Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a valued member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House is H. Res. 450 which, as I understand it, would establish the rule for debate on this Ex-Im reauthorization bill, that it does not make in order any amendments. The closed rule means that in addition to not having any debate on the rule--since all time has now been yielded back, with no other Member having a chance to speak--Members have been denied their chance to participate in that part of the process. My parliamentary inquiry is whether there is any way, at this juncture, for Members to amend the resolution, H. Res. 450, to give Members an opportunity to offer amendments to the underlying Ex-Im reauthorization bill?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. HENSARLING. If the previous question is defeated, may I or any Member who votes against the previous question claim time to offer such an amendment to create an open rules process for consideration of the underlying Ex-Im reauthorization bill where Members on both sides of the aisle can offer amendments to the bill?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HENSARLING. So, if the previous question is defeated, then a Member who is opposed to the previous question would be afforded the opportunity to offer an amendment to H. Res. 450 that would strike the text of the closed, no amendments rule and replace it with the text of a rule that provided for consideration of the underlying Ex-Im reauthorization bill through an open process, with time for debate, where any Member--either Republican or Democrat--could offer germane amendments to the bill. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

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. 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. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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. 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. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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.

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.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

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. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to recommit on H.R. 3192 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.