Date: 2015-10-07
Speaker: MAXINE WATERS (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts . a member of the Rules Committee. for the defense that he is putting up relative to my amendment. Yes. I went to the Rules Committee. and. yes. I attempted to have an amendment that would protect our consumers. So it is clear that the opposite side of the aisle did not want the public to know about this amendment. Why didnt they want this amendment debated? It is because they know that our consumers need to have the kind of protection that would allow them to go into court and raise questions about whether or not they are being defrauded. they are being misled. they are not being told the truth when they close on these mortgage deals. Because the Rules Committee decided that we could not have a debate on my amendment. we have to take every opportunity to try to unveil why they are keeping this amendment down. why they dont want to debate it. As a matter of fact. I am so surprised that my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle tried to make this sound as if the Democrats didnt want a grace period. that we didnt want a hold harmless period. That is absolutely not true. We agreed with Mr. Cordray. who heads the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. that there should be a grace period. We understood when the industry talked about the fact that they had a lot of work to do to make sure that they got the right forms. that they trained their people. that they came in compliance with the new rules that were created under DoddFrank. So we agreed. Okay. Mr. Cordray said. I will not implement enforcement. I understand what you are saying. And Democrats agreed. We will set a grace period. It is okay. You keep trying to debate this bill about the grace period. That is not an issue. That is not an issue at all. We agree to the grace period. Go. do your work. get your papers all worked out. get your staff all trained. But that is not what this issue is about. This issue is about. where do you stand with consumers? Are you willing to say to consumers that if. in fact. you believe that you have been harmed in this closing. that all of a sudden the estimated costs are highly different. they are so different from what the final costs areif you want to say to the consumer you dont have a right to go into court and raise that question. then you are against the consumers. The consumers should have a right to have their day in court despite the grace period. The grace period should not be a period where you simply are getting your papers in order and you are training your staff. It should be a period where you still have a guarantee that you are not going to be tricked at closing time. that you are not going to be misled. that you are not going to be undermined in any way. If you want this to be a grace period where folks can say. "Ah. I have an opportunity now." the lender can say. "I have an opportunity to get a little more money out of this deal." and then you would say if they misled the consumer that the consumer does not have a right at all to raise a question about it. I dont think so. So we on this side of the aisle. we stand with consumers. When consumers decide to purchase a home. it is the biggest purchase of most peoples lives. and they should be afforded the broadest recourse available under the law. Many errors can occur in this complicated process. some made in good faith. some that are not. For example. a lender might fail to properly disclose key loan terms. such as annual interest rates. finance charges. and other critical information associated with purchasing a home. If a borrower feels that they have been harmed. they should have an opportunity to have their day in court without limitation. I fully support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus announcement that it would engage in restrained enforcement actions against lenders under their new mortgage disclosure rules. The Bureau made similar assurances in response to the mortgage underwriting and servicing rules that went into effect last year. And I fully expect the Bureau to do the same with these new disclosure rules that they have always done. to be responsive to Congress. industry. and other relevant stakeholders. and to make thoughtful decisions on the best way to proceed in protecting consumers. I have no reason to believe that they will not be as thoughtful in their approach to the new mortgage disclosures as they were with the mortgage underwriting and servicing rules.