ms. waters: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. heck. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. heck: thank you mr. speaker. ky not tell you how thrilled i am to hear that the chair of the committee has seen the light will follow the lead of the gentleman from tennessee and i look forward to him signing on to congressman fincher's export-import bank bill. i wish i could support this in the name of coon soum brother text, but it isn't. when we had this hearing the most common thread was that we needed more information about what is happening out here. well, unfortunately since that hearing, we've received more information. . indeed "the seattle times" ran an unbelievably in depth article dedailying some of the worst practices among -- detailing some of the worst practices among home lenders. some of those which led to the meltdown. not verifying borrowers' income

pushing borrowers in unaffordable loans, aggressive debt collection driving up cost through hidden add-ons, overappraising home, all of these things. if you do nothing else, read this essay which i flat predict today, write it down, is going to win a pulitzer prize. i write it down. it has been suggested that lenders could not make a living were they held to eight points over prime. but that's not -- that doesn't square with reality what is reality? take out the largest lender who averages seven points over prime, seven points over prime, average all the rest and it is 3.8% over prime. don't tell me lenders can't make a living in the manufactured home market unless they're given 10 points over prime. they're making a living and in fact they could double it and still be approximately what the

single largest does. this bill is about relaxing an awful lot of consumer protections among our most vulnerable population. requirements to do housing counseling, ban on teaser rates, early provision on disclosures, large font statement of the consumers' rights. this bill would go backwards on those measures. would expose the most vulnerable among us to exploitation. as a consequence i would urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 650 in the name of consumer protection. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time -- the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much mr. chairman and members.

my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle keep telling us how everybody who would make money on these most vulnerable populations, this vulnerable population, somehow are suffering. they're suffering because somehow they're not able to make these loans. because they cannot be guaranteed the profits that they want to get. let me again just share some information with you. clayton homes, the largest u.s. mobile home manufacturer, as well as the two biggest mobile home lenders, 21st mortgage corporation and vanderbilt mortgage and finance, are owned by berkshire hathaway. an amazingly profitable company who shares trade for 215 -- $215,000 each. berkshire hathaway profited to the tune of $19.87 billion or

$12,092 per share in 2014. the c.e.o. of berkshire hathaway is mr. warren buffett the third largest richest man in the world. even though cfpb's rule on manufactured housing was effective in january 2014 again, clayton homes profited to the tune of $558 million in 2014 up from $416 million in 2013, and $255 million in 2012. why do we need to provide this industry with more regulatory relief? when they're already thriving? -- relief when they're already thrivinging? note, these profits come on -- thriving? note, these profits come on the backs of some of america's lowest income households. 84% of the industry's customers make less than the u.s. medium household income.

clayton, again is a large conglomerate of companies operating under at least 18 names, constructing nearly half of the industry's new homes and selling them through its own retailers. many consumers think they're shopping around, not realizing that it's just different dealers with different names all operating under the clayton umbrella. let me just wrap this up by saying that this bill is absolutely a giveaway. it is my friends on the opposite side of the aisle deciding that it's more important to allow this industry to charge exorbitant interest rates and fees to this vulnerable population than it is to try and do something about reform. we went through a recession, almost a depression, in this

country, because of the way of that they came up with these exotic prurkts. you want to take -- products. you want to take us right back to that kind of situation. i would ask my colleagues to vote no on this bill. it's not needed and it's absolutely predatory. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. fincher: i'm going to finish up and just hit on several accusations that have been made by my friends on the other side of the aisle. and before i do, i want to enter into the record a statement from the ranking member last congress. this was back in may 2014. on h.r. 1779, which was the bill before the compromise, which had interest rates at 14%, not capped at 10%, above prime. i'm going to support the bill and i'm supporting the bill because i have been embracing opportunities to support rural communities. in the same vain i'm going to support this bill -- vein i'm going to support this bill, even

though i have questions about it, because i want my legislators here, my friends and colleagues from rural area, who are trying hard to make sure that they provide opportunities and realize the problems that their -- of their constituents and i want them to know that we can work together on rural and urban problems without always being opposed simply because it's urban or simply because it's rural. that's before the compromise language, mr. speaker. now that language is significantly less. once again we are not doing away with the protections that dodd-frank make sure that apply to folks all over districts all over our countries. think about. this i go home every wednesday, i live in a little place called frog jump. it's a real place in west tennessee mifmente county is crockett county. a very rural county that doesn't have a stop light in my county. not a red light in our county. we're that small. 12,000 13,000 people. i go home to my constituents, the folks in my districts, and they tell me fincher, a lot of

them call me by my last name fincher we are trying to buy a mobile home a manufactured home, and we are happy with the price, we have been happy with all of the terms of the conditions of the manufactured home that we're trying to buy but, fincher, we can't buy one because washington has gotten in the way. and we're happy with the price, we're happy -- happy with the terms, we're happy with the product but bureau croot -- bureaucrats and politicses in washington team so they -- politicians in washington seem to think they know more than we know here in crockett county. it's almost like do we say -- as we say but don't do as we do. it's like they're totally against americans having the right to choose for themselves and make the decisions for themselves, so congress, members of congress, should sit high on their horse, know nothing about the industry, nothing about how

this is going to impact not people at the top mr. speaker, if my colleagues are so opposed to making an income and making wealth and growing our businesses and making a profit, this doesn't hurt warren buff its. it hurts the -- buffet. it -- warren buffett. it hurts the people in frog jump and people all around this country. we somehow must get back to working for the people back home and not listening to the special interest groups. they've been citing a story in the newspaper somewhere -- i don't know where that put all of these accusations out. we are not, we are not lessening the role of dodd-frank when it comes to consumer protections with this bill. all we're doing is making sure that americans, mr. speaker, can have access to credit and they can own a home for themselves and not be told what to do by washington politicians. i urge my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle, this is a bipartisan bill, please, please don't be scared by the president's veto threat yesterday. and try to vote for the constituents back home in our districts that desperately need this legislation passed. and with that mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee has yielded back. all time for debate having now expired, pursuant to house resolution 189, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the truth in lending act to modify the definitions of a mortgage originator and a high-cost mortgage. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 650 is postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 189, i call up the bill h.r. 685, to amend the truth in lending act, to improve upon the definitions provided for points and fees in connection with mortgage -- with a mortgage transaction and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 35 h.r. 65, a bill to amend the truth in lending act, to improve upon the definitions provided for points and fees in connection with a mortgage

transaction. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 189, the gentleman from michigan, mr. hue zynga, and -- huse ingea, and the gentlewoman from -- mr. huizenga, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. huizenga: and, mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of my bill, h.r. 685 the mortgage choice act. as someone who has worked in the housing industry this is a very important issue to me and more importantly to all of our constituents across the country. last year the qualified mortgage or q.m. as mandated by the dodd-frank reform act went into effect. nobody has a problem with that.

but the q.m. rule is the primary means for mortgage lenders to satisfy its ability to pay requirements. additionally, dodd-frank provides that a q.m., qualified mortgage, may not have points and fees in excess of 3% of the total loan amount. as it's am big rouse i -- ambiguously defined, it includes fees paid to affiliated but not unaffiliated title companies and amounts of insurance and taxes held in escrow. as a result of this confusing and problematic definition, many affiliated loans particularly those made into low and moderate income borrowers, would not qualify as q.m. sess. a -- q.m.'s and would unlikely be made or only be available at higher rates due to heightened liability risks. consumers would lose the ability to take advantage of the convenience and the market efficiencies and choice offered by one stop shopping. i along with my good friend, representative gregory meeks, from new york, re-introduced

h.r. 685, a strong bipartisan bill that would modify and clarify the way that these points and fees are calculated. the legislation is very narrowly focused to promote access to affordable mortgage credit without overturning the important consumer protections and sound underwriting required under dodd-frank's ability to pay provisions. having been a licensed realtor and coming out of that industry, it didn't take those of white house had been in the industry long to -- of white house had been in the industry long to see -- of us to see -- of us who had been in the industry long to see what led to the crisis. my first closing that i did where a check was slid across the desk, across the table to the seller, and then a check was slid across the table to the buyer. and the closing agent really didn't even know what to say. it was first time that they were starting to get into these zero down or even 120% loan devals as

what was happening and i thought to myself, this is not going to end well. and that is the case. and we need to have that tightened-up system. but i think it's important to know that we have some issues with that dodd-frank provision. this is one of those. i do also believe, mr. speaker, that it's important to note that when we first introduced this bill in 2012 in the last congress, it looked substantially different. however working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle i made the decision to make the changes necessary to gain their support of the legislation. as a result it's been a truly bipartisan effort at every step of the way in the legislative process. that is why this very legislation unanimously passed both the house financial services committee and the house of representatives last congress. . in fact as we dealt with this bill again, the new bill,: r. 685, it passed out of committee

43-12 after, i think, some had decided they were going to be against it after they were for it. it seems the white house and others in capitol hill and on capitol hill have decided that rather than taking care of consumers and rather than trying to make the bill work, they've decided that it is a citadel that cannot be breached and not a jot or tiddle of dodd-frank can be changed, otherwise they label it as bailouts and helping out wall street and all these other things. the real truth of the matter is, mr. speaker, we are trying to make sure that real americans can obtain the american dream and buy and own their own home. specifically, our bill h.r. 685 would provide equal treatment for affiliated title fees and title companies and clarify the treatment of insurance held necessary crow. now, when things are held in escrow they don't belong to the owner. they don't belong to the bank or the title company that's holding

it. all they are doing is holding them to then pay for those -- that insurance bill that's going to be coming due. they pay for the insurance or the property taxes that may be coming up. and what happens when someone writes that check every month, they're putting a 12th of that total payment in every month into that escrow. and it just begs to be clarified. these commonsense changes will promote access to affordable mortgage credit for low and moderate income families and first-time homeowners by ensuring that a safer properly underwritten mortgage passes the q.m. test. whether or not you support dodd-frank overall or specifically within this area, it's clear the law is going to require some tweaks to ensure qualified borrowers aren't locked out of homeownership and the beneficial features of a qualified mortgage. the q.m. represents the safest, best underwritten mortgage availability on the market. it's the gold standard mr.

speaker. we should want more people getting q.m.'s, not fewer. quite frankly this is something we should all agree on and as a i want pod -- as i pointed out, we did last term and our bill doesn't touch any of the cfpb's strict underwriting cry tier yasm it doesn't in any way su -- cry tieria. it doesn't in any way suspend -- that the borrower has the ability to repay the loan. it helps americans realize a portion of the american dream that we talked about. you know what the best part is? we don't need to pass a grandiose law or decree. all we need to do is work in a bipartisan manner and i think the american people are begging for that and here's an opportunity to do that. we have done it and to reform a burdensome regulation that is negatively impacting our constituents is something we should all strive for. so i'd like to thank my colleague representative meeks along with manufacture though others on both my side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle that have worked

tirelessly to help fix this flawed provision currently being implemented in dodd-frank i. i urge my colleagues to work in support of h.r. 685 and help make the dreams of their constituents come true by ensuring that all consume verse greater access to mortgage credit and more choices and credit providers. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california reis -- rise? ms. waters: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for such time as she may consume. ms. waters: i rise in opposition to h.r. 685, the so-called mortgage choice act which would roll back protections for home buyers make mortgages more expensive, undermine dodd-frank and undo the important work of the consumer financial protection bureau. as its title indicate, the mortgage choice act would affect choice, but in the wrong way. it would invite a return to a

recent time when hardworking americans were choosing whether to pay for medication or their mortgage. a time when they were faced with choosing between sleeping at a homeless shelter or spending one more night in the car. these choices were, and still are, being made by many of those who suffered as a result of the financial crisis. a crisis that was caused in large part by predatory mortgages. during this time lenders often piled on excessive upfront fees like flaunting the opaque pricing and sales system for settlement services like title insurance which too often left borrowers without the information necessary to shop around or negotiate for lower prices. they cared little about whether the borrower had the ability to repay the loan over the life of

the mortgage because they raked in upfront fees at the point of origination. just to make it clear, anyone who has bought a home, who got involved with negotiating for a mortgage, would understand very clearly what we're talking about. we're going to focus on title fees, but there are a lot of fees, upfront, that would be -- that would-be homeowners are asked to pay for including apraisal fees and inspection fees. during the subprime meltdown and the crisis we had, we determined that there were many of the mortgage lenders, the originators, who were just piling on these fees. this is in addition to the down payments that we're making system of they were making more money. because they were making more money, is what caused much of our homeowners to lose these

homes because they were paying too much up front and they were being gouged with these predatory loans. in response to the bod-frank act, entrusted the cfpb with the responsibility of ensuring that lenders and their affiliated companies were restrained from charging excessive fees. what are we talking about? we're simply talking about mortgage lenders and originators who owned other companies like title companies, or who were affiliated with other companies, like title companies, and why were they affiliated? they were affiliated or owned these companies so they could make more money because these affiliated companies would mark up the price of the fees and kick back to the originator some money. one way the cfpb achieved this was through a standard known as the qualified mortgage, which among other things placed a 3%

cap on upfront fees. what they simply said was you just can't keep charging any old thing you want to. it doesn't make good sense that people are paying 5% 6% and on and on and on in upfront fees so we're going to put a cap on for 3% of upfront fees. these 3% fee caps include those paid to affiliates, don't forget, these companies that are owned by the originator or affiliated with them. this 3% fee cap includes again those paid to affiliates of the lenders for services such as again property appraisalls settlement services and title insurance. it is these fees that pose the greatest risk to consumers since they invite lenders to steer borrowers directly to affiliate without open competition and with higher prices. so simply what the originators were doing was saying, ok this

is who we're going to get you to pay money to for, you know these services that you need in order to get this loan. they were simply saying, they didn't ask you if you knew a title exen that -- company. they didn't invite independent companies in to compete, they simply steered the borrower into these affiliated companies. in the past, predators have -- creditors have offered incentives like reduced office rent, bonuses, commissions or other financial perks in exchange for business referrals. though dodd-frank banned these types of kickbacks, some are circumstance um centing them by buying or creating businesses so they can profit by referring their customers to their affiliated service providers. it's worse than referrals. they just write it up and the borrower doesn't even know they had an opportunity to shop

around. others like j.p. morgan and wells fargo recently settled cases of wrongdoing withen the past year for engaging in a kickback scheme with an affiliated title company. but instead of strengthening this ban on kickbacks, today, house considers legislation that would actually incentivize these cozy relationships which increase creditors profits at the expense of consumers in come sayses -- in some cases these referral incentives are as much as half of the premiums home buyers pay. buying a home is a complex venture. how many among us who own homes have really ever shopped around for title insurance? i imagine very few. consumers should not have to be worried that their service providers are co-lewding to scam borrowers. instead, they should be competing to provide them the best prices. h.r. 685 would undermine the

cfpb's definition of affiliated services by removing title insurance fees charged by affiliates of the lenders from the 3% cap. as a result, creditors will be encouraged to direct borrowers to expensive affiliates codifying a system of kickbacks in our laws. this is not only detrimental to consumers but to small businesses that provide unaffiliated title insurance. so what they're basically saying is, we don't like it that you've had reform in the law. we don't like it that you've discovered that these kickback schemes go on. we don't like it that you now know that some of these originator, these lenders, own some of these businesses. we want them to be able to charge as much in fees as they can get. let them gouge, let them simply write in companies that they know will pay them more money

for getting this business and so we have said in the consumer financial protection bureau that this should be limited to 3%. that's enough. you don't need to take more from the consumer. title insurance is already an uncompetitive market and state protections are often weak and at times nonexistent. this measure will ironically ensure even fewer choices for consumers because consumers rarely know that other options exist. as a result, they will often simply rely on what they are forced to do or made to do on the recommendations of their lend whore under h.r. 685 can simply refer them to affiliated entities who can then charge excessive fees without regard for 3% cap. mr. chairman a diverse coalition ranking from the naa -- ranging from the naacp and the national council of la raza

and the center for american process -- progress and the center for responsible lending have voiced their opposition to this act. the obama administration threatened to veto the measure because it and i quote risks eroding consume brother texts and returning the mortgage markets to the days of careless lending, quote unquote. we need only reflect on the 2008 mortgage crisis to understand that lenders too often focused on profiting from upfront payments through points and fees. rather than taking care to originate loans whose value derived from long-term pmpleance. i'm alarmed at how short our memories have become. it's barely been five years since the worst of the crisis subsided. and we're already welcoming a return to the abusive practices that contributed to the subprime

meltdown. this measure will drive up the cost of mortgages, limit competition and ultimately hurt consumers. and so i sincerely urge my colleagues to oppose it. mr. speaker and members, i have spent hours with consumers begging for loan modifications. trying to save their homes. they department know what they were signing up for when they signed on the dotted line. if more of -- if many of these mortgages that were simply gouging them. simply telling them that they could get refies any time they wanted. they didn't know that when they were told that don't worry about how much money you make we can fix that. don't worry about whether or not we're going to be able to not only refinance but we can give you this for interest only and on and on and on with all these exotic products and they certainly didn't know about all of the fees that they were

paying upfront. they didn't understand that they should have had some options. they should have had some choices. but they didn't have. they didn't have because these lenders were just putting them in to paying companies that they were affiliated with, that they were going to make more money off of. this is shameful. i don't know why we're spending our time in the congress of the united states trying to gouge consumers. and trying to put us back where we were with the subprime meltdowns and the crisis that was created. we have a lot of things we should be attending. to we have a lot of concerns that our consumers have out there. our consumers are concerned about jobs. and job creation. they're concerned about pay equity. they are concerned about homelessness. they're concerned that we have the housing to attend to those who have jobs that cannot afford to pay the price of rental

housing. they're concerned that if they want to buy a home, that they will be treated fairly that they will not be gouged, that they will not be taken advantage of. we know, we know that when you buy a home you have a stack of papers this high to sign. we also know that if you're well off, you can get your lawyer, you can get your representative to read through these papers and help you get the best mortgage, we know that members of congress know how to negotiate, know how to bargain, know how to get the best loans, know how to shop around, but not all of our consumers are that fortunate. . not all of them are prepared and they listen to what they're told by their lenders. and i want to tell you the business that we're involved in here with this bill, where we're trying to say, forget about that 3% cap, let these lenders charge as much as they can get, let

them gouge the consumers this is wrong. this should not be done by members who are sent here to represent all of our constituents, all of our consumers, and more than that, the more vulnerable of them. those who don't have high-priced lobbyists in the halls of congress, those of them who can't even get their members of congress to return their telephone calls if they have a complaint. we should be here dealing with the real issues of the day, not using our influence and our time to simply fatten the pockets of those who would gouge our constituents. mr. chairman and -- mr. chairman and members i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding.

first off, i will not be long. i nouveau a number of members who want -- i know you have a number of members who want to speak for this bill. i want to thank chairman hensarling for the good work he and his committee, who have been working throughout not only this bill but numerous bills this week, this whole week the house will be voting on bills to promote a healthier economy. preserve consumer choice and help people become financially independent. you know mr. speaker it's an ironic thing here in washington when some laws that are passed hurt more than they actually help. i truly think everyone in this body wants to do what is best for the american people. but that's not how things always turn out. there are some in this body who whenever a problem comes around their gut reaction is to add more regulations, cost and red tape. for some reason, they think paperwork can solve all of our problems. and that's exactly what happened with dodd-frank. washington tried to solve a

problem by regulating the big guys. but all they succeeded in doing is hurting the little guys. when you look around, who is getting hurt most by dodd-frank? it's credit unions and community banks. more importantly it's lower income families who can't get the loans they need because one-size-fits-all regulations are blocking them. we need to give people in this country an institution -- and institutions that serve them space to live and space to grow. the mortgage choice act and so many of the bills that we'll see on the floor this week help open up that space. i want to thank representative huizenga for being a champion on this legislation, to give the american people the room they need to achieve their dreams. so let's get behind the american people and help them reach financial independent by supporting this bill. i -- independence by supporting this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized.

does the gentlewoman from california have additional speakers? ms. waters: i have no additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: do you reserve the balance of your time? ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california continues to reserve the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. huizenga: thank you mr. speaker. with that i would like to represent the vice chairman of our committee from north carolina, mr. mchenry, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, is recognized for two minutes. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague, mr. huizenga, for his hard work on this piece of legislation. well crafted and a very important reform, the american people need to understand and appreciate. what the american people understand is that washington regulation is preventing them americans, from realizing the dream of home ownership. these arbitrary

washington-created barriers are keeping young people, recently married couples, low and middle income americans from accessing mortgages they they -- they need to own a home. that's wrong. right now consumers are bearing the brunt of regulatory overreach under dodd-frank. according to the most recent housing data, the u.s. home openership rate is now the lowest it has been in 20 years. young homeowners are being hit particularly hard. for example in my district the number of young homeowners fell to a level not seen since the year 2000. that's unacceptable. combined, these figures with recent reports indicating serious distress in the credit markets and it becomes clear that young lower and middle income americans are being squeezed out of the dream of home ownership. it's important we note that this bill will not do a number of things. nothing in this bill undoes the dodd-frank requirement that lenders ascertain a borrower's

ability to pay. nor does the bill in any way change the strict underwriting standards that the cfpb has set for qualified mortgages. instead, this bill simply allows more loans to fit under the current limitation on points and fees. thereby expanding access to credit at a time when credit is still very tight. it's also -- it also provides clarity to the calculation of points and fees which allow more loans to meet the requirement of qualified mortgages. these are very important reforms, very necessary reforms and good for american home ownership and i congratulate my colleague for crafting this fine piece of legislation and i urge my colleagues to support the matter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i will continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman continues to reserve her time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. huizenga: mr. speaker, i'd like to inquire as to the amount of time on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 20 minutes. the gentlewoman from california has 16 1/2 minutes. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. speaker. with that i would like to recognize a new colleague of ours from michigan, mr. trot for two minutes -- mr. trott, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. trott: thank you mr. speaker. i also want to thank the gentleman from michigan for the opportunity to co-sponsor and to speak in favor of h.r. 685. there is no question that dodd-frank is making the dream of home ownership more difficult for many americans. there are a myriad of unintended consequences that were created by this regulation and the problems are largely the result of an overreach by the federal government and poorly

thought-out rules, rules which in many cases were written by people that may or may not know the difference between mortgagee and mortar. the mortgage choice act addresses a problem created by the qualified mortgage rule. the qualified mortgage rule treats the cost of title insurance differently depending on whether the title insurance agency is affiliated with the lender. the distinction is nonsensical. and nen many states like michigan, the title insurance cost is regulated by an insurance commissioner or through a filed rate. consequently, the cost of insurance in most states is typically the same regardless of whether the title agency is an affiliate or not. the current definition of points and fees is not only illogical but it also increases the cost of mortgage credit by making lending less efficient and less profitable. it also reduces the mortgage options that are available to consumers and it generally makes credit less available which in turn stifles the ability of hardworking americans to buy a

home. the one thing that the current definition of points and fees does do, however, is it gives the consumer financial protection bureau a reason to hire more staff, to run around the country and audit and impose sanctions on lenders, sanctions which ultimately hurt consumers and the lending industry. i ask my colleagues to support the mortgage choices act as it truly will afford consumers more choices as they pursue their dream of home ownership. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from michigan have additional speakers? mr. huizenga: yes mr. speaker. do i. the speaker pro tempore: all right. does the gentlewoman from california continue to reserve? ms. waters: yes i will continue to reserve my time. mr. huizenga: with that mr. speaker, i would like to recognize the chairman of our committee, mr. hensarling, for as much time as he wishes to consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for as much time as

he may consume. mr. hensarling: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from michigan for his leadership on our committee and for his leadership on bringing this bill through our committee on a strong bipartisan vote. i got to tell you mr. speaker it is with great pride that the house financial services committee just a couple of weeks ago voted out 11 different bills to help american families achieve that coveted goal of financial independence. and part and parcel of that request, that dream, is the dream of home ownership. regrettably there are some people within this body who believe in bipartisanship more in theory chan they do in practice -- than they do in practice. i regret those who supported a bill before they were against it, but that's where we are here today. what we're really about here is

trying to ensure that low and moderate income people do not have their federal government protect them out of their homes. and what we have seen is bad and dumb regulation out of washington do just that. the goal of consumer protection ought to be to help empower consumers to buy homes they can afford to keep, that we have competitive, trnt parent, innovative -- transparent innovative markets that are vigorously policed for fraud and deceptive advertising. that's the vision we have on this side of the aisle and frankly, it's at least a vision that some on the other side of the aisle have as well. so mr. speaker, this is an incredibly modest, still important but incredibly modest bill by definition, if it's

bipartisan, it's going to be modest. i'm somewhat shocked that under our rules and procedures that this wouldn't be on the suspension calendar. and in fact, in the last congress there wasn't one single vote cast to object to this bill from the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga the chairman of our monetary policy and trade subcommittee, a real leader on housing opportunity for low and moderate income americans on our committee, not a single dissenting vote. but i guess that was before, again the left hand knew what the far left hand was doing and now all of a sudden we've entered yet another fact-free zone and we're having all this incredible verbiage about wall street, when all this bill is doing is leveling the playing field between those firms that would be affiliated and those that would not. so that consumers can have a few more choices and benefit from lower cost. as they try to get their american dream. if we followed the logic of the

far left, mcdonald's could serve you a burger but they could no longer serve you fries. you'd have to go across the street to burger king for your fries there. i guess national tire and battery would have to be national tire, they couldn't sell you a battery anymore. consumers would be protected and not have their choices recognized. i guess the phone company could no longer offer you a discount on internet and cable and phone put together because, my lord, those are mr. ayotte: fillations, mr. speaker -- those are affiliations, mr. speaker, and apparently the left wants to ensure, the far left wants to ensure that american consumers are stripped of their economic liberties to make choices for themselves, to be able to get discounts when products are put together. i don't understand it. we are trying to ensure that low and moderate income americans have convenience, that they have choice, that they have lower

prices. the truth in lending act will apply should apply. we have to protect consumers against fraud and deception, but we've got to quit protecting consumers right out of their homes. so, again, i want to thank the gentleman, mr. huizenga from michigan, for doing everything he can to help this segment of our american population. so often we hear the left and far left talk about affordable housing. once again something they recognize in theory. it's just not anything they want to support in practice. . this is an affordable housing bill. this is an affordable housing bill. consumers will have choice under this bill. thus, the name. and so we know that talk is cheap but unfortunately, votes tend to be expensive. this started out as such a bipartisan piece of legislation

but then somebody said oh, my lord,s that clarification or modification of dodd-frank and dodd-frank is something that came down from mount sinai, chiseled into stone tablets. former chairman frank who chaired our committee doesn't seem to belief that. he came before the committee and testified at least a half dozen different ideas he had for mending his own signature legislation, yet there are those on the far left who would hurt the most vulnerable in our society, who would deny them fundamental economic liberty, choose the mortgages they want, to allow them their american dream of home ownership that's not right. that's not fair. that's not economic justice. and that's why, mr. speaker, it's so critical so crit sal today that we support -- so critical today that we support h.r. 685. it was designed to be a bipartisan bill. it should be a bipartisan billism urge every single member to adopt it. i thank the gentleman from michigan for his leadership and i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. does the gentleman from michigan have any additional speakers? mr. huizenga: i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized to close debate for the minority, she has no additional speakers. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker. with all due respect to my chairman, mr. hensarling this debate is not about mcdonald's. it's not about burger king. it's not about the national tire and battery company. this is about our constituents who want to be homeowners who are gouged and who are misled and steered into companies that are going to be to the provide kickbacks for the loan originators. we need to get rid of some of these myths. the myth that -- myths we have heard today is we need h.r. 685. to ensure access to credit for low income households. let's talk about the facts. the cost of title insurance is

opaque. borrowers are responsible for paying for title insurance, but title insurance pricing is basically negotiated between the lender and the title insurance company. the pricing and sales system is completely nontransparent, making it impossible for borrowers to shop for better prices on title insurance. in addition, when borrowers spend money on inflated title insurance premiums, it makes home ownership less sustainable. high title insurance prices mean borrow verse less money to put toward a down payment or to put toward improvements to their home. even "the wall street journal" agrees. here's a quote from an article from march 28, 2014. title insurance they say, can cost hundreds of dollars for modest houses and thousands for multimillion dollar properties.

yet, many home buyers don't focus on the product or the price until they sit down at the closing. quote-unquote. the article went on to describe that, again quote upstart insurers and agencies are challenging the status quo. two insurers are marketing directly to consumers on the internet, offering online quotes to home buyers who plug in basic information about the property such as location purchase price and loan amount. and they're offering savings up to 35% off what established firms charge. but these upstart companies have had a hard time in securing market share because they don't have the profits to offer -- to afford to offer kickbacks like arrangements. the cfpb has taken reasonable steps on the affiliated title insurance issue, carefully

considering the industry comments in their proposed rule and deciding that the harm to consumers was too great to exclude affiliated title. the inclusion of title insurance, qualified mortgage point and fee caps serves to limit title insurance pricing from even greater excesses. as a democratic witness at the hearing on h.r. 685 that was professor adam levitton of georgetown university concluded, and i quote, to the extent that we are concerned about ensuring greater availability of credit to consumers exempting title insurance from the hopa and q.m. point and fee caps is a terrible idea. as it virtually guarantees that consumers will be gouged with increased title insurance costs which make home ownership more

expensive. make no mistake. wall street always argues that consume brother text will hurt access to credit. when they want to stop those efforts dead in their tracks, in fact, we heard these same arguments in the early 2000's as the industry lobbied against consume brother texts. in 2007 representatives brad miller and mel watt introduced, or reintroduced in 2004 a bill supported by consumer groups to curb predatory lending practices which also would have held financial companies that securitize mortgages liable for certain violations. that bill eventually was included in dodd-frank as title 14 of the bill. but remember that bear stearns spent $500,000 lobbying against miller's bill and another piece of proposed mortgage legislation right up until the investment

bank cratered in march of 2008. simply in wrapping up this debate it is clear that there should be caps on fees. it is clear that when consumers try and sit down at a closing and try do the best job that they can to protect their dollars, so that they can have money left to fix up the house that they're trying to buy or they can have enough money to ensure they're able to make the mortgages, that they don't want to be steered in ways that some of these loan originators have done and don't do. they don't want to be steered to affiliated businesses who will simply quickback some of those profits to the lender who sent them, you know to them in the first place. and so, i would ask my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle to just consider

what you're spending your time on. consider who you're advocating for. consider that you are advocating for people who are making lots of money. they don't really need your advocacy. they do very well because they've got high-paid lobbyists walking the halls of washington, d.c., following us around from our offices to the toilets. consider that if this time was better spent really supporting the reforms in dodd-frank and supporting the consumer financial protection bureau, we will be doing a better job for our constituents than coming in here trying to protect the biggest and richest firm whors doing very well out there. and don't forget prior to dodd-frank there was no real protection for consumers. that's why we have the consumer financial protection bureau. they're doing a great job and

they're providing us with the research, they're providing us with the investigations, they're providing us with the information that we should be using to protect consumers rather than coming on this floor and in our committees trying to denounce them trying to make sure that they're not able to do business, trying to defund them trying to discredit them, trying to do everything that they can to keep them from being effective. the consumer financial protection bureau is just about that. protecting our consumers in ways that they were not protected before we had the great subprime meltdown and the great crisis that was created in this country. we should all be trying to do our very best not to to return 2008, not to return to a time where we were destroying communities, where boarded up homes for blocks and blocks and blocks in communities were drive do you think the value of other

homes in those communities. we should be trying to do everything that we can to make sure that we care about home ownership. i hear from the other side of the aisle that somehow we don't care about people owning homes but what i really hear when i listen to that is that they don't care what price of the pay in order to get in a home. they don't care if they're gouged with high fees. they don't care if they're extended credit that they can't afford. they don't care that they're going to lose these homes and timely, they don't really care whether or not they're going to get modifications so they can stay in the homes. as a matter of fact, many of our consumers who have tried their very best to save their homes have been turned down by the very financial institutions that put them in the position that they happen to be in many of those financial institutions we

bailed out and we've got nothing in return for much of those bailouts we have done. and so we have an opportunity to respect not only our constituents and our consumers but respect the fact that we finally evolved to the point where we have reform and i know, and i hear from time to time that somehow we on this side of the aisle believe that the dodd-frank reforms are cast in concrete. that they're -- that there can be no modifications, no changes. you heard the chairman say we passed out 11 bills. we passed out in a bipartisan waybills that some of us kind of held our nose and passed out because we wanted to show that maybe these particular bills were not that harmful and maybe weren't harmful and that we could work in a bipartisan way even though some of them

questioned some of the work that had been done in dodd-frank. i have said and many other members of the committee on my side of the aisle have said, we're willing to make technical corrections. we're willing to make some modifications and make good -- that make good sense but we're not willing to destroy the reform we did that we work sod hard for. dodd-frank is extremely important. and we should be about the business of implementing these reforms. so that we can protect our consumers. i am taken back and i'm surprised that many of our members who are here advocating for the rich lenders, for the people who caused the problem in the first place, can go back home and look their consumers in the eye and tell them they're really working for them. they're really working to make sure that they can own a home. they don't really know and i don't think that many of those are going back and saying, well

let me tell you what i said today. i made sure that there was no cap on fees. and that the lenders can charge whatever they want working with the affiliating companies and this cap of 3% that of the come up with in dodd-frank reform doesn't make good sense. they should be able to charge you whatever they want to charge you. i don't think that we have members who have here on this floor today that have advocating that we get rid of these caps and that we allow these lenders to have these relationships with the affiliated companies where they keep steering the business into them. steering the business into them. how many of those who are advocating have asked the lenders, how much money are you making back? on these fees that you are allowing the affiliateeds to charge them in do you really get

a share in those profits? or do you really get a kickback? if so, let's have some transparency. let's shine some light on how much money you're making. i bet you one thing, i bet you none of them will tell you, we're not making any money. we're just doing this because, well, we're just doing it because we think that this is a better way to do it. and so i'm asking my colleagues in this house to reject this legislation. we have been on this floor today on two important bills. one on manufactured housing where again, we have advocates on the opposite side of the aisle who would like to see the manufactured housing industry make more money on the poorest of people, on the most vulnerable in our society. they would like to charge interest rates above prime

interest 10% above prime interest. and as we have stated when the interest rates began to rise, means that it can go beyond 14%, 15% 16%, 17% 18%, we don't know how high it can go. but yet the time that we have spent advocating for the richest of the rich who are in this business to be able to gouge these poor people and the time that we're spending again on another bill that would allow the richest of the rich to gouge poor homeowners who don't know and don't understand all these fees that they're being charged and the fact that we have a cap that they want to remove, why are they spending their time representing those who really don't need their representation? i would ask my colleagues to reject both of these bills.

i would ask my colleagues to stand up for the least of these. i would ask my and remember the lessons of 2008 and they are reminded of the fact that not only families are destroyed about what took place with this subprime meltdown and the crisis that took us into a recession, almost a depression. we can't forget these lessons. we can't afford to forget these lessons. we are representatives of the people, representatives of the people don't act that way. representatives of the people don't forget. they do everything in their power to make sure that they provide a safety net, that they provide some protection, that they look out for them, that they are their voice inside this place, where we are making public policy. that the public policy includes them. that the public policy does not

forget them. that the public policy is not the public policy that is designed and supported by the richest 1% in this country, but really the public policy comes out of the voices of all of those who have been sent here from all over this nation from some of the richest communities to some of the poorest communities. we talk about jobs and the need for the creation of jobs, but i don't hear the opposite side of the aisle talking about that. i don't hear them talking about how we can create really more housing opportunities for those who want to buy and for those who have to rent. i don't hear any talk about what we can do to provide economic development in this country how we can repair the infrastructure to ensure that our bridges are working and water systems are working, that our roads are in good shape. i don't hear that. i hear time being spent on how

we can help the richest of those who don't need our voice, who don't need our help. it's time to stop this madness and time to call it what it is. time to ask why is it, why is it that the richest of the folks in the businesses in this country, who have so many paid lobbyivities, who are up and down these halls every day, get so much representation. why is it they have so much influence? why is it they have been able to direct the public policy in ways that the average citizen cannot do? i want to tell you, you talk about the middle class, yes, there is an erosion of the middle class because of the way that the middle class is not really represented. it is not here. i ask my colleagues to reject this legislation to not allow anybody on this floor to tell

them that this is in the best interests of consumers because it is not. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the the gentlewoman from california has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized to close debate. cusecuse i appreciate the opportunity -- cuz cuz i would like to clarify. my family has been involved in construction since the 1930's, 1930's. and i will never forget the day it was a thursday when i pulled up right down the street of my home mr. huizenga: and i saw the business that they had started. it is a ready-mix concrete company and all the guys' trucks were there pickups, small company, 12, 15 people that worked there and every one of those cement trucks were parked in the yard, the exact place

they should not be. and i found out later we had trucks on the way to construction sites that were turned around and came back. i have no interest in going back to where we had been. in fact, i was one of those warning about the practices before serving in this body, and frankly, if those who were serving in this body, who wrote dodd-frank and talked to a few of the people involved in the industry, they might have understood what the interaction is between the buyer, seller, construction agent the closer the people providing title insurance, the simple fact is, there is not an understanding of how this system works. and we may have a common goal of serving consumers. we have different visions of how that needs to be done. we have had a lot of assertions and confused claims thrown around and many of them are

completely unrelated to how this is and how the activity of the transportation committee relates to our work on the financial services committee, but it's an old adage when you are confused, you keep talking. the fact that state regulations are out there is amazing to me, especially in california -- i'm betting the insurance commissioner in california would be surprised at this assertion since california is one of the 47 states that regulates title insurance. transparency is a key element to this. i was a licensed realtor when agency disclosure first came in. this was in the mid-1990's. you had to declare whether you were a buyer's agent, seller's agent, there have been positive changes that have happened for

the consumer in that industry over the last 20, 25 years. the irony in this particular situation is that affiliated companies, those companies that may have been started by the same people, that's the definition, by the way. so i might be a small business owner who owns a real estate company, and i start another company dealing with title insurance, that now -- because i found my tax form is an affiliated company, i can't do or charge what an unaffiliated company could do. i might buy the argument that was made earlier that -- you know these companies can charge whatever they want to charge, but i can only buy that if my friends on the other side of the aisle would be willing to apply equally the law. the law does not apply equally

here. it does not do what they claim that they are trying to do. the other element that has been talked a little bit, this is so ridiculous it's like saying i can't shop at wal-mart or other places because they sell fresh produce and electronics and hardware. so i need to go to a hardware store to pick up my nails. i need to go to the corner grosser and pick up my lettuce and if i need a flat screen tv, i need to go somewhere else. this is about utilizing a streamline. those costs need to be disclosed, first of all. those costs oftentimes are regular lailted, vast majority of the times is regulated by the states but it is not working in the design or plan. the assertion that any change of dodd-frank somehow benefits or

is anti-consumer or benefits somebody on wall street, talk to the owners of the small companies in all of our states. go and talk to them about what their wall street affiliation is. and this bill frankly is widely viewed as unrealistic and unworkable and time we face that reality and change some of the elements of it. this is a modest modest change. and in fact, it's so modest frankly, mr. speaker, that our previous speaker had supported the bill and supported it when it was in committee and supported it when it was on the house floor. certainly did not object to it. and i guess i could say supported it on august 1, 2014, i would like to insert it into the record, she along with 12 of her colleagues including one who has gone onto the senate 12 democrats signed a letter to senator reid requesting him to

take my bill up. my bill and congressman meeks' bill was a good bill last congress and it's a good bill this congress, because it has not changed at all. it has not changed at all. and to quote it, she urged the senate to quickly adopt the mortgage choice act, the bill that would improve access to credit and quote enhance competition among insurance providers. my colleague was right last time and she should be right in this congress and unfortunately we're seeing that i'm afraid politics may have leaked in. the administration should issue a veto threat and we may have seen why this change of heart has happened and i'm dishartened for the american people that presidential politics has leaked into what this body should be doing which is representing people, which is making sure they are getting the best end of the stick and not the sharp end

of the stick. dodd frank has delivered the sharp end of the stick many times and to make sure that our constituents are getting the best service that they possibly can. i would like to urge all of my colleagues to join so many of us in a bipartisan fashion who support this bill, who believe that this is the right time and the right bill to recktive eye this problem and -- rectify this problem and i request all of my colleagues to support h.r. 685. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having now expired, pursuant to house resolution 189, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. third reading. ms. waters: recorded vote. the clerk: to improve upon the definitions provided for points and fees in connection with a mortgage transaction. the speaker pro tempore: the question is now on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. ms. waters: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 650 now will resume. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: union calendar number 34 h.r. 650 a bill to amend the truth in lending act to modify the definitions of a

mortgage originator and high-cost mortgage. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? . ms. waters: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? ms. waters: i'm opposed to the bill in its current form i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. waters of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 650 to the committee on financial services with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. add at the end the following, section 4, protecting consumers from excessive housing costs and predatory lenders. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. the clerk will read.

the clerk: no person or lender who has been found to engage in predatory or abusive lending practices or convicted of mortgage fraud under federal or state law may make use of the amendments made by this act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. chairman, this is the final amendment to the bill. which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. i know democrats and republicans don't agree on much but there is one thing we can be united in saying it's that we should not reward criminal behavior. we cannot let people who are out there making obscene profits by ripping low-income americans, use that money to buy influence that rolls back consumer

protection laws. that is why i'm introducing this amendment that bans bad actors from receiving any benefit from these new provisions. if the house accepts this amendment companies that break the law will not be rewarded by being handed a weaker set of standards. these weaker standards do away with a number of protections current law affords to high-cost loans. they include, stiffer penalties for bad actor learneders and additional disclosures for investors and consumers that purchase high-cost mortgages as well as mandatory counseling so borrowers know what they're getting into and even the ability of borrowers to have their loan rescinded if lenders don't follow the law. we know it's needed, because we know there's fraud out there. i have submitted for the record an investigation by the "seattle

times" and center for public integrity, which while shocking is not the least bit surprising to those of us who have been paying close attention to the predatory practices and that often plague low and middle-income home buyers. . it shows abusive lending practices such as housing manufacturers, steering low-income borrowers into expensive, high interest financing arrangements with companies that they also own. if this amendment were to pass today any company that engaged in this kind of practice or any company that was convicted of mortgage fraud under federal or state law would be prohibited to take advantage of those loose -- of these loosened standards. some may argue that like current law this amendment will

hurt the industry. i'm not concerned. the manufactured housing association for regulatory reform found that 2014 marked a fifth consecutive year of annual industry production increases. meanwhile, mobile home manufacturing giants, clayton homes, owned by berkshire hathaway, profited to the tune of $558 million in 2014, more than double its earnings from just two years earlier. this amendment is for veterans, like dorothy mansfield, who should be honored for their sacrifices to this country but instead is targeted just 18 months after being steered into a predatory mortgage she couldn't afford. mansfield was facing foreclosure. and as for active -- it's for active duty service members whose homes were illegally foreclosed upon who was battling overseas, whose

families were overcharged as they remained at home. it's for low-income borrowers who like all of us are at a disadvantage when they negotiate their first home loan with a company that's probably negotiated hundreds just like that. for many, the american dream of homeownership has turned into a nightmare. as they determine how to put food on the table and gas in the car while dealing with the loans that they have been steered into but cannot afford. so if we're going to remove these basic protections for veterans and service members, for low-income borrowers and many others, let's at least do everything we can to protect them from the predators that we have learned about. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.

the gentleman from texas is now recognized for five minutes in opposition to the motion. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, first i withdraw my point of order and i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is withdrawn. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, just now seeing this motion to recommit but there are a number of areas that frankly make very little sense to me. we -- the motion to recommit uses the phrase "has been found." i don't know what that means. the cfpb can enter into consent orders. does that mean this has been found, quote-unquote often consent orders are entered into without any admission of liability or culpability? next we have the term predatory. we won't find this term otherwise in title 10 of dodd-frank. what does it mean? we don't know what it means.

how about abusive? abusive we know is at least charged -- the cfpb has not come up with a definition yet. we've been told some practices that might be total low legal for the market for some consumers might be abusive to others. what does that mean? the truth is, again, mr. speaker what we're trying to do here is help low and moderate-income americans have housing opportunities that the rest of us have. what we really ought to be on guard against are predatory voting practices that deny people their ability to live in a mobile home. what we really ought to be targeting is abusive voting practices that deny people lower closing costs in order to deal with points and fees with affiliated firms. that's what we really ought to be on guard for, mr. speaker.

and so i would urge that all members reject this motion to recommit. regrettably, it is just one more method by which the left will say that they're trying to help the poor beleaguered consumer except guenther' going to protect them right out of -- except again they're going to protect them right out of their homes. true protection mr. speaker, comes from having competitive, innovative, transparent markets that are accessible to all americans. equal opportunity to access these markets and then vigorously police them for force and fraud and deception but do not trample on the basic freedom of the american consumer to choose the mortgage that's right for their family. that is wrong, mr. speaker. it is unfair.

it is economic injustice. it is predatory legislating. it is abusive legislating. it has to stop here. let's reject the motion to recommit. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded back the balance of his time. the question is on the motion. those in favor will say aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. ms. waters: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 650, if ordered passage of h.r. 685 and the motion to instruct conferees on senate concurrent

resolution 11. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 184 and

the nays are 239. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed and without objection -- ms. waters: i ask for a recorded vote, the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 263. the nays are 162. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on passage of h.r. 685 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 35, h.r. 685 a bill to amend the truth in lending act to improve upon the definitions provided for points in fees in connection with a mortgage transaction. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the passage of the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]