, line 5, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 2, line 8, strike the period at the end and insert ``; 
     and''.
       Page 2, after line 8, insert the following:
       ``(iii) the consumer is not a veteran or a member of the 
     Armed Forces.''.
       Page 3, line 3, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 3, line 7, strike the period at the end and insert ``; 
     and''.
       Page 3, after line 7, insert the following:
       ``(C) the consumer is not a veteran or a member of the 
     Armed Forces.''.

  Mr. THOMPSON of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker and Members, the bill on the 
floor before us is a rotten deal for all consumers, but it is 
especially bad for our servicemembers.
  When you are a servicemember, you are often forced to relocate with 
little notice. That puts our men and women in uniform under tremendous 
pressure to obtain housing for themselves and for their families, all 
the while managing the enormous duties that military service requires. 
It is a lot to handle. We know this and so do the financial predators. 
That is why we often see them setting up shop around our military 
bases.
  If a servicemember is targeted and sold a bad mortgage, why don't the 
authors of this bill want to allow them some recourse to make things 
right?
  As a combat veteran, I understand the pressures placed on our 
military. Our men and women in uniform often don't have the time to 
investigate mortgages in detail. They have to trust that no one is 
taking advantage of them. The problem is people often do take advantage 
of them. It is a despicable practice that is matched only by the 
majority's bill, which denies them the opportunity to sue the predatory 
lender to make things right.
  My amendment would change this. It would allow any servicemember or 
veteran to sue a predatory lender regardless of who holds the loan. The 
mere fact that a predatory lender holds a bad mortgage shouldn't 
prevent servicemembers from being able to take action to make things 
right.
  I know my colleagues on the other side are going to vote to deny 
protections to your average, hard-working American family who had the 
bad fortune of being sold a bad mortgage; but at the very least, let's 
exempt servicemembers from this bill. We ask enough of them already.
  Reports from the Department of Defense have noted that financial 
stress can affect a servicemember's performance and combat readiness. 
And a DOD report specifically states: ``Forty-eight percent of enlisted 
servicemembers are less than 25 years old, have little experience 
managing their finances, and have little in savings to help them 
through emergencies.''
  Yet, on the heels of Veterans Day, when Member after Member came to 
the floor to praise our veterans, this majority wants to return 7 days 
later and put predatory lenders ahead of our men and women in uniform. 
Their bill limits consumer protections for servicemembers. It hurts our 
Armed Forces, and it hurts their families. It increases strain on 
people who already volunteer for a stressful, dangerous job; and it 
reduces combat readiness.
  Let's not forget all we pledged just a week ago on Veterans Day. 
Let's put our policy in line with our rhetoric. Let's protect our 
troops. Let's protect their families. Let's protect our country. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I certainly salute the gentleman for his 
service to our country in uniform and for his service to our country in 
Congress.
  Although I applaud his service, I do not applaud what he is bringing 
before the House in this motion to recommit, because what his motion to 
recommit will do, regardless of what he says it will do, is hurt 
veterans. It will hurt their homeownership opportunities.
  I don't know if the gentleman was on the floor when I shared with the 
House correspondence from just two community financial institutions 
that were saying that they can't make mortgage loans anymore under this 
QM rule. We know for a fact that, when fully implemented, 20 percent of 
the people who qualified for mortgages just 5 years ago--after the 
financial crisis--would

[[Page 18449]]

no longer qualify, many of them veterans. We know the Federal Reserve 
has said that, when the QM rule is fully functional, one-third of all 
Blacks and Hispanics, many of them veterans, will not be able to 
qualify for mortgages.
  Again, it is why so many in the industry are calling ``QM'' not 
``qualified mortgage,'' Mr. Speaker, but ``quitting mortgages.'' We 
don't want banks and credit unions to be quitting on mortgages for our 
brave men and women in uniform. They deserve the same homeownership 
opportunities. Frankly, they deserve better homeownership opportunities 
than the rest of the population.
  I would urge that the House reject this motion to recommit because, 
at the end of the day, what is going to be best for our veterans--what 
is going to be best for the American people--is more competition in the 
mortgage market, not less, not taking away their financing 
opportunities, particularly those who are of low income and 
particularly our veterans. No. We want to have competitive, 
transparent, innovative markets. They need to be policed for force and 
fraud and deception. We want as many different financial institutions 
creating as many opportunities for homeownership for the American 
people and for our veterans as possible. I would urge the House to 
reject this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and passage of H.R. 
1737.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184, 
nays 242, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 635]

                               YEAS--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Calvert
     DeFazio
     Foster
     Hurt (VA)
     McCollum
     Ruppersberger
     Takai

                              {time}  1707

  Messrs. FARENTHOLD, CARTER of Georgia, KELLY of Mississippi, FRANKS 
of Arizona, and DOLD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BECERRA, Ms. KAPTUR, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, Ms. LOFGREN, and Mr. RUSH 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 635, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 635, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall 
vote No. 635, a recorded vote on the Motion to Recommit with 
instructions on H.R. 1210. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 255, 
nays 174, not voting 4, as follows:

[[Page 18450]]



                             [Roll No. 636]

                               YEAS--255

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--174

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     DeFazio
     Ruppersberger
     Takai
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1714

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________