Steve Stivers

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Florida's point, it is true that, with a structured rule, somebody can't walk in off the street, a Member of Congress, that didn't come to the Rules Committee, and come up with an amendment right now that they are writing on a napkin and bring it in here. But we did have an open process. We published the deadline, and we accepted not only ones that met the deadline, but late amendments. In fact, I think, of the amendments that we made in order, five of the seven amendments made in order today were actually filed late, so we did allow late amendments. That is off the top of my head. We will double-check the facts on five, but it was several of the amendments that were even filed late, we allowed. It is true, though, that somebody can't just walk right in here. It is not an open rule. It is a structured rule. So you can't just walk in the day of the floor hearing in about 45 minutes and offer an amendment that nobody has ever seen before. So I understand the gentleman's point.

Mr. STIVERS. I yield again to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. STIVERS. I appreciate the gentleman making his point. Mr. Speaker, my point is, under the new Speaker, we have only had one closed rule. Will we occasionally have a closed rule? Yes. When the other party was in charge, they had closed rules all the time, too. Closed rules will happen occasionally, but we will have an open process. I think having four out of five as structured rules is a pretty good measurement for the brand-new Speaker in our new day that we are experiencing. I appreciate the gentleman's point, but the point is we are making the process more open. It may not be to the gentleman's liking, Mr. Speaker, but we are attempting to make the process more open and will continue to work on that. I do want to make a couple of points, and then I will reserve the balance of my time. With regard to the charge that somehow in H.R. 1210 this will result in risky mortgage loans--and that is why I went through the history of the crisis where people took a fee, securitized the loan. They privatized gains and socialized losses for the taxpayers to cover. The only way this portfolio lending bill works is if these lenders hold these loans in their own portfolio and take 100 percent of the downside risk. That is not placing it on anybody else. That was one of the reforms that was put in place, and Dodd-Frank was skin in the game. I can't think of anything more than 100 percent skin in the game. We think that will ensure that nobody privatizes the gains and socializes the losses, and we think it is a reasonable step to allow people to get access to mortgages where somebody is willing to put their own money at risk. With regard to the charge that this is going to somehow tie the Federal Reserve's hands in H.R. 3189, this bill is about transparency and accountability. It is making sure the Federal Reserve communicates whatever they use. If they want to use a Magic 8 Ball, they just have to tell everybody, ``Hey, we are using a Magic 8 Ball.'' I think there is nothing wrong with transparency. Transparency is great for the American economy, and it is great for the American people. The gentleman was just making the argument about how we need to be more open and transparent, and I think we need to demand it of the Federal Reserve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentleman from Florida for this civil debate on the rule. I will remind my colleagues that these two bills are about reform and transparency. H.R. 1210 is reform that will give more people access to mortgages and, at the same time, will require that these lenders have 100 percent skin in the game. H.R. 3189 is about transparency and accountability for the Federal Reserve to make sure they tell the American people how they make the decisions that they make. These are reasonable bills, important bills. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time. This National Defense Authorization Act is really important. As a Member of Congress and as a member of the military, I have raised my right hand and taken an oath to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and, in fact, defending our country is our primary duty as policymakers here in Washington. I am pleased that the budget agreement that was reached a couple of weeks ago will pave the way for a National Defense Authorization Act to get passed now. It was really unfortunate that the President chose to veto that over domestic spending priorities, but I am glad that we are here where we can actually fix some of the things that need fixed. This bill, as you have heard, protects and helps 83 percent of our servicemen and -women who don't reach 20 years of service. It allows them to walk away with something. More importantly, this bill will help reduce the incidence of suicide among our members of the military. Suicide is an epidemic in our military right now. They have been through a lot over the last 10 or 15 years, and we need to give them the help they need. This bill helps do that. This bill makes other very important reforms in the acquisition process, but, most importantly, it gets the soldiers in harm's way the resources they need to do their job. I think that it is really important that we pass this bill before Veterans Day to send a signal to our troops all across the world that we have their backs and, when they answer the Nation's call and we send them into harm's way, we are going to get them what they need to do the job and help them return home safely. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Chabot for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a fellow Ohioan who has done so much for our country. I didn't really know John Boehner when Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, my predecessor once removed, decided to retire. He started calling me, and I got to know him a little better. He convinced me to run for Congress to make America better and make America stronger. The other thing I will always remember is he was very honest during that recruiting process. I remember talking to him about, ``Gee, I would like to get on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.'' He took a big drag of his cigarette, and he said, ``Not gonna happen.'' He never misled me. He never said anything that he didn't back up. I will always respect that about him and the way he has acted his entire time for 25 years in this House. I know he will be happy to spend more time with the things and people that are important to him. He is going to spend more time with his wife, Debbie, his children, his brandnew grandson, and of course he will spend more time with his golf clubs and probably a bottle of wine. I think it goes without saying that we will miss John Boehner more than he will miss us. He has always been the responsible adult in the room. He has always done what is right for America, regardless of the personal cost. He has a lasting legacy in this institution, from simple traditions like the Boehner birthday song that we will sing in this institution for a very long time to policy matters, like looking after at-risk kids, both here in Washington and all around this country, enacting meaningful entitlement reform, and banning earmarks. He also had political accomplishments: winning back a Republican majority in the House and growing that majority. His legacy will be lasting indeed. I am a better Representative for having worked with John Boehner. They say Washington changes you, but after 25 years in Washington, D.C., John Boehner has never forgotten where he came from. His roots are that big, Catholic family, running a local bar in a blue collar part of Cincinnati. That background grounded him and gave him the right perspective on both life and public service. Losing John Boehner is bad for Ohio, and I believe it is bad for America, but it is probably good for John Boehner. Speaker Boehner, on behalf of my constituents, let me say thank you for your selfless service to this country, and good luck in the future. Please don't be a stranger.

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his extraordinary work on this bill. This bill is important for our national security. It is important for jobs. We need to end the oil export ban so that we can export oil that has been generated as part of this energy revolution in this country that is going to be great for jobs and help our national security partners around the world. Let's make the world safer. Let's give America more jobs. Let's end the oil export ban. Please support this bill today.

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. STIVERS

Mr. STIVERS. The problem with the amendment was it would have conflicted with that good faith language.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 462 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. STIVERS. And somebody could have pointed to that section and said: See, nothing can take away my right to sue. This good faith exception takes away my right to sue. Even though they acted in good faith, that denies me a right. So it was conflicting language.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for H.R. 3192, the Homebuyers Assistance Act. H. Res. 462 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3192. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. The resolution also provides a motion to recommit for the bill. In addition, the rule provides the normal recess authorities to allow the chair to manage pro forma sessions during next week's district work period. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the underlying legislation. For more than 30 years, Federal law has required lenders to provide two different disclosure forms to consumers applying for a mortgage. The law also has generally required two different forms at or shortly before the closing on the loan. Two different Federal agencies developed these forms separately under two different statutes: the Truth in Lending Act, or TILA, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, or RESPA. The Truth in Lending Act provides meaningful disclosure of credit terms to enable consumers to compare credit terms available in the marketplace more readily and avoid the uninformed use of credit. The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 exists to ensure that consumers are provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of their residential real estate settlement process and are protected from unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices that Congress found and made sure that we got rid of. On November 20, 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule, or TRID, which combined these two forms that had been separated for 30 years so that consumers can receive uniform information on one form on both their TILA and RESPA information. The new disclosures are generally referred to as the ``combined'' or ``integrated'' disclosures. The Integrated Disclosure rule requires loan originators who receive an application to provide consumers a loan estimate form that combines the initial TILA disclosure and the Good Faith Estimate. While intended to streamline the current duplicative disclosure regime under TILA and RESPA, the Integrated Disclosure rule poses significant implementation and compliance challenges. It makes significant changes to the origination, processing, and closing of mortgage loans; requires business decisions at all stages of the transaction; and includes difficult to understand timing and delivery requirements and other practical implementation issues that go beyond the form and content requirements. Mr. Speaker, the rule we are discussing today is very substantial. In fact, it is in front of me. It has 1,888 pages of new requirements. This is a massive regulatory change, and there needs to be time to adjust to its implementation. I think we all agree on that. I heard yesterday, in the Rules Committee, the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee agree that there does need to be time to adjust to the implementation. In fact, just this last week, I was in Chillicothe, Ohio, visiting the offices of a real estate company that had a title agency next door, a closing agency, and they were very concerned about the potential harm to home buyers that might see their closings delayed or, in fact, the whole process just seized up if we don't figure out how to implement this regulation in a thoughtful way and allow time for transition. As I said, everyone agrees that less paperwork and more streamlined processes are positive steps for Congress and the regulators to encourage. However, given the complexity of the Integrated Disclosure rule, I believe Congress must also give those affected by this rule time to implement the changes in a thoughtful way. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts and over 250 of our colleagues in the House, signed a letter in May asking the Director of the CFPB, Richard Cordray, to implement a ``hold harmless'' period for parties affected by the rule as they attempt to comply with the new regulations. I will submit a copy of that letter for the Record. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, May 20, 2015. Hon. Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Dear Director Cordray: The undersigned Members of Congress acknowledge that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has done significant work on the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TR-ID) regulation. Nevertheless, this complicated and extensive rule is likely to cause challenges during implementation, which is currently scheduled for August 1, 2015, that could negatively impact consumers. As you know, the housing market is highly seasonal, with August, September, and October consistently being some of the busiest months of the year for home sales and settlements. By contrast, January and February are consistently the slowest months of the year for real estate activity. We therefore encourage the Bureau to announce and implement a ``grace period'' for those seeking to comply in good faith from August 1st through the end of 2015. Even with significant advance notice, understanding how to implement and comply with this regulation will only become clear when the industry gains experience using these new forms and processes in real-life situations. As the TRID regulation does not provide lenders an opportunity to start using the new disclosure form prior to the August 1st implementation date, market participants will not be able to test their systems and procedures ahead of time, which increases the risk of unanticipated disruptions on August 1st. That is why we believe that a grace period for those seeking to comply in good faith from August 1st through the end of 2015 would be particularly useful in these circumstances. During this time, industry can provide data to the CFPB on issues that arise so that the Bureau and industry can work together to remove impediments to the effectiveness of the rule. Thank you for your time and consideration. If we may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Ralph Abraham; Alma Adams; Robert Aderholt; Pete Aguilar; Rick Allen; Mark Amodei; Lou Barletta; Andy Barr; Joe Barton; Joyce Beatty; Dan Benishek; Donald S. Beyer; Gus Bilirakis; Sanford Bishop; Mike Bishop; Marsha Blackburn; Madeleine Bordallo; Charles Boustany; Brendan Boyle; Kevin Brady. Dave Brat; Jim Bridenstine; Mo Brooks; Susan Brooks; Julia Brownley; G.K. Butterfield; Bradley Byrne; Lois Capps; Michael Capuano; Tony Cardenas; John Carney; Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter; Kathy Castor; Steve Chabot; David Cicilline; Katherine Clark; Emanuel Cleaver; Mike Coffman; Tom Cole; Chris Collins. Doug Collins; Barbara Comstock; Gerald E. Connolly; John Conyers; Paul Cook; Jim Costa; Ryan Costello; Joe Courtney; Kevin Cramer; Henry Cuellar; John Culberson; Diana DeGette; John Delaney; Mark DeSaulnier; Scott DesJarlais; Ted Deutch; Debbie Dingell; Bob Dold; Sean Duffy; Jeff Duncan. Keith Ellison; Renee Ellmers; Tom Emmer; Eliot Engel; Anna Eshoo; Elizabeth H. Esty; Stephen Fincher; Michael Fitzpatrick; Chuck Fleischmann; John Fleming, M.D.; Randy Forbes; Jeff Fortenberry; Bill Foster; Virginia Foxx; Trent Franks; Rodney Frelinghuysen; John Garamendi; Scott Garrett; Bob Gibbs; Chris Gibson. Bob Goodlatte; Trey Gowdy; Gwen Graham; Kay Granger; Garret Graves; Tom Graves; Al Green; Morgan Griffith; Glenn Grothman; Frank Guinta; Brett Guthrie; Richard Hanna; Gregg Harper; Alcee Hastings; Denny Heck; Jaime Herrera Beutler; Jody Hice; Brian Higgins; French Hill; Jim Nimes. Ruben Hinojosa; George Holding; Mike Honda; Richard Hudson; Tim Huelskamp; Jared Huffman; Bill Huizenga; Randy Hultgren; Robert Hurt; Steve Israel; Evan Jenkins; Lynn Jenkins; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Bill Johnson; David Jolly; Walter Jones; John Katko; William R. Keating; Mike Kelly; Joe Kennedy. Dan Kildee; Derek Kilmer; Ron Kind; Peter King; Steve King; Adam Kinzinger; John Kline; Ann McLane Kuster; Raul Labrador; Doug LaMalfa; Leonard Lance; Rick Larsen; John B. Larson; Robert Latta; John Lewis; Ted Lieu; Dan Lipinski; Frank A. LoBiondo; Dave Loebsack; Zoe Lofgren. Mia Love; Frank Lucas; Ben Ray Lujan; Michelle Lujan Grisham; Cynthia Lummis; Stephen Lynch; Sean Patrick Maloney; Carolyn Maloney; Kenny Marchant; Tom Marino; Thomas Massie; Betty McCollum; James P. McGovern; Patrick McHenry; David McKinley; Mark Meadows; Patrick Meehan; Luke Messer; John Mica; Jeff Miller. Gwen Moore; Mick Mulvaney; Patrick Murphy; Grace Napolitano; Dan Newhouse; Kristi Noem; Richard Nolan; Rich Nugent; Pete Olson; Bill Pascrell; Erik Paulsen; Donald M. Payne, Jr.; Steve Pearce; Ed Perlmutter; Chellie Pingree; Robert Pittenger; Mark Pocan; Ted Poe; Bruce Poliquin; Mike Pompeo. Bill Posey; David Price; Tom Price, M.D.; Charles Rangel; Tom Reed; Dave Reichert; Jim Renacci; Reid Ribble; Kathleen Rice; Tom Rice; Cedric Richmond; Scott Rigell; Martha Roby; Mike Rogers; Harold Rogers; Todd Rokita; Peter Roskam; Dennis Ross; Keith Rothfus; David Rouzer. Ed Royce; Bobby Rush; Steve Russell; Tim Ryan; Matt Salmon; David Schweikert; David Scott; Bobby Scott; Jim Sensenbrenner; Pete Sessions; Terri Sewell; Brad Sherman; Bill Shuster; Mike Simpson; Kyrsten Sinema; Albio Sires; Louise Slaughter; Jason Smith; Adrian Smith; Chris Smith. Jackie Speier; Steve Stivers; Marlin Stutzman; Mark Takano; Mike Thompson; Glenn `GT' Thompson; Pat Tiberi; Dina Titus; Paul Tonko; David Trott; Michael Turner; Fred Upton; Chris Van Hollen; Juan Vargas; Filemon Vela; Ann Wagner; Tim Walberg; Mark Walker. Jackie Walorski; Maxine Waters; Randy Weber; Daniel Webster; Peter Welch; Brad Wenstrup; Bruce Westerman; Lynn Westmoreland; Ed Whitfield; Roger Williams; Joe Wilson; Robert J. Wittman; Rob Woodall; John Yarmuth; David Young; Todd Young.

Mr. STIVERS. Yet here we are today, just a couple of months later, and some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to argue that we shouldn't institute that very same hold harmless period by passing this bill. As I said, I think they agree with it. There may be other things in the bill that we can talk about that they have a problem with, but we all need to pass this bill, because we have to have a hold harmless period to make sure that people that want to close and buy a house and people that want to provide them that service can do so as we implement this new regulation. Almost half the Democrats on the Financial Services panel agree that this hold harmless provision should be in place. The vote on the Financial Services Committee was 45-13. Mr. Speaker, just last week, the Financial Services Committee held a hearing entitled, ``The Semi-Annual Report of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection,'' at which Director Cordray testified and fielded several questions about these new rules. When asked by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) whether he would implement a grace period that would allow folks to find their way through this--Realtors and title agents--so they could count on not being the focus of enforcement, Director Cordray responded: ``Look, 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, but I think what I have said says to them that we are going to be diagnostic and corrective, not punitive, in that early period. I think if they read between the lines, they will understand that we are trying to allow them the latitude that they have asked for. And I think people should be able to take `yes' for an answer.'' The problem is that is not ``yes'' for an answer, it is unclear, and that is why this bill is so important--because it is clear. This will make sure that we provide an implementation period that allows a hold harmless period for industry participants. Just 2 days later, in fact, in a letter sent by some industry groups asking for this same request of a hold harmless period, Director Cordray refused to say he would institute a hold harmless period. So even though what he said to the committee sounded like he is going to try to do it, he said to them that he would not be able to institute a hold harmless period. I think there are clearly some inconsistencies there that mean that we need to pass this bill. This bill will ensure we hold harmless almost everybody who does this instead of doing it with a wink and a nod. Sixty percent of the House, I believe, is supportive, and we will see. Obviously, we have a vote to take on this. But we signed a letter that asked for this. So I believe that you will see a pretty good bipartisan vote today. This massive regulatory undertaking needs to be implemented in a thoughtful way. That is all this two-page bill does, is create a safe harbor for enforcement until February 1 of 2016. It also includes a good faith exception to ensure that, if somebody acts in good faith, they also will not be subject to legal action, just like they won't be subject to enforcement action. And let me be clear. That only applies to somebody that acts in good faith. The courts have dealt with good faith exceptions on many other issues. It is clear that the courts understand what good faith is, and that will be litigated case by case, whether somebody was acting in good faith. If they were acting in good faith, there won't be any legal action. If they weren't acting in good faith, there will still be the right of private action. You will hear that from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that this somehow relieves the right of private action. It does not. It just ensures that there is a good faith exception. If somebody was just trying to do everything right, but missed a comma or a period or accidentally did something in trying to comply, then they will have that defense in court and be able to ask the case to be withdrawn. This hold harmless provision ensures that borrowers and lenders and realty agents and others won't be forced to delay closings as they figure out how to deal with almost a 1,900-page rule. I look forward to debating this bill with my colleagues on the other side. I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STIVERS. I do not.

Mr. STIVERS. Will the gentleman yield me time to respond to his question?

Mr. STIVERS. I thank the gentleman. I happen to serve on the Financial Services Committee with the ranking member, and that idea was not offered in the committee. So it was a new idea. I will tell you that it sort of conflicts with the good faith exception because what her amendment said was that nothing would get in the way of somebody's private right of action. The whole point of the good faith exception in the bill is to ensure that judicial proceedings happen the same way as administrative proceedings.

Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To the gentleman from Massachusetts' remarks, Mr. Speaker, I agree with him that we should have more time to debate serious issues. In fact, this bill should have been on the suspension calendar, but the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee refused to sign off on putting it on the suspension calendar. If it would have been on the suspension calendar, we would have had more time to discuss and debate other issues. I would like to read from the bill, since we deemed the bill read, and I will start in the middle of line 9. ``Regulations issued under such sections may not be enforced against any person until February 1, 2016, and no suit may be filed against any person for a violation of such requirements occurring before such a date, so long''--this is the key part--``so long as such person has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements.'' So the arguments that the gentleman from Massachusetts just made about somebody deeming in bad faith, they would not be covered by that part of the bill. It is black and white. It is really clear. And I am curious if the gentleman from Massachusetts would enter into a colloquy with me. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts to enter into a colloquy with me because I have a question. If the CFPB did indeed institute a grace period for individuals, yet those same individuals chose to file suit without the language on a grace period for lawsuits with good faith compliance, would there indeed be a grace period at all?

Mr. STIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. STIVERS. Reclaiming my time, no, there would not, because if they can file lawsuits that the law--we haven't changed the law. In fact, all we have added is a good faith exception that allows somebody to defend themselves and get a lawsuit dropped. So there is nothing in this bill that would protect anybody that acts in bad faith.

Mr. STIVERS. I would disagree with you. It does not shift the burden. The individual has to have the burden of proof that they acted in good faith. It does not say anything about the consumer showing somebody acting in bad faith. The individuals defending themselves have to prove to the court that they acted in good faith. There is no shift of the burden here.

Mr. STIVERS. I hear your point there, but I can tell you that if we would have debated the amendment, I believe that it would have been defeated. Frankly, the problem with it was, if it would have been narrowly crafted to keep the good faith exception, I would have been okay with it. I do believe that we should be debating serious issues. I do believe that the private right of action is kept in tact. There is only a good faith exception. And the burden is on the individual who the lawsuit will be brought against to prove that they acted in good faith. That is how it works. Nobody is going to have to prove that they acted in bad faith. They are going to have to prove they acted in good faith. Nobody is going to give them a wink and a nod and the benefit of the doubt. The individuals who are being sued will have to prove that they acted in good faith. And you made the regulatory accommodations for a grace period but not the accommodations in the legal system; there is no grace period at all. It just takes away the entire grace period, because anybody that wants to sue just goes ahead and sues. It doesn't matter that there is a grace period administratively; there is a grace period in the law. That is why the good faith exception is so important. I wanted to address those issues. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STIVERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I want to make clear. Earlier in my remarks, I acknowledged that the other side of the aisle agrees with us on an administrative grace period. The problem is, if they don't agree to both an administrative grace period and a grace period with regard to lawsuits for people acting in good faith--the key words here are ``good faith''--then there is no grace period because people will just choose to go sue during the grace period, and there will be no grace period. It was good to hear the gentlewoman from California acknowledge that this is only a temporary good faith exception. It only lasts until February 1, 2016. It is just like the administrative grace period, and it only protects people in good faith. Mr. Speaker, I will just ask the gentlewoman from California whether she believes somebody can act in good faith and also deceive and mislead at the same time, because her remarks imply that you can act in good faith while misleading and deceiving people. I am not an attorney, but I would argue that good faith is really clear, and you are not acting in good faith when you deceive and mislead. Again, this bill should have been on the suspension calendar. We shouldn't even have to be wasting time--valuable time--that we should be dealing with really important issues, as the gentleman from Massachusetts acknowledged earlier. But I did want to correct the Record on a few of those things. Mr. Speaker, I think the key difference we have here is about whether good faith means anything. I would argue that the courts have found good faith means something. Every American knows what good faith is. This does not shift the burden. Those people being sued have to prove they acted in good faith. So I think this is a really clear bill that provides a grace period for a limited amount of time, through February 1, 2016. But you have to provide both an administrative grace period and a grace period in the courts or there is no grace period at all. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.