Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very, very strong opposition to this closed rule which provides for the consideration of H.R. 3192, the so-called Homebuyers Assistance Act. Today's rule marks the 42nd closed rule we have considered during the 114th Congress, the 42nd. More than half of all the rules we have reported out of the Rules Committee have been closed, completely closed, and a majority of the bills the Rules Committee has sent to the floor have drawn a veto threat. This bill is no exception. I will insert into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy saying: ``If the President were presented with H.R. 3192, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.'' Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, October 6, 2015. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 3192--Homebuyers Assistance Act (Rep. Hill, R-AR, and one cosponsor) Americans deserve clear and easy to understand disclosures of the cost of buying and financing a home, which is why the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to streamline conflicting disclosures that were required under the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Know Before You Owe regulation issued by the CFPB almost two years ago fulfills this mandate by requiring mortgage lenders and settlement agents to provide homebuyers with simpler forms that explain the true cost of buying their home at least three days before closing. This summer, the CFPB extended the effective date for these requirements by two months, to last Saturday, October 3, 2015, to provide for a smooth transition and avoid unnecessary disruptions to busy families seeking to close on a new home at the beginning of the school year. H.R. 3192 would revise the effective date for the Know Before You Owe rule to February 1, 2016, and would shield lenders from liability for violations for loans originated before February 1 so long as lenders made a good faith effort to comply. The CFPB has already clearly stated that initial examinations will evaluate good faith efforts by lenders. The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3192, as it would unnecessarily delay implementation of important consumer protections designed to eradicate opaque lending practices that contribute to risky mortgages, hurt homeowners by removing the private right of action for violations, and undercut the Nation's financial stability. If the President were presented with H.R. 3192, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I disagree with your analysis, but we should have a debate on the amendment. What is wrong with bringing this amendment up and debating it? That was the question.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is clear we have a disagreement here, and it ought to be resolved in an open and fair fashion with a debate and a vote on an amendment. We are not going to have that. So I am just going to close by saying to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle I have got a radical idea for what I think is the greatest democratic institution in the world, the United States Congress. That radical idea is that we ought to allow a little democracy to happen here. We ought to not be afraid of debate. We ought to not be afraid of allowing at least one amendment--that is all, one amendment--to come to the floor so that the concerns that we have voiced on our side of the aisle, a worry that consumers will once again become victims and get a raw deal, could be avoided. We ought to have that debate, and we ought to vote up or down on it. This grace period is, as I said, supported by everybody. It is supported by the CFPB. We are all on board on that. That is not the controversy. The controversy is this added stuff. And the way the majority has decided to handle this--to shut the whole process down-- that is, I think, beneath what this institution should be about. So I would urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to please vote against this rule. Send a message to the leadership here that we need to do this better. We need a better process. This process is lousy, and we all should be fed up with it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me again say we have no objection to a grace period. In fact, we support it. I signed the gentleman from Kentucky's letter. That is not the controversy here. It is what we think is language that could do potential harm to consumers. Let me just say to the gentleman, in the real world, we have seen consumers get a raw deal time and time again, in large part because of the lack of oversight and the lack of defense they get in this Chamber. So, yes, we are standing up for consumers because we don't want to see them continue to get a raw deal. That is what we are concerned about. If you want to disagree with me on that, fine. But that is no reason to not allow there to be a debate on an amendment that is germane to this bill that would correct what we think is a flaw in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters.) Ms. MAXINE WATERS from California. Mr. Speaker and Members, we have to keep saying over and over again that this is not about the grace period. They keep arguing that somehow they favor a grace period, and we do not. We have made it clear that is not what the debate is about. We support a grace period. Not only that, Mr. Cordray at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau supports a grace period. That is not the argument here. The argument is what you don't want to talk about, my amendment that I attempted. You came to this floor with a closed rule to keep us from talking about an amendment that would protect the consumers. My amendment would allow that consumers have a right to have their day in court. When you talk about good faith and the way that this bill is written, of course. In my opinion, when a consumer in this grace period takes a look at the documents and if it is simply a comma, as one has indicated, well, that could be a mistake in good faith, and the lender will be okay. But when the interest rates change, when there are more fees than were anticipated, when the cost of that mortgage goes up and the consumer says, ``Hey, this is not what I really intended. This is not what I agreed to,'' and the lender says, ``Sorry, that is it. That is what you signed up for,'' then the consumer has a right to go to court. And even though you would place the responsibility on the consumer to have to prove that the lender did not act in good faith, different from what the law is now, that consumer should have the right to go to court and make his or her case. That is what this amendment is all about, and you know it. It is not about bringing your props in trying to say this is the bill. That is not the bill. You have all of the comments and everything else that is associated with the bill. So let's get some truth out here and have people understand what the amendment is and not just props showing that you have thousands of pages of a bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. What I have argued is that the burden shouldn't be on the consumer. Your legislation adds a whole new dimension to this debate that, quite frankly, has us concerned. At a minimum, it deserves a debate on this floor. This is the rule. We are debating how we are going to debate the underlying legislation. I have not yet heard one reason why we can't have an amendment to try to correct what we think is an injustice and a potential harmful impact on our consumers.

Mr. McGOVERN. What I am arguing----

Mr. McGOVERN. What I am arguing----

Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky, I signed his letter. I agree with him. There should be a grace period. If that is what we were talking about right now, I don't think there would be much of a debate. We got what we wanted. But ``yes'' is not a good enough answer for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. So you bring something that might be a redundant bill. But I would be less exercised over voting for a redundant bill if that is all it was. But you expanded it. You added something that wasn't in the letter. Basically, you added something that we strongly believe jeopardizes consumers. Now, what makes us even more exercised over here is that the Rules Committee reported out a rule that denied the right of the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Ms. Waters of California, to bring an amendment to remedy that to the floor--a totally closed rule. The one real controversy about what we are doing here today is this provision that we think hurts consumers, and we can't have a vote on it. Mr. Speaker, the amendment was germane. She is the ranking member. We are only asking for 1 minute. We are not doing anything else here of any consequence. We are not trying to figure out our long-term budget problems. So you could give us another 10 minutes to debate an amendment, and you have chosen to not do that. I will just say one other thing. Everybody holds up that prop, the 1,800 pages of regulations. But let's just help break it down because we are into a lot of props in this place. We ought to also understand what the facts are. First, the 1,800 pages are contained in the double-spaced document. The text in the Federal Register is actually not 1,800 pages, but 634 pages, roughly one-third of that. The rule itself, the regulatory text, is only 26 pages--only 26 pages. Mr. Speaker, 171 pages are sample and model forms which my friends on the other side of the aisle say we want the agency to help provide industry with concrete guidance. So there are 171 pages of sample and model forms in there. We have further breakdown here if my friends are interested. Let's be clear. None of us here object. In fact, we all support the grace period. That is not what is contentious about this debate. It is this anti-consumer provision that has been inserted in this bill by my Republican friends that have us concerned. At a minimum, the Rules Committee ought to have allowed for there to be a debate where that could be voted up or down. If my friends don't like it, they can vote ``no.'' Instead, we hear excuses, Oh, no, it wasn't offered in the full committee, as if that somehow is a reason to deny a Member the right to offer an amendment to the floor; Oh, we can't make it in order because, oh, it won't pass anyway, a new standard now by the Rules Committee in terms of what will be made in order. Just give us the amendment. Let's have a real debate. Let's actually be deliberative for a change here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, we have some serious disagreements with the gentleman over how this bill, in our opinion, adversely impacts consumers. This good faith exception is not in the current law as it stands. This is new ground that this bill is moving us toward, and there are some real serious concerns for consumers. All we are saying is, again, our priority is the consumers. If that is not the priority of my Republican friends, fine; you can defend the language that you put into this bill. But there is controversy over this, and we ought to be able to debate it. To simply say, you know, ``Oh, if we made it in order, it would fail anyway,'' is that going to be the new kind of standard for making amendments in order, that we are only going to allow amendments to come to the floor that we absolutely know will pass? Boy, that is a whole new standard that the Rules Committee and the Republican majority are now going to try to enforce. Again, one amendment, one by the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction--one. That is it, one. Give her 10 minutes. I mean, I don't get why this had to be completely closed. But in any event, you are in charge. You can do whatever you want. And this place is being run under the strictest, most closed process, as I mentioned before, in the history of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, whose amendment was germane and was deliberately not made in order by the Republicans on the Rules Committee last night.

Mr. McGOVERN. The burden is on the consumer here. If we have a disagreement here, let's have an amendment; let's have that debate, and let's vote on it. That is all I am asking. We disagree. I think I am right, and I think you are wrong, but let's have that debate.

Mr. McGOVERN. This bill shifts to the consumer the burden of proving a creditor acted in bad faith, and that puts more of the burden on the consumer. If that is what the gentleman wants to do, fine. We have a disagreement. We want the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) to be able to have her amendment so we can debate that issue.

Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, so the excuse is that this was not made in order because the ranking member did not offer this in committee. Who cares? We have a debate on the House floor. This is supposed to be a deliberative body. We are supposed to be able to debate these things. The gentleman did not say it was not germane. The gentleman did not say it needed special waivers to be made in order. He just said: Hey, she didn't bring it up in the full committee. So we decided in the Rules Committee to say no, you don't have the right to be able to offer this and debate it. Please. I mean, come on. This place is becoming a place where serious issues are not even allowed to have a debate. I am not even asking you to vote for it. I am just saying to allow there to be some debate. When I travel to my district, Mr. Speaker, I hear from constituents who are fed up with this Congress. They are fed up with the process. They always want to know: Why can't you at least debate important issues that are relevant to our lives? It is hard to explain that the Republicans just want to shut everything out, and this bill is no exception. I talk to people who think this place is no longer a serious legislative body, and they have a point because we don't really debate serious things anymore. We have things like this Benghazi commission that has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, that the Republican majority leader admitted, on a very conservative TV station, that it was nothing but a political ploy to try to get Hillary Clinton's poll numbers down. I guess it didn't come as any surprise to me. It came as a surprise that he was so candid in his admission of what this was all about. There is time to debate a special select committee to yet do another investigation of Planned Parenthood. We don't even know how much that is going to cost because, when it was brought before the Rules Committee last night, there was no amount of money that was provided or told they would need. So that will be millions and millions of more dollars that the taxpayers will have to come up with in order to fund another political witch hunt. There is time for these political maneuvers, but there is no time for serious debate on serious issues? It is just wrong. We are not focusing on priorities that matter to people. My constituents want to know what we are doing to make college more affordable. Are we doing anything to help create jobs, to create economic opportunity? But we are not working on these priorities. We have become kind of an arm of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, where everything is politically charged, everything has to be a wedge issue. Here we are today bringing to the floor legislation that is going nowhere, bills that will likely not be taken up by the Senate and, as I mentioned, will be vetoed by the President of the United States. So this is business as usual. The Dodd-Frank financial reform law required the CFPB to combine the disclosure forms required under the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act into a single unified form. On October 3 of this year, the final TILA-RESPA rule took effect, giving consumers a clearer understanding of the costs of buying and financing a home. The underlying bill establishes a hold harmless period through February 1, 2016, where lenders would not be liable for violations of the rule requirements so long as they made a good faith effort to comply. But the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, comprised of the prudential regulators, has already agreed to restrained supervisory authority during the initial implementation of the rule, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has implemented a restrained enforcement period. So what are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? Throughout this process, CFPB has demonstrated its desire to get this rule right. They have worked with us. They have responded to the letters that we have signed. They have listened. They do what we want them to do. The Bureau has engaged with industry to ensure smooth implementation of the rule and has been responsive to the concerns addressed by stakeholders and all of us. In fact, last May, as the gentleman pointed out, 250 Members of Congress joined together on a bipartisan basis to urge the CFPB to announce and implement a grace period for those seeking to comply in good faith from August 1 to the end of 2015. If the regulators have promised to carefully consider an entity's good faith efforts to comply with the new rule while monitoring for compliance, why do we need a legislative fix? Why do we need to micromanage the CFPB? But, to be honest with you, this bill--and this is where the problem is--it goes beyond more than redundancy. If my colleagues have nothing better to do but pass things that are basically redundant, I can go along with that. But this goes beyond redundancy. Unfortunately, this bill goes beyond simply providing good faith actors a grace period. This bill also strips borrowers of the opportunity to seek legal recourse under the Truth in Lending Act during this period. It would shift to the consumer the burden of proving a lender acted in bad faith and prevent consumers from even having the opportunity to have their day in court. So let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. We support a grace period for lenders acting in good faith. And if that is what this was all about, you could have brought this up under suspension and it would have just sailed through. Director Cordray of the CFPB also supports a grace period and has agreed to one. The regulators have responded to requests from industry and have outlined their policy for examination and supervision during this transition period. But I am very concerned with the road that we are traveling down. Home buyers should have access to the courts if a lender acts in bad faith. I can't understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle are so intent on taking this critical consumer protection away. Now, as I mentioned earlier, my friend, the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, Maxine Waters, offered an amendment last night in the Rules Committee to improve this bill, to restore the private right of action under the Truth in Lending Act that is suspended by H.R. 3192. Now, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't think that her amendment has merit, they could debate that and they could vote against it. Instead, what they have done is brought a rule to the floor that prohibits Ranking Member Waters from even offering that amendment. It is germane. It is relevant. It is a serious concern for those of us who care about consumers. But we don't have that opportunity. We don't have that opportunity. Totally closed rules. Totally closed process. So the Republicans have prevented that important amendment from reaching the floor, and we are not going to have an opportunity to debate that today. So I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation. I would especially make an appeal to some of my Republican friends on the basis of process. I know a lot of my Republican friends are getting sick and tired of this kind of heavy-handed approach to important bills when the Rules Committee just shuts everybody out. If you want that to stop, then we need more votes with us opposing these closed rules. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. McGOVERN. Just one amendment. That is it. Just one. I am not asking for two. I am just asking for one.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, while there is talk of a 2-month spending bill to keep the government open before time runs out this week, we have yet to see it. Passing a short-term bill will only postpone a Republican shutdown, not stop it. As long as it remains a possibility, we need to talk about the cost to everyday families. Unlike the last Republican shutdown in 2013, closing the government's doors this time around means millions and millions of Americans may be cut off from their Federal food assistance benefits. Forty-five million Americans rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to help put food on the table. SNAP is our Nation's premier antihunger program, and it is one of the most effective and efficient of any Federal programs. Two-thirds of all SNAP recipients are the most vulnerable among us: children, seniors, and the disabled. Millions more are working families who may be working one, two, or three jobs just to make ends meet, and sometimes it is still not enough. SNAP is a critical program that millions of Americans depend on to keep from going hungry. Mr. Speaker, during the last Republican shutdown in 2013, SNAP had contingency funds available from the stimulus law that meant SNAP benefits continued uninterrupted. But stimulus funding was cut off in November of 2013. So this time around there is no back-up plan for SNAP. Current law prevents the U.S. Department of Agriculture from spending SNAP money it doesn't have. Without congressional action, USDA will be forced to shut off retailers from accepting SNAP benefits within the first few days of October. That means families won't be able to use their SNAP benefits to purchase food at any store that normally accepts SNAP, including grocery stores, big-box retailers, and corner stores. Mr. Speaker, it is unfathomable to me that this would happen, that Republicans would threaten the food benefits of tens of millions of American children, families, and seniors, all just to score political points with their right-wing base. Whether Republicans shut down the government this week or in December, it is unacceptable to leave struggling families out in the cold. As our economy continues to recover, I would remind my colleagues that SNAP is one of the quickest, most effective economic multipliers we have. Every $1 in SNAP benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity. About 80 percent of SNAP benefits are redeemed within 2 weeks of receipt, and about 97 percent are spent within a month. Every day SNAP pumps money back into our local economies and supports local businesses. SNAP benefits can only be spent on food, meaning that a family can use its other income to meet its other essential needs, like paying rent, utilities, and medical care. Mr. Speaker, not only would a government shutdown have a devastating impact on hungry families, it has the potential to result in serious economic harm to retailers that could ripple throughout our economy. Already food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens are bracing to serve an influx of clients if SNAP benefits are cut off. But despite the incredible work they do, these charities are already overburdened. The demand for food assistance is incredibly high. They are working tirelessly every day to meet the need, and charities are already forced to pick up the slack from an inadequate SNAP benefit. All too often the benefit runs out before the end of the month and families must turn to charities just to cobble together enough to eat. I cannot begin to imagine how overwhelmed antihunger agencies will be if millions of Americans lose access to SNAP next month or the month after. Unfortunately, in a Republican-controlled Congress with the habit of going from one crisis to the next, this scenario is all too realistic. A government shutdown would literally take food away from hungry Americans. It would be devastating for millions of Americans that are already struggling to put food on the table and make ends meet. Families who rely on SNAP cannot afford to have their food benefits disrupted even for a day. Mr. Speaker, we should be working to end hunger now, not making hunger worse in this country, the richest country in the world. Quite frankly, it is unconscionable we are even in a situation where millions of hungry people are at risk of losing their food benefit. Last week Pope Francis delivered an inspiring message to Congress. It is unthinkable that we could so quickly forget his call for compassion in helping the least among us. For millions of American families who are already struggling to put food on the table, we should be giving them a hand up, not taking food away. Nobody in this Chamber will go without food if the Republicans shut down the government. None of our kids will go without food, but millions and millions of our fellow citizens will. For the sake of 45 million Americans across the country and more than 700,000 in Massachusetts who depend on SNAP, I urge my Republican colleagues to work with Democrats on a long-term, bipartisan budget that puts families first. Families who rely on SNAP shouldn't have to worry about losing their benefits at the end of every short-term funding bill. Whether it is this week or in December, our most vulnerable families simply cannot afford another government shutdown.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last week I joined a fact-finding delegation to Honduras led by WOLA, the Washington Office on Latin America. We looked at the problem of violence and the lack of opportunity in order to understand why families and young people continue to flee the country. We wanted to learn what the Honduran Government and people were doing in response to the problems that confront their country and how the United States might help. We met with families, young people, and community leaders in several marginal and violent communities, including those who benefit from programs at Casa Alianza. The delegation also visited an innovative USAID-sponsored violence prevention program. It not only offers programs for young people in a poor and dangerous neighborhood, but brings together community leaders and local institutions to tackle local problems. By strengthening local leaders and groups and working with trained and vetted local police, crime levels have dropped and new opportunities for youth have been created. These are hopeful results for a community that 1 year ago was under siege by violent criminal actors. We also met with many NGOs, human rights defenders, and international organizations to understand the intertwined problems of human rights, Democratic governance, and corruption. We had substantial conversations with Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez and met with our Ambassador, James Nealon, and his team, and I am grateful for how generous they were with their time. I would like to share with my colleagues a few thoughts and conclusions from this trip. First, I have no doubt that violence or lack of opportunity are driving families and young people to flee Honduras. I saw the marginal communities and heard the stories from families about the problems young people face. The best thing we can do is support efforts that break the cycle of violence and help build opportunities for youth in Honduras and elsewhere in Central America. At Casa Alianza and the USAID project, we saw the kind of programs that actually make a difference. That is where we should be directing our assistance. Additionally, I also heard how long-term drought is exacerbating hunger, malnutrition, and the loss of livelihoods in rural central Honduras and igniting a new wave of migration. Second, I heard from returned migrants and the families of migrants, including those whose loved ones have disappeared and never been heard from again. Migrants face abuse as they travel. They are extorted by authorities in Mexico and sometimes Guatemala and robbed or kidnapped and held for ransom by criminal groups. Young women run the risk of being trafficked and forced into prostitution. We heard from returned migrants, especially those who had been stopped in Mexico, about the return journey and the lack of services at the El Corinto border crossing. We met migrants who had fled gang violence only to be forced to return to the same dangers. I was moved by many of these stories. Migrants, even those traveling without legal documents, have basic rights, and we should be working with the Governments of Mexico and Honduras to ensure that they get decent treatment, access to needed services, and the protection they deserve. Third, human rights abuses continue to be a serious problem in Honduras. Longtime human rights defenders, journalists, and gay, lesbian, and transgender activists described ongoing threats, attacks, and even assassinations, and the response by the police and the attorney general has not improved. In fact, a U.S.-supported special investigative unit that was supposed to focus on attacks on the LGBT community, journalists, and others has investigated even fewer cases this year than last. I am troubled by the government's focus on special military police units, whose human rights record isn't good. I support the U.S. decision not to provide aid to the military police. Instead, the Honduran Government needs to clean up and strengthen civilian police and the Attorney General's Office. My trip to Honduras was both challenging and inspiring. I saw troubling problems of poverty and violence, heard painful stories about migrant abuses and disappearances, and saw major problems in the area of human rights and the protection of human rights defenders and activists. But I also saw hope. I met with young people who dream of bright futures for themselves in Honduras, with student and youth leaders who are campaigning selflessly and courageously to build mechanisms to tackle corruption, and with LGBT activists, human rights defenders, and journalists who are standing up to threats. I saw community-led projects to combat violence and poverty that are making a real difference. Mr. Speaker, last week our Nation was graced by the presence of Pope Francis. I was deeply moved by his call for us to welcome the stranger, to help the most vulnerable among us, and to work together for the common good. I believe each of those calls to action apply to the case of Honduras, both in how we respond to Hondurans fleeing to the United States to find safe haven and a new life and how we help Hondurans respond to their own problems inside their country. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to working with my colleagues to help the Honduran people deal successfully with these challenges.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)