Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I don't think I heard my colleague correctly when he said that this bill had something to do with encouraging first-time home buyers. It has nothing to do with encouraging first-time home buyers. As a matter of fact, if we proceed with this bill that is before us today that they are supporting, it will discourage first-time home buyers and home buyers in general because what they are doing is they are increasing the possibility for more points and fees that have to be paid when we have a cap now at 3 percent, which any reasonable person would know makes good sense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friends on the opposite side of the aisle just dislike qualified mortgage. They dislike QM. And a lot of the arguments that you have heard had nothing to do, really, with this bill, itself, but more with the fact that they have always wanted to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who has the responsibility of implementing QM. So they will talk about everything from access to credit to you name it, but it has nothing to do with the fact that they are here with a bill that is trying to open up opportunities for affiliated title companies to be able to charge home buyers more money than would be allowed under QM. The fact of the matter is we have a 3 percent cap on all points and fees in the legislation that we created to protect homeowners--3 percent. Why is it they want to open it up so that home buyers have to pay more than 3 percent on all of these points and fees? As a matter of fact, I get questions all the time, particularly from first-time home buyers asking me: What are all these points and fees that I have to pay? Do you mean to tell me that on a $400,000 loan, they are going to rip off $12,000 on points and fees or more? And we have to explain that we have kept it to 3 percent. But now they want to open up the floodgates, and they want to say that these affiliated companies can charge more on points and fees as it relates to title insurance. So I am opposed to it. And for those who did not understand, who may have voted because of the way that is oftentimes presented by the opposite side of the aisle--and, as a matter of fact, it is obscured in the way that they present it in talking about trying to help homeowners, trying to protect homeowners, trying to open up opportunities. It has nothing to do with any of that. This is because the title insurance people who have wielded their influence have come here to change the law so that they can raise those rates and charge more money and have kickbacks, et cetera, et cetera. This is what this is all about. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2954, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, which would undermine efforts to monitor trends in mortgage lending, combat discriminatory and predatory lending, and ensure that consumers who reside in low- and moderate- income communities have fair access to mortgage credit. In 1975, Congress enacted the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, also known as HMDA, in response to concerns that despite their responsibility to provide adequate home financing to qualified applicants on reasonable terms and conditions, some lenders' failure to do so had contributed to a decline in housing conditions in communities of color. HMDA data provide the only comprehensive picture of the rates at which American consumers' requests for mortgages are approved and denied. As a result, it has many important uses. HMDA data provide information on mortgage lending patterns and trends that allow regulators, lenders, researchers, and the public to better understand and address redlining concerns by identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns, and monitoring compliance with and enforcement of statutes, like the Community Reinvestment Act; and Federal antidiscrimination laws, like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act. Local governments also use HMDA data to determine which financial institutions are meeting the needs of their communities and should receive important benefits funded by the taxpayers of those communities. For example, in Antioch, California, the local government uses HMDA data when selecting banks for contracts and participation in local programs. HMDA data are also used by government officials to determine areas of disinvestment that are in need of targeted assistance. Take Flint, Michigan, for example. There, HMDA data has been used to target funds to remediate blight. Communities also use HMDA data to identify discriminatory lending patterns and enforce antidiscrimination statutes. HMDA data, for example, were used in Chicago to identify discrimination and lending patterns in its neighborhoods, leading to a large discriminatory lending settlement. It was precisely because of HMDA data that Congress learned during the run-up to the financial crisis that African Americans were routinely steered into predatory subprime loans, even when they qualified for prime mortgages, and they received these loans at higher rates than White borrowers. Following the financial crisis, Congress updated HMDA when it passed the Dodd-Frank Act, directing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to close information gaps about mortgage lending patterns and practices that contributed to the 2007-2008 financial crisis, as well as other data that could better identify discrimination. Accordingly, in 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rule that required sufficient information to shed light on predatory practices in the mortgage market, and it considered compliance costs and burdens imposed on institutions that collect, maintain, and report the data. Through this rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau added and implemented additional data fields that must be reported in order to further close information gaps about mortgage lending patterns and practices. The new data fields include basic loan facts, such as the address of the property, interest rate of the mortgage, and the borrower's credit score. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule only excluded truly small lenders; banks that originate fewer than 25 closed-end loans, like mortgages; and 100 open-end lines of credit, like home equity lines, because providing broader relief would negatively affect low- and moderate-income communities. Specifically, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wrote: ``The loss of data in communities at closed-end mortgage loan volume thresholds higher than 25 would substantially impede the public's and public officials' ability to understand access to credit in their communities.'' Despite the harm posed to low- and moderate-income communities around the country, H.R. 2954 would permanently raise the threshold for new HMDA data for both mortgage loan-type data and lines of credit to 500 without a good understanding about the real impact of doing so. At this level, 85 percent or 5,400 depository institutions and 48 percent of nonbanks or 497 institutions would be exempt. That is 6,000 financial institutions that would no longer report important lending data. By prohibiting these important new data fields from being reported under HMDA, regulators would not be able to fully determine the extent of redlining, discrimination, and other harmful practices. This will make it harder for fair lending violations to be detected, as HMDA data are routinely used by the Department of Justice to identify and remedy discrimination in lending. These new data fields are essential for shedding light on the kinds of discrimination, like age, that now flies under the radar. It is not surprising that over 170 civil rights, fair housing, consumer and community organizations across the country have come out strongly against this bill. These groups have stated that: ``The updated HMDA data will provide critical information about whether similarly situated borrowers in underserved communities are receiving equitable access to mortgage credit, data that we lacked a decade ago when the crisis hit.'' Mr. Speaker, I recognize the need for Congress to consider tailored and sensible regulatory relief to community financial institutions, but this bill is not that relief. Financial institutions are already required to collect this data as part of existing mortgage regulations or as part of the mortgage underwriting process. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support H.R. 2954 because it undermines effective fair lending enforcement by reducing HMDA data. This bill will contribute to unequal access to affordable credit for people of color, low- to moderate-income families, and borrowers in rural areas. History has repeatedly shown us that when financial institutions are merely trusted to operate in good faith, American consumers are left vulnerable to discriminatory and predatory lending, communities are stripped of wealth, and our economy is weakened. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this rollback of a key fair lending tool and to join me in opposing H.R. 2954. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota who described his district, he failed to mention that the China-Asia Economic Development Association and the Jewish Community Action group all oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ellison for the time he has spent with us today opposing this legislation. His history is such that everyone understands that he represents the least of these, that he represents working people, that he represents poor people. Whenever there is an opportunity to speak up for them, he always does. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to remember what this is all about, so let me state the facts. HMDA data allows us to monitor mortgage lending patterns to identify underserved communities and populations to combat discriminatory lending. HMDA data was used to determine when many of us suspected during the subprime bubble that persons of color, particularly African Americans, received predatory subprime loans at higher rates than White borrowers. They received these loans even when they qualified for prime mortgages. The Department of Justice and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have used HMDA data to bring fair lending cases against banks for redlining, steering, and other violations of the Fair Housing Act. It might be true that H.R. 2954 could provide relief to some financial institutions by exempting lenders from the updated HMDA reporting requirements. What is true is that the bill would likely also have far-reaching adverse consequences for consumers, particularly those in low-income census tracts and rural areas. Equally disconcerting is that the reduced HMDA data could stop regulators' ability to identify and stop any emerging predatory or discriminatory practices faced by those consumers. Borrowers who take out home equity lines of credit, the HELOCs, are at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure when property values decline. In fact, the expansion of HELOCs in the mid-2000s contributed to the foreclosure crisis that many communities experienced in the last 2000s. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau noted that: Had open-end line of credit data like HELOCs been reported in HMDA, the public officials could have had a much earlier warning and a better understanding of potential risk, and public and private mortgage relief programs could have better assisted distressed borrowers in the aftermath of the crisis. While I am a longtime advocate for community banks, this bill does not reduce burdens. All of the HMDA data points being discussed today will continue to be collected by banks because they need this data to originate mortgages for their customers. I also understand that personal banking does not mean that discriminatory lending does not occur in smaller-sized institutions. In fact, the Obama administration's Department of Justice sued a community bank located in Chaska, Minnesota, with assets of $1.9 billion. Mr. Speaker, you have heard the arguments. We are on the side of the people. I don't know who they represent over there. I simply ask for a ``no'' vote.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, Representative Barr, would make changes to section 4 of the underlying bill dealing with opposing World Bank assistance for governments that fail to enforce U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea. These changes are welcome and would bring this section of the bill in line with a provision that was adopted on a bipartisan basis in the Financial Services Committee as part of our commitment in the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions Act. Just as the bipartisan measure that was passed through our committee included a clearly defined waiver authority, the amendment offered by Representative Barr would add, in this same waiver, provisions to the underlying bill. In doing so, the amendment not only makes section 4 of the bill consistent with the approach used in other contexts, but, more importantly, it ensures that we allow the President to waive the withholding of assistance for countries that fall short in applying sanctions on North Korea when such failure is due exclusively to a lack of capacity of the foreign government and the foreign government is taking effective steps to prevent the failure from recurring. While I do not believe the underlying bill should become law in its current form, I do believe we should take a consistent and thoughtful approach to cutting off World Bank assistance to the poorest countries that are unable to fulfill their U.N. Security Council obligations. This amendment would address this concern. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for giving credit to Ms. Moore for her work and her assistance with the work that was being done to deny North Korea any kind of assistance from any of our allies, as I understand it. This is not something that is done by the Republicans or the Democrats. This is truly bipartisan. We all feel the same way about North Korea, and we all feel that the sanctions should be honored. We all feel that no country, in particular those countries that we are supporting, in any way should do anything to give support to North Korea. In saying that, let me also point out that we don't come to this floor with any kind of empty rhetoric, talking about all of those countries are corrupt and somehow all of these countries in Africa and other places that are very poor are somehow disregarding the fact that the United States is being of assistance to them. Most of them know that their lives oftentimes depend on our generosity. They love us and support us. They want to emulate us. They get a little bit confused when we have people who charge them with being corrupt and irresponsible and noncaring and not having an appreciation for what the citizens of the United States are doing for them. That is not the kind of rhetoric that we need in order to enhance our posture or our image with our constituents and have them believe that we are saving them from these poor countries who are getting taxpayer money and don't care about them. That is not true. I cringe when I hear that kind of rhetoric on the floor of Congress. I cringe when I hear us using our position, our influence, to send a message that somehow we don't trust, we don't believe, we don't honor, and we don't respect many of those very, very poor countries. We are talking about 77 of the poorest countries in the world. You will see ads on television, from time to time, of nonprofit organizations that are trying to save the lives of little children who are dying from malnutrition. You see them every night, and they tell you: Send $21; send some money to this organization so we can save these children who are dying because they don't have clean drinking water, who are dying because they are victims of malaria, who are dying because they don't have any healthcare whatsoever, living practically outdoors. When we see these ads, many people are responding, joining in with their government to show our humanitarianism and helping the least of these. I want us to take credit, but I want us be respectful. I want us not to join in calling names. I want us to say to the President of the United States: ``Don't keep doing this.'' I want to say to the Members on the opposite side of the aisle: ``You are better than this, and you don't need this for your reelection. You don't need this to send a message to your citizens that you are saving them from poor, corrupt countries.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, though I do not intend to oppose it.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), the senior member of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, let me say that Democrats did view this legislation as an important marker of international engagement from our committee, which has not in recent times demonstrated a great deal of interest in global economic leadership. We viewed this measure as an opportunity to reinforce the importance of global economic cooperation. Given that, it seemed to us a mistake to then reject the possibility of cooperation with our own Republican colleagues. So we supported the bill for that reason as well, and I regret we couldn't come to an accommodation. On another matter, let me also say that I won't question the sincerity of my Republican colleagues' commitment to reforming the World Bank, but I do wonder why, if these reforms are as pressing and as urgent and as critical as they say, why did they take so long? Chairman Hensarling has been at the helm of our committee for over 5 years, and, during that time, the Obama administration requested legislation to authorize U.S. participation in three other replenishments, including the previous IDA-17. But the committee refused to act on any of these requests, not only shirking its oversight responsibility, but also missing a number of opportunities to press for reforms which presumably were as urgent then as they are now. In fact, in November of 2014, near the end of the 113th Congress, I wrote to Chairman Hensarling urging him to turn his attention to the three pending authorization requests before Congress adjourned. I made a number of arguments in support of the multilateral development banks, the MDBs, which apparently did not persuade the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I include that letter in the Record. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC, November 19, 2014. Hon. Jeb Hensarling, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hensarling: I write to urge you to turn your attention before Congress adjourns to the Administration's requests for authorizations for U.S. participation in the replenishments of three concessional windows at the multilateral development banks (MDBs)--namely, the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA-17), the Asian Development Fund (AsDF-11), and the African Development Fund (AfDF-13). As you know, these concessional facilities provide grants and low-cost development financing to the world's poorest countries. They support projects that combat hunger and poverty while promoting private-sector growth and global stability. Well-designed multilateral aid programs help create more equitable societies and more stable democracies. It is also crucial to U.S. interests that developing nations continue to grow. Exports have been the most rapidly growing share of our economy, and exports to developing countries have been an important part of that. America is also fighting a war on terrorism, and while the forces that give rise to terrorism are complex, poverty and despair provide a fertile feeding ground. Moreover, U.S. contributions to the development banks also provide tremendous value for the money. Every dollar we commit is leveraged many times over by contributions from other donor nations, as well as from the internal resources of the institutions themselves. Today, we have another very important, and potentially far- reaching, reason why the U.S. should promptly meet its commitments to the MDBs. The last few years have unfortunately seen a weakening of the commitment to multilateralism by the United States, which has led to widespread doubt about U.S. leadership on global economic governance. In response, a number of developing countries, led by China, have begun to act independently, with initiatives viewed as the first serious, coordinated effort to reshape the global financial architecture and challenge western dominance in the world economy. Last month, China announced an agreement with 21 other developing countries to create a multilateral development bank called the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which will focus on financing infrastructure development projects in the Asia-Pacific region. A clear rival to the Asian Development Bank, the AIIB will be led by China, its largest shareholder, and headquartered in Beijing. Separately, in July, the so-called BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) announced plans to launch an international development bank of their own, which they hope will rival the strength and influence of the World Bank. The ``New Development Bank,'' as it is called, will be headquartered in Shanghai and focus on infrastructure investment throughout the developing world. Development experts agree that global infrastructure needs in developing countries is tremendous, and there are many who welcome the contribution that the new development banks can make in helping to build sustainable economic infrastructure both in Asia and elsewhere. But these new institutions also reflect frustration by the world's major emerging economies with the slow pace of governance reforms at the Bretton Woods institutions, especially the IMF. In fact, the now-stalled agreement to realign the quota shares at the IMF, negotiated by the Bush Administration, was a critical effort to preserve its legitimacy and keep emerging economies firmly anchored in the multilateral system that the U.S. helped design. U.S. inaction in meeting its commitments to the MDBs, as well as its refusal to ratify IMF governance reforms, is what led, in large part, to the creation of these new institutions that will increasingly pose a challenge to the global financial order created by western powers after World War II. We should be mindful that a world in which countries such as China and Russia are acting outside of the established international financial institutions, or other global bodies, is one that could drift beyond our control. Moreover, it remains to be seen what values these new rising powers will articulate and promote in their vision of a new global economy. I believe this makes U.S. leadership at the multilateral development institutions today more important than ever. They are directed at some of the most central challenges faced by the U.S.--strategic, economic, political and moral--and, in many ways, they are often our most effective means for responding to those challenges. I strongly urge you to take prompt action to affirm U.S. support for, and U.S. leadership at, these institutions, which have served both U.S. interests and the global public good for so many years. Sincerely, Maxine Waters, Ranking Member.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act of 2017. Last year, Democrats on the Financial Services Committee joined our Republican colleagues in favorably reporting H.R. 3326 out of committee to support the bill's authorization of a U.S. contribution of $3.29 billion to multilateral development efforts and to enforce the importance of U.S. leadership at the international financial institutions, but the favorable report in committee came with clear conditions for the future of the bill. Democrats made it clear during consideration of this bill in committee that our ongoing support for the measure would depend upon changes to provisions in the bill moving forward that put critical U.S. funding at risk. But here we are today and Republicans have not made any effort at all to address our very specific concerns. Namely, the bill would cut up to 30 percent of the U.S. contribution to the International Development Association--IDA--in any year in which the Treasury Secretary does not certify to Congress that the World Bank has adopted or is taking steps to implement two sets of reforms mandated in the bill. IDA is the arm of the World Bank that provides grants and other assistance to the world's 77 poorest countries, which are home to more than 450 million people living in extreme poverty. Cuts to U.S. funds to IDA would punish millions of children and other vulnerable people in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, who are living in extreme poverty, who are suffering from famine, or who are emerging from conflict. Democrats do not believe that cutting U.S. funds for, and diminishing U.S. influence at, the international financial institutions is an effective approach to reform. To remedy this problem with the bill, Representative Moore, who is the ranking member on our committee's Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade, had sought to offer an amendment on the floor to strike the provisions in the bill that would give the administration cover to cut U.S. funding from multilateral efforts aimed at alleviating global poverty. The amendment would have maintained both sets of reforms currently in the bill and directed the Secretary of the Treasury to actively promote these policy goals through advocacy and direct engagement with World Bank management as well as the World Bank's other major shareholders. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee refused to make this amendment in order, thus depriving the House of the opportunity to decide for itself which approach it prefers to take: reforming the World Bank by fiat with a threat to cut funding or reforming the World Bank through the exercise of U.S. influence and power at the World Bank based on the merits of the reforms themselves. Mr. Chairman, the process by which this bill has come to the floor stands in stark contrast to our committee's long history of working together on issues relating to global economic governance. For many years, the Financial Services Committee has worked in a bipartisan fashion to achieve a number of important reforms at the World Bank, including increased transparency, the creation of the inspection panel, more disclosure of information, and closer consultation with local communities most affected by World Bank projects. We were able to successfully advance these policy goals through serious and direct negotiations and sustained engagement with both the Department of the Treasury and the World Bank itself, not by threatening to walk away from our commitments, but the Trump administration has consistently demonstrated troubling attitudes toward the role of the U.S. in the world. In November of last year, in testimony before the Financial Services Committee, David Malpass, Treasury's Under Secretary for International Affairs, expressed the administration's view that globalism and multilateralism have gone substantially too far. In December, the Trump administration refused to pledge any funds for the next replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, a small multilateral development bank that helps the poor in remote, rural areas where few donors operate. Of course, just last week, this President made ignorant, racist, and deplorable comments about Africa, where, as it happens, IDA focuses a great deal of its resources and energy. Mr. Chairman, the more committed we are to our goals and to our ideals, the more morally obligated we are to do everything we can to advance those goals. The legislation before us today, in its current form, fails to meet that test, so I will be opposing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. We can, and we should, do better. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman). While the amendment speaks to reducing government barriers to entrepreneurship, the real-world impact of adopting this amendment would be to enlist the World Bank in the business of really what they are going for, diminishing labor standards. The World Bank's prior ``doing business'' report is a prime example of why we must reject this amendment. The World Bank should be encouraging sustainable and inclusive growth, not policies that diminish workers' rights. So I would urge all Members to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Yes, I am opposed to the amendment.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the vice ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.