republican study committee hearing this afternoon from the candidates for house speaker. also majority leader and majority whip. later today we'll talk to the chair of the republican study committee, mr. flores of texas, to find out how that meeting goes. right now live to the house floor here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by of chaur lane, father conroy -- chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we give you thanks that you have given to us the goals of justice and the designs of freedom and that these are our heritage as americans. bless the members of the

people's house with the understanding that it is their work to develop the strategies and the plans for achieving those goals and the trust to know that your spirit is with them in their work. grace this assembly with the resolving to be faithful in its tasks, responsible in its actions and fervent in its desire to serve a nation which so many hope will live beyond any current difficulties into an ever-greater realization of both justice and freedom. may all that is done today be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson.

mr. thompson: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it ands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the house. the form of the resolution is as follows. whereas the attacks in benghazi, libya, on september 11, 2012, took the lives of u.s. ambassador christopher stevens, foreign service officer sean smith, and former naval seals tyrone woods and glen daugherty. wheresas the events leading up to and in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on the u.s. consulate in benghazi were

rightfully and thoroughly examined to honor the memory of the victims and to improve the safety of the men and women serving our country overseas. whereas the independent accountability review board convened by the united states state department investigated the events in benghazi and found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. whereas five committees in the united states house of representatives investigated the events in benghazi and found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. whereas four committees in the united states senate investigated the event in benghazi and found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. whereas in each fear more than $4 billion is appropriated to run the congress with untold amounts of this taxpayer money expended by nine congressional committees to investigate the events of the benghazi, none of

which produced any evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. whereas after the exhaustive, thorough, and costly investigations by nine congressional committees and the independent accountable review board found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, republican leaders in the house insisted on using taxpayer dollars to fund a new, duplicative select committee on the event surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in benghazi, here afterknown as the select committee, to re-examine the matter. whereas this taxpayer funded committee was given broad powers to pursue its investigations, including an unlimited taxpayer funded budget, and granting the chairman the legal authority to subpoena documents and compel testimony without any debate or a vote. whereas the ongoing republican-led investigation into the events in benghazi is now one of the longest running,

least productive investigations in congressional history. whereas a widely quoted statement made on september 29, 2015, by representative kevin mccarthy, the republican leader of the house of representatives, has called into question the integrity of the proceedings of the select committee and the house of representatives as a whole. whereas the statement by representative mccarthy demonstrates that the select committee established by republican leaders in the house of representatives was created to influence public opinion of a presidential candidate. whereas the select committee has been in existence for 17 months but has held only three hearings. whereas the select committee abandoned its plans to obtain public testimony from defense department and intelligence community leaders. whereas the select committee excluded the democrat members

from interviewing witnesses who provided exyou will pa torrey information related to the -- exculpatory investigation relate to the investigation. whereas information came to the select meet committee has been leaked to support a candidate for public office. whereas such actions represent an abuse of power that demonstrates the partisan nature of the select committee. whereas the select committee has spent more than $4.5 million in taxpayer funds to date to advance its partisan efforts. whereas this amount does not include the cost of the independent accountability review board, the hearings and reports by nine special -- nine congressional committees, the time, money, and resources consumed by federal agencies to comply with select committee requests, or the opportunity cost of not spending this money elsewhere such as improving the

security for our diplomatic officers abroad. whereas it is an outrage that more than $4.5 million in taxpayer funds have been used by the republicans in the house of representatives not to run the government but to interfere inappropriately with an election for president of the united states. whereas the use of taxpayer dollars by the house of representatives for campaign purposes is a violation of the rules of the house and federal law. resolved that, one, this misuse of the official resources of the house of representatives for political purposes undermines the integrity of the proceedings of the house and brings discredit to the house. two, the integrity of the proceedings of the house can be fully restored only by the dissolution of the select committee. and three, the select committee shall be dismantled and is hereby directed to make public

within 30 days transcripts of all unclassified interviews and dispositions it has conducted. the speaker pro tempore: a resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the house has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair. within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed. pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentlewoman from new york will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this time -- at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. the gentleman from california s recognized for one minute. >> i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, californians watering starts each year on october 1. the california 2016 water year, we come into that year with the six main reservoirs of the central valley project, only 24% of their capacity, or combined 200,000 acre-feet below where they started the water year in 2015, one year ago. that represents enough water supply, 200,000 acre-feet to supply the city of sacramento for 20 years. half the reservoirs don't have 20%. el nino, though welcomed, if it happens, will not stop the drought in california because the state has not invested nearly enough or recently in an additional water storage. congress and the california state government need to act now to open new water resources so we don't falo more farms and theirs more cities or we risk doing irreparable harm to the economy. we need to take action now. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the entlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, when the american public health association totaled the cost of gun violence in the united states for one year, it amounted to $174 billion, about 3 $363 for every american. if you consider just the loss of life, more americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than have died in all the wars this country has ever fought. and now once more in the wake of another mass shooting, too many leaders have responded with indifference. just move on. but when 32 americans are killed with a gun every single day, we cannot afford to stand still. we cannot just move on. so far in this congress the

house has held not one single hearing on the gun violence. not one chance to evaluate ways to curb this epidemic of gun violence. mr. speaker, we cannot go on like this. not one more american should die because congress has failed to act. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. on october 3, the consumer financial protection bureau implemented a new rule to stremline disclosure requirements during the home buying process. helping consumers bert understand their mortgage terms is a worthy goal. no one is arguing that. however, this rule makes considerable changes to the forms used by consumers when applying for a loan. and anyone with sense can see that will lead to unforeseen issues. that means american home buyers will have less flexibility to

buy and close on a home on their terms in the coming months. fortunately, this week the house will consider home buyers assistance act, which creates a temporary safe harbor from enforcement of this new rule as long as a good faith effort was made to comply. the legislation will give the cfpb the necessary time to address implementation hurdles with stakeholders. it's the right move for america's housing recovery. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. higgins: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: every day 60 americans die to an overdose of prescription drugs. the death rate from heroin overdose, an epidemic fueled by addition to open yoid pain skillers, quadrupled from 2002 to 2013. a person suffering from opioid addiction needs access to medication therapy. in many cases treatment limited to rapid detoxification abstinence can lead to an

overdose during the first month of treatment. effective medications to treat addiction exists, but federal regulations restrict, restrict the number of patients a physician can treat. this is a dangerous limitation considering that 877,000 ds sicians can prescribe opio but only 29,000 can prescribe treatments for addiction. tomorrow a hearing will be held on the treat act, legislation i introduced to increase the number of patients to whom a physician can prescribe treatment. it would also expand the authority to nurse practitioners and physician assistants. i thank the committee for considering my bill and will work across the aisle to bring it to the floor. in the meantime, i urge my colleagues to weigh in with the department of health and human services to address the problem. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate patty flood, a resident who is being recognized tonight as an angel in adoption. it is a program in the congressional coalition on adoption institute in honor of those who have made extraordinary contributions on behalf of children in need of families. by these check fifth director of family intervention crisis services which helps children and the surrounding area connect with foster homes and aadoption, along with reuniting their bilogical parents whenever possible. patty has impacted the lives of countless children. through her work she has pushed for the development of new programs dedicated to helping children find permanent homes as quickly as possible. in addition to her professional role, she serves as a trainer for the pennsylvania child welfare training program, passing on the knowledge gained over her nearly 30-year career. helping children in need of adoption and service is

demonstrates real selflessness and strong dedication to community. i thank patty for her service. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady vekt is recognized or one minute. mrs. beatty: mr. speaker, the house of representatives, the people's house, is in chaos. last week, just hours before a government shutdown, we only managed to pass a six-week c.r. to keep the government open. i voted for this bill because i refused to schultz down government and -- to shut down government and to do it over partisan politics, because our nation deserves better. it's time for the g.o.p. dysfunction toped. if we work together -- to end. if we work together, mr. speaker, today with bipartisan support we could re-authorize the ex-im bank, restore voting rights lost in the wake of

shelby vs. holder decision, and fund the highway trust fund in a sustained way. but none of this seems to be happening because of republican chaos and the inability to govern effectively. republicans in congress need to join democrats and just get back to the issues that hardworking american families care about. jobs, voting rights and the economy. mr. speaker, thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in defense of the constitution. i rise today to stand for the fourth amendment and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures without exro without probable cause. mr. yoder: my friend from new

york became the latest member of congress to join this bipartisan legislation. with the majority of republicans and a majority of democrats now supporting this bill, this is a bill whose time has come. americans who use digital communication in text, emails and social media are being governed by a 1986 law, the electronic communications privacy act a, which was written long before the internet, as we understand it today, existed. americans overwhelmingly agree that our emails should have the same fourth amendment protections as our paper documents. we should require a warrant to read the content of americans' emails and we should pass the email privacy act, h.r. 699. with 300 co-sponsors and growing, it's time to act. it's time to show the american people that congress will protect them and defend the constitution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gallego: mr. speaker, i

rise today in full support of president obama's announcement on friday that he will not negotiate with the republican congress over raising the debt limit. this is the right decision because there is nothing to negotiate. there is only one simple path forward. to pass a clean debt limit extension that protects our nation's full faith and credit. unfortunately last week the majority leader and the presumptive next speaker of the house went on national television and committed to fight to the end to defund the a.c.a. and the president's immigration executive actions while trying to stop the debt limit increase. i fear, as we all should, what this might mean. are he and the house republicans going to threaten to shut down the government to pursue this extreme agenda? are they going to hold our nation's full faith and credit hostage? mr. speaker, for five years now house republicans have hurdled the congress and the country from one manufactured crisis to another. this must stop and a must stop now. -- and must stop now with only

30 days left before we hit the debt limit, the republican congress should act a immediately to take a catastrophic default off the table. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to raise awareness for the more than 11 million americans who suffer from severe mental health illness. as we recognize mental illness awareness week, we have the opportunity to discuss this complex issue and the impact it has on both families and society. we must continue to identify ways we can help those who are suffering. our mental health system is broken. many are going without treatment and families often struggle to find appropriate care for their loved ones. as vice chairman of the veterans' affairs committee, i know this is an issue especially important to our

veterans, our true heroes. my cover act, which was approved by the house earlier this year, helps provide alternative therapies for our veterans dealing with mental health issues. the energy and commerce committee's helping families and mental health crisis act, actually sponsored by representative murphy from pennsylvania, further works to address the shortage of treatment options, lack of access to mental health services and the lack of communication within the system. we must continue our efforts to improve mental health care and remove the stigma associated with mental illness. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts eek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, early detection of breast cancer can be the difference between a life saved and a life lost. but too often women are forced to forego critical screenings because of a lack of access to affordable, preventive care. by opening their doors to so

many medically underserved communities, planned parenthood is working to address those gaps. and as this is breast cancer awareness month, we should be applauding the doctors and nurses who work tirelessly to detect breast cancer at its earliest stages. we should be thanking them for providing 500,000 breast exams every single year, helping to identify cancer in other -- and other serious illnesses in nearly the 0,000 women. we should be replicating their efforts on education cating women of the warning signs of breast cancer. but instead my republican colleagues are focused on creating a politically motivated select committee with the ultimate goal of defunding the organization. it is time to move past these partisan attacks and focus on working together to expand the access to preventive care that will help treat breast cancer. thanks very much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize october as american pharmacist month. this month is important to recognize those who wake up every morning to ensure that americans have ac a sess to important -- ac a sess to important and important life-saving medications. i know the passion and dedication of a pharmacist because i am one. pharmacists work every day to ensure that patients' prescription drugs are accurate, safe and effective. we provide education to customers on possible treatments and we are trusted and knowledgeable health care providers in our communities. mr. carter: in fact, pharmacists are in the top three most trusted professions by americans and i am proud to be one. as pharmacists we all have the common goal to assist in providing quality and affordable health care. we ensure that pain is managed, headaches are relieved and hearts stay healthy. this month i would like to acknowledge all pharmacists who continue to provide their service in support to americans across the country. thank you for your hard work in dead -- and dedication and i

yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. loebsack: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to express my strong support for the wind energy industry, its workers that it employs, and a clean energy it provides -- produces. my home state of iowa leads the nation in the amount of electricity consumers get from wind. with around 30% of our electric power coming from wind. it also supports some 80,000 jobs across the country and over 6,000 in iowa alone. my district is a manufacturing powerhouse -- manufacturing powerhouse with several major manufacturing facilities including siemens, t.p.i. composites and trinity structural towers. i was happy today to be able to meet with representatives from these companies to discuss the need for federal policy stability, specifically an extension of the production tax credit. it is my hope that this body will take up a tax extend, bill

soon, which includes an extension of the renewable energy production tax credit. please join me, folks, in supporting these american manufacturing companies and all the hardworking americans that they employ. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. this october, marks the 10th annual national bullying prevention month and with it comes an opportunity to bring visibility to an issue that negatively impacts thousands of students in our schools and communities every day. instead of being a safe haven for learning and growth, some classrooms can become places of torment, of despair, of exclusion, for those suffering the emotional and physical repercussions of bullying. with the advances of the internet and social media, bullies have found a medium to

further perpetuate their abusive ways. as a member of the congressional anti-bullying caucus, i am reaching across the aisle and working with my colleagues to shed light on the realities of bullying and the dire consequences that it can have both online and offline. while october may be designated as national bullying prevention month, our work, mr. speaker, must not stop when the calendar turns. together we can establish bullying-free schools so that our children can grow to be successful and thriving members of our society. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. ash ash a mr. speaker, -- mr. ashford: mr. speaker, as we celebrate national hispanic heritage month, i rise today to recognize two true his in-- hispanic leaders in my home district of omaha, nebraska. two remarkable women, linda

garcia-perez and magdalenea garcia, have been instrumental in the advancement of the latino arts and culture in our area. linda garcia-perez has spent 40 years creating, teaching and exhibiting at mexican latino traditions and customs. she incorporates mexican folk art with basic art a instruction to teach english and spanish speaking children and adults. she has broadened my community's knowledge and understanding of the hispanic heritage. as has magdalenea a garcia, the founder and executive director of el museo latino. it's a resource center for latino studies throughout the midwest. of special note, however, are the museum's educational programs which enlighten students from kippeder garden through college as well as adults. the contributions of linda garcia-perez and magdalina garcia have established a robust environment for the latino arts and culture in omaha. it's with great honor that i recognize these two outstanding women. thank you and yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, yesterday the members of this house gather once again for a moment of silence. this time it was for the nine americans killed last week in the mass shooting in roseberg, oregon. yet our brief moment of silence pails in comparison to the never-ending silence that the families who lost loved ones are to endure today and every day from now on. mr. deutch: what they wouldn't give to hear the voices of their loved ones again. what they wouldn't give to hear their laughter once more. my friends, a moment of silence that lasts 30 seconds is quite literally the least that we can do. it's not enough. and i know i can't speak for the house but i can speak for myself and i will do everything i can, everything i can to prevent more of our loved ones from being silenced by gun violence. if we want to prevent more gun violence moments of silence, on this house floor, then we must speak out, we must call out the

gun industry and the groups that represent it on capitol hill for blocking every meaningful attempt to stop this gun violence. the time for silence, mr. speaker, is over. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina eek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. adams: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in honor -- to honor mr. harvey began. he has dedicated his life to being an advocate and fearless voice for the voiceless. when he was a teenager during the civil rights movement he participated in sit-ins, even in the face of adversity, mr. gantt persevered. in 1961 he sued to enter then racially segregated clemson university. he won and he went on to become clemson university's first african-american student graduating with honors.

in later years he took on leadership roles, serving for nine years on the charlotte city council and in 1983 harvey gantt made history as the first african-american mayor of charlotte. serving two terms. during his terms he focused on preserving and sustaining charlotte's neighborhoods and the city center. throughout his life he's used his background as an architect, to eadvocate positive change in urban communities. and in the coming days, mr. gantt will be honored with the north carolina humanities council's highest award, the john tyler caldwell award, for his outstanding life long achievements. mr. gantt never ran away from challenges. he always put his community and its people first. for that i thank him and i congratulate him on receiving this award. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute.

>> mr. speaker, today i rise to honor the life of dr. cybill mobiley, the founding dean of florida a&m's university school of business and industry. dr. mobiley first worked at florida a&m as a secretary in 1945. she then went on to study at the wharton school of finance and a earned her doctorate from the university of illinois. after graduating, she returned to florida a&m and in 1974 she became the founding dean of the university's school of business and industry. she held that position for 29 years, during which time she worked tirelessly to build the business school into a nationally recognized institution. her rise from working as a secretary to sitting on the board of fortune 500 companies and leading a business school serves as an inspiration to all of us. . today we mourn her passing and celebrate her life. she was a treasure to c.m.u.,

tallahassee, to the state of florida, and our nation. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, american companies are facing a growing threat from cybersecurity attacks that aim to disrupt business, access, personal information, and steal intellectual property. mr. paulsen: with october being nasht cybersecurity awareness month, we need to focus our efforts on ensuring our systems are safe both in the public and private sectors. it wasn't long ago, mr. speaker, the congressional hearing that the head of the f.b.i. said there are two types of companies, those that have been hacked, and those that do not know they have been hacked. we have seen numerous companies in the past few years that have been the victims of massive cyberattacks, and the federal government cyberbreach recently at the office of personal management has also put the

personal information of millions of americans at risk. the house has taken action by passing the national cybersecurity protection advancement act that protects critical information from hackers and ensures more cooperation between the businesses and the governments that thwart cyberattacks. mr. speaker, we know the vulnerability of our information systems, and we need a cybersecurity framework that ensures americans' information is protected. i wield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. johnson: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak in favor of commonsense legislation. common sense means the use of good judgment in making decisions. common sense is passing legislation that will keep our airports safe. it's frightening that in 2015 it's legal in america to openly carry a fully loaded semiautomatic weapon with a high capacity magazine strapped

to your chest and parade through your local t.s.a. protected airport. this is precisely what happened at atlanta's huntsville jackson airport, the world's busiest airport. in june i introduced the airport security act of 2015 which would make it illegal to carry loaded guns on to airport property, openly or concealed, unless properly packed for chiment and with an exception provided to law enforcement. the homeland security committee has been proactive in passing legislation that preserves transportation safety in this session, and i urge that committee to review my legislation to keep our airports safe and to vote to move this legislation to the floor. it's just common sense. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2

of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on october 7, 2015, at 11:05 a.m. that the senate passed with an amendment h.r. 34. that the senate passed with an amendment h.r. 3116. that the senate agreed to senate concurrent resolution 22. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 462 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 64. house resolution 462, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 3192, to provide for a temporary safe harbor from the enforcement of integrated

disclosure requirements for mortgage loan transactions under the real estate settlement procedures act of 1974 and the truth in lending act, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and are on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. and two, one motion to recommit. section 2, on any legislative day during the period from october 12, 2015, through october 19, 2015, a, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved of. and b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and

time within the limits of clause 4, section 5 of article 1 of the constitution to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 3, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 2 of this resolution as though under lause 8-a of rule 1. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is now recognized for one hour. mr. stivers: during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, end pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stivers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and . tend their remarks the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on tuesday, the rules committee met and reported a rule for house

resolution 3192, the home buyers assistance act. house resolution 462 provides a closed rule for consideration of h.r. 3192. the resolution provides one hour of debate equally divide between the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. the resolution also provides a motion to recommit for the bill. in addition, the rule provides the normal recess authorities to allow the chair to manage pro forma sessions during the next week's district work period. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the resolution and the underlying legislation. for more than 30 years federal law has required lenders to provide two different disclosure reforms to consumers applying for a mortgage. the law also has generally required two different forms at or shortly before the closing of the loan. two different federal agencies develop the form separately and

under two different statutes, the truth in lending act, and the real estate set manyment procedures act, rest pa. the truth in lending act provides meaningful disclosures of credit terms to enable consumers to compare their credit terms available in the marketplace more readily and void uninformed use of credit. the real estate settlement procedures act of 1974 exists to ensure that consumers are provided with greater and more timely information on the nature of costs of their residential real estate settlement process, and protected from unnecessary high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices that congress found and made sure we got rid of. on november 20, 2013, the consumer financial protection bureau finalized the tla-respa integrated disclosure rule

which combined these two forms that had been separated for 30 years so consumers can receive uniform information on one form on both the tla and respa information. the new disclosures are generally referred to as the combined or integrated disclosures. the integrated disclosure rule requires loan originators who receive application to provide consumers a loan estimate that combines the initial tla disclosures and the good faith estimate. while intended to streamline the current duplicative disclosure regime, the integrated disclosure rule poses significant implementation and compliance challenges. it makes significant changes to the origination processing, and closing of mortgage loans, requires business decisions at all stages of the transaction, and includes difficult to understand timing and delivery requirements and other practical implementation issues that go beyond the form and

content requirements. mr. speaker, the rule we are discussing today is very substantial. in front of me it has 1,888 pages of new requirements. this is a massive regulatory change and there needs to be time to adjust to its implementation. i think we all agree on that. i heard yesterday in the rules committee the ranking member from the financial services committee agree that there does need to be time to adjust to the implementation. in fact, just this last week i was in ohio visiting the office of a real estate company that had a title agency next door and a closing agency, and they were very concerned about the potential harm to home buyers that might see their closings delayed or the whole process just seized up if we don't figure out how to implement this regulation in a thoughtful way and allow a time for

transition. as i said, everyone agrees that less paperwork and more streamlined processes are positive steps for congress and the regulators to encourage. however, given the complexity of the integrated disclosure rule, i believe congress must also give those affected by this rule time to implement the changes and-n a thoughtful way. in fact, mr. speaker, i along with the gentleman from massachusetts and 250 of our colleagues in the house signed a letter in may asking the director of the cfpb to implement a hold harmless period for parties affected by the rule as they attempt to comply with the new regulations. i ask unanimous consent to submit a copy of that letter for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. stivers: yet here we are today just a couple of months later and some of my friends on the outside -- on the other side of the aisle are going to argue that we shouldn't institute that very same hold harmless period by passing this bill.

as i said i think they agree with it. there may be other things in the bill we can talk about that they have a problem with, but we all need to pass this bill because we have to have a hold harmless period to make sure that people that want to close and buy a house and people that want to provide them that service can do so as we implement this new regulation. almost half the democrats on the financial services panel agree that this hold harmless provision should be in place because the vote on the financial services committee was 45 to only 13. mr. speaker, just last week the financial services committee held a hearing the semiannual report at which the director testified and fielded several questions about these new rules. when asked by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr, whether he thought the grace period -- whether he could implement a grace period that would allow folks to find their

way through this, and realtors and title agents so they can count on not being the focus of enforcement but could learn how to do this, direct the the director responded i don't think it's appropriate for me to say i won't enforce the law. that's my job to enforce the law. but i think what i have said to them is you're going -- we are going to be diagnostic and corrective not punitive in that early period. i think if they read between the lines, they'll understand that he we are trying to allow them the latitude that they asked. er think people should take yes or an answer. the problem is that's not yes for an answer. it's unclear. that's why this bill is so important because it is clear. and this will make sure that we provide an implementation period that allows a hold harmless period for industry participants. jsr just two days later -- just two days later, the director in

a letter to some industry groups that asked for this same request of a hold harmless period, refused to say he would institute a hold harmless period. so even though what he said to the committee sounded like he's going to try to do it, he said to them that he would not be able to institute a hold harmless period. i think there are clearly some inconsistency there that mean that we need to pass this bill. this bill will ensure we hold everybody that does this instead of doing it with a wink and a nod. the house, 60% of the house, i believe, is supportive and we'll see -- obviously we have a vote to take on this, but we signed a letter that asked for this so i believe you'll see a pretty good bipartisan vote today. this massive regulatory

undertaking needs to be implemented in a thoughtful way. that's all this two-page bill does is create a safe harbor for enforcement until february 1 of 2016. it also includes a good faith exception to ensure somebody acts in good faith they also will not be subject to legal action just like they won't be subject to enforcement action. the courts have get delt with good faith exceptions on many issues. it is clear that the courts understand what good faith is and that will be litigated case by case, whether somebody was acting in good faith. if they were act aing in good faith, there won't been in legal action. if they weren't act aing in good faith, there will still be the right of private action. you'll hear interest thank from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that this somehow relieves the right of private action it. does not it. just ensures that there's a

good faith exception, if somebody was just trying to do everything right, but missed a comma or a period or accidentally did something, trying to comply, then they will have that defense in court and be able to ask the case to be withdrawn. his ensures that borrowers and lenders and reality agents and others won't force -- be forced to delay closings as they figure out how to deal with almost a 1,900-page rule. i look forward to debating the bill on this bill with my colleagues on the other side and a i urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from ohio, mr. stivers be, for the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. you're recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise in very, very strong opposition to this closed rule, which provides for the consideration of h.r. 3192, the so-called homebuyer protection act. today's rule marks the 42nd closed rule we have considered during the 114th congress. the 42nd. more than half of all the rules we have reported out of the rules committee have been closed, completely closed. and a majority of the bills -- the rules committee has sent to the floor have drawn a veto threat. this bill is no exception. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the statement of administration policy saying that if the president were presented with r. 392, the senior advise rs would -- 3192 the senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill. speaker boehner and the entire republican leadership promised the democrats a right to, and quote, a robust debate in an

open process, end quote. he promised us the opportunity to make our case, to offer heard.tives, and to be instead the speaker's presided over the most closed congress in the history of the united states of america. and democratic alternatives are often prevented from coming to the floor. by the way, not only a democratic alternative prevented from coming to the floor, republicans can't even bring the amendment as to this bill because it is totally closed. now, i know my other -- my friends on the other side of the aisle are meeting as a conference tomorrow to choose a nominee to become the next speaker and you have other leadership battles ahead. i hope that they're able to have an honest discussion about the ability to work through regular order in an open process that allows the house of representatives to work its will and for both parties to be heard. maybe my friend from ohio can help me understand why an amendment offered by the

ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, ms. waters, an amendment that would protect consumers, was not made in order. i mean, we would have preferred an open rule, we would have preferred that many amendments would be made in order. but the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction had an amendment that is germane to this bill and it wasn't made in order. i don't quite understand it. one amendment, just one. maybe it was an oversight. mr. speaker, i'm going to ask unanimous consent that we amend this rule and allow that the waters amendment be allowed so that we can debate it. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from ohio yield for the -- mr. stivers: i do not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman does not yield. mr. mcgovern: just one amendment. that's it. just one. we're not asking for two. we're just asking for one.

mr. stivers: will the gentleman yield me time to respond to his question? mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman. mr. stivers: thank you so much. the ranking member, i happen to serve on the financial services committee with the ranking member, and that idea was not offered in the committee. so it was a new idea. i will tell you that it sort of conflicts with the good faith exception because what her amendment said was that nothing would get in the way of somebody's private right of action. the whole point of the good faith exception in the bill is to ensure that judicial proceedings happen the same way ased a a misk proceedings -- ased a a mive proceedings -- as administrative proceedings. mr. mcgovern: so the excuse is that this was not offered in committee. who cares? we have a debate on the house floor. we're supposed to -- this is supposed to be a deliberative body. we're supposed to be able to debate these things. the gentleman didn't say it was not germane. the gentleman didn't say it needed special waivers to be made in order.

he just said, hey, you know, she didn't bring up it -- didn't bring it up in the full committee so we decided to say. no you don't have the right to be able to offer this and debate it. please, come on. this place, you know, is becoming a place where serious issues are not even allowed to have a debate. i'm not even asking to you vote for it. i'm just saying allow there to be some debate. when i travel to my district, mr. speaker, i hear from constituents who are fed up with this congress. they're fed up with the process. they always want to know, why can't you at least debate important issues that are relevant to our lives? and it's hard to explain that the republicans just want to shut everything out. and in this bill it's no exception. i talk to people who think this place is no longer a serious legislative body and they have a point because we don't really debate serious things anymore. i mean, we have things like

this benghazi commission that's cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, that the republican majority leader admitted on a very conservative tv station that it was not being -- that it was nothing but a political ploy to try to get hillary clinton's poll numbers down. i mean, i guess it didn't come as a surprise to me, it came as a a surprise that he was so candid in his admission what have this was all about. there's time to debate a special select committee to yet do another investigation of planned parenthood. and we don't eep know how much that's going to cost. because when it was brought before the rules committee last night there was no amendment amount of money that was provided or told they would need, so that will be millions and millions of more dollars that the taxpayers will have to come up with in order to fund another political witch hunt. but this time for these, you

know, political maneuvers, but there's no time for serious debate on serious issues, it's just wrong. we're not focusing on priorities that matter to people. my constituents want to know what we're doing to make college more affordable. are we doing anything to help create jobs? to create economic opportunity? you know, but we're not working on these priorities. we've become kind of an arm of the republican congressional campaign committee. where everything is politically charged. everything has to be a wedge issue. here we are today bringing to the floor legislation that's going nowhere, bills that will likely not be taken up by the senate and will be vetoed by the president of the united states. so this is business as usual. the dodd-frank financial reform law required the cfpb to combine the disclosure forms required under the truth and lending act and the real estate settlement procedures act into a single unified form.

october 3 of this year, the final ti rule -- final rule took effect, giving consumers a clearer understanding of the cost of buying and financing a home. the underlying bill establishes a hold harmless period to february 1, 2016, where lenders would not be liable for violations of the rule requirements so long as they made a good faith earth to comply -- effort to comply. but the federal financial institution examination council, comprised of the prudential regulators, has already agreed to restrain supervisory authority during the initial implementation of the rule. and the consumer protection bureau has implemented a restrained enforcement period. so what are we doing here, mr. speaker? throughout this process cfpb has demonstrated its desire to get this rule right. they work with us. they responded to the letters that we have signed. they've listened.

they do what we want them to do. the bureau has engaged with industry to ensure smooth implementation of the rule. and has been responsive to the concerns addressed by stakeholders and all a of us. in fact, last may as the gentleman pointed out, 250 members of congress joined together on a bipartisan basis to urge the crf to announce and implement a grace period for those seeking to comply in good faith from august 1 through the end of 2015. if the regulators have promised to carefully consider an entity's good faith efforts to comply with the new rule while monitoring for compliance, why do we need a legislative fix? why do we need to micromanage the cfpb? but this, to be honest with you, this bill, and this is where the problem is, it goes beyond more than redundancy. if my colleagues have nothing better to do but pass things that are basically redundant, you know, i can go along with that. but this goes beyond redun dan sifment unfortunately this bill

-- redundancy. unfortunately this bill goes beyond good faith. this bill also strips borrowers of the opportunity to seek legal recourse under the truth and lending act during this period. it would shift to the consumer the burden of proving a lender acted in bad faith and prevent consumers from even having the opportunity to have their day in court. so let me be clear, mr. speaker. we support a grace period. if that's what this was all about, you could have brought up this under suspension and it ould have just sailed through. the regulators have responded to requests from industry and have outlined their policy for examination and supervision during this transition period. but i am very concerned with the road that we are traveling down. homebuyers should have access to the courts if a lender acts in bad faith.

and i can't understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle are so intent on taking this critical consumer protection away. as i mentioned earlier, my friend, the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, maxine waters, offered an amendment last night in the rules committee to improve this bill. to restore the private right of action under the truth and in lending act that is -- truth in lending act that is suspended by h.r. 3192 my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't think that her amendment has merit, they can debate that and they can vote against it. instead what they have done is brought a rule to the floor that prohibits ranking member waters from even offering that amendment. it is germane, it is relevant, it is a serious concern for those of us who care about consumers. but we don't have that opportunity. we don't have that opportunity. totally closed rule.

totally closed process. so the republicans have prevented that important amendment from reaching the floor and we're not going to have an opportunity to debate that today. so i would urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this rule and no on the underlying legislation and i would especially make an appeal to some of my republican friends. on the basis of process. i know a lot of my republican friends are getting sick and a tired of this kind of heavyhanded approach to important bills when the rules committee just shuts everybody out. if you want that to stop then we need more votes with us opposing these closed rules. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. stivers: thank you. you know, to the gentleman from massachusetts' remarks, mr. speaker, i agree with him that we should have more time to debate serious issues and in fact this bill should have been on the suspension calendar, but

the ranking member of the financial services committee refused to sign off on putting it on the suspension calendar. if it would have been on suspension calendar, we would have had more time to discuss and debate other issues. i would like to read from the bill, since we deemed the bill read, and i'll start in the middle of line 9. regulations issued under such sections may not be enforced against any person until february 1, 2016, and no suit may be filed against any person for a violation of such requirements occurring before such a date, so long, this is the key part, so long as such person has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements. so the arguments that the gentleman from massachusetts just made about somebody doing it in bad faith, they would not be covered by that part of the bill. it is black and white. it is really clear. and i am curious if the gentleman from massachusetts would enter into a colloquy

with me. would the gentleman from massachusetts enter into a colloquy with me? mr. mcgovern: you want -- sure, happy to. mr. stivers: thank you. i have a question. if the cfpb did indeed institute a great period for individuals, yet those same individuals chose to file suit without the language on a grace period for lawsuits with good faith compliance, would there indeed be a grace period at all? mr. mcgovern: yes. mr. stivers: no, there would not. because, reclaiming my time, if they can file lawsuits, the law, we haven't changed the law and in fact all we've added is a good faith exception that allows somebody to defend themselves and get a lawsuit dropped. . mr. mcgovern: this shifts to the consumer the burden of proving a credit or acted in bad faith, and that is -- that

puts more the burden on the consumer. if that's what the gentleman wants to do, fine. we have a disagreement. we want ms. waters to have her amendment so we can debate that issue. mr. stivers: reclaiming my time. i disagree with you. it does not shift the burden. the individual has to -- have the burden of proof that they acted in good faith. it does not say anything about the consumer showing somebody acted in bad faith. the individual defending themselves has to prove to the court that they acted in good faith. that is -- there's no shift of the burden here. mr. mcgovern: let's van amendment and let's have that debate and let's vote on it. that's all i'm asking. we disagree. mr. stivers: thank you. reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. the problem with the amendment -- you know, the problem with the amendment was it would have conflicted with that good faith language and somebody could have pointed to that section and said, see, nothing can take away my right to sue. this good faith exception takes

away my right to sue even though they acted in good faith. that denies me a right, and so it was a -- it was conflicting language. mr. mcgovern: what is wrong with bringing this amendment up and debating it, that was my question. mr. stivers: i hear your point there. i tell you if we debated the amendment i believe it would have been defeated. frankly, the problem with it was if it was narrowly crafted to keep the good faith exception i would have been ok with it. so reclaiming my time. do believe that we should be debating serious issues. i do believe that the private right of action is kept intact. there is only a good faith exception, and the burden is on the individual who acted, who the lawsuit will be brought against to prove that they acted in good faith. that is how it works. nobody is going to have to prove that they acted in bad faith. they're going to prove they acted in good faith. nobody is going to give them a wink and a nod and a benefit of the doubt.

the individuals who are being sued will have to prove that they acted in good faith, and if you made the regulatory accommodations for a grace period but not the accommodations in the legal system, there's no grace period at all. it just takes away the entire grace period because anybody that wants to sue just goes ahead and sues. you know, doesn't matter there's a grace period administratively. there's no grace period in the law, and that's why that good faith exception is so important. so i reserve the balance of my time, but i wanted to address those issues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair will -- mr. stivers: and i am prepared to close when the gentleman is finished. the speaker pro tempore: the chair reminds the parties during debate to yield time to one another. the gentleman from massachusetts is now recognized. mr. mcgovern: again, i mean, we have some serious disagreements with the gentleman over how this bill adversely, in our opinion, adversely impacts consumers. this good faith exception is not in the current law. this is new ground that this bill is moving us toward, and

there are some real serious concerns for consumers. and all we're saying is, you know -- again, our priorities are consumers. if that's not the priority of my republican friends, fine. you can defend -- you know, you can defend the language that ou put into this bill, but there's controversy over it and we should debate it. saying if we made it in order it would fail anyway, is that going to be the new kind of standard that we'll only allow amendments to come to the floor that we absolutely know will pass? boy, that's a whole new standard that the rules committee and the republican majority are now going to try to enforce. again, one amendment, one by the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction. one, that's it. one.

give her 10 minutes. i mean, i don't get why this is -- had to be completely closed, but in any event, air in charge. you can do whatever you -- you're in charge. you can do whatever you want. this is the strictest in the history of the congress. i yield to the distinguished ranking member of the committee on financial services committee, ms. waters, whose amendment was germane and was deliberately not made in order by the republicans on the rules committee last night. i yield her five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. i'd like to thank mr. mcgovern, our ranking 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. and so it is clear that the

opposite side of the aisle did not want the public to know about this amendment. why didn't 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 in court and raise the question about whether or not -- 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. and so because the rules committee decided that we could not have the debate on my amendment, we have to take every opportunity to try and unveil why they're keeping this amendment down, why they don't 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 didn't want a grace period, that we didn't want a hold harmless period. that is absolutely not true. we agreed with mr. chord ray who heads the -- 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 train their people, that they came in compliance with the new rules that were created under dodd-frank. so we agree. ok. mr. cordray said i will not implement enforcement, i understand what you're saying and democrats agreed. we said a grace period is ok. 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's not what this issue is all 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 or so different from what the final costs are, if you want to say to the consumer, you don't 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're 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 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 don't think so. and so we on this side of the aisle, we stand with the consumers. when consumers decide to purchase a home, it is the biggest purchase of most people's 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 they have

been harmed, they should have an opportunity to have their day in court without limitation. i fully support the consumer financial protection bureau's announcement that it would regauge in restrained enforcement actions against lenders under their new mortgage disclosure rules. the bureau made similar assurances in response to their 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've 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 -- mr. mcgovern: i yield an additional two minutes. ms. waters: and servicing rules. while i also support the provisions of this bill that is consistent with the cfpb action

to date, this ends when vital consumer protections like the private right of action afforded to consumers under the truth in lending are weakened or, worse, completely eliminated. under current law, consumers that feel that a lender provided an inaccurate or misleading mortgage disclosure can file suit under the truth in lending act, and lenders are forced to prove that the disclosures they provided was consistent with the act. the burden of proof is properly placed with the lenders as they have the resources to prove their good faith, intent and consumers often have limited information at the time they file suit. h.r. 3192, however, would shield the lenders from liability if an error was committed in good faith, even if a consumer relied on this information to their detriment. the act or the effect of the good faith provision is that it requires that consumers prove

from the onset of an action filed against a lender that an error was not made in good faith. a burden of proof that a borrower simply lacks the means to make. as a result, the good faith requirement in h.r. 3192 operates as yet another hurdle for consumers and is harmful departure from current law. and so i offered the amendment, and mr. mcgovern is correct. why couldn't we have a debate on it? it's a very simple amendment, and this would help provide clarity to the marketplace while also protecting consumers. the amendment would simply restore a consumer's existing right under tee la to bring an action -- t.l.a. to bring an action established by h.r. 3192, even if the action was filed in response to an error made by a lender in good faith. so let me just say, whose side are you on? are you on the side of consumers who expect you to protect them? we have gone through a crisis

in this country. we had a subprime meltdown. we discovered that consumers had been tricked. people buying homes had been misled. we discovered that they had loans that -- well, they didn't even understand, and so we don't want to go back there. we want to protect consumers, and we have a right to do that. this amendment would have helped clarify that. did you not afford us that, and i yield back to -- the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts, do you reserve? mr. mcgovern: yes, i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. speaker. a couple things i want to make clear. earlier in my remarks i acknowledged that the other side of the aisle agrees with us on an administrative grace period. the problem is if they don't agree to both an administrative grace period and a grace period with regard to lawsuits, the key words here are good faith, then there is no grace period

because people would just go sue during the grace period and there will be no grace period. the -- it was good to hear the gentlelady from california acknowledge that this is only a temporary good faith exception. it only lasts until february 1 of 2016. it is just like the administrative grace period and it only protects people in good faith, and, mr. speaker, i would just ask the gentlelady from california whether she believes somebody can act in good faith and also deceive and mislead at the same time because her remarks imply that you can act in good faith while misleading and deceiving people. i would argue, i'm not an attorney but i would argue that good faith is really clear and you are not acting in good faith when you deceive and mislead. again, this bill should have been on the suspension calendar. we shouldn't even have to be wasting time, valuable time that we should be dealing with really important issues, as the gentleman from massachusetts acknowledged earlier, but i do

-- did want to correct the record on a few of those things, and i think the key difference we have here is about whether good faith means anything. i would argue that the courts have found good faith means something, and every american knows what good faith is. this does not shift the burden. those people being sued have to prove they acted in good faith. so i think this is a really clear bill that provides a grace period for a limited amount of time, through february 1, 2016. but you have to provide both an administrative grace period and a grace period in the courts or there's no grace period at all. . mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, a distinguished member of the financial services committee, mr. barr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. barr: i applaud my colleague from ohio and arkansas for their leadership on this issue. on may 22, i sent a bipartisan letter with my colleague,

congresswoman maloney, to cfpb director requesting a grace period for compliance with the respa in a greater disclosure rule or trid. it was signed by 254 members of congress, of those 92r7 democrats. trid is a complex rule in compliance terms, requiring new untested software to harm onize data from realtors, mortgage brokers, lenders, land title agents and others involved in the closing process. all that our letter requested was a grace period for those making good faith efforts to comply with the rule. no delay on the rule, no reproposal. just a grace period. we have listened to our constituents and what they tell us is that innocent mistakes are inevitable as the disclosure software is tested in the real world for the first time. in fact, cfpb cited a mistake as the reason to delay implementation of the rule from august 1 until this past saturday, october 3. however, that delay and

promises of sensitive enforcement do nothing to provide certainty that honest mistakes made during the early days of trid when these untested systems are used in real transactions, will not be punished with fines and lawsuits. if the bureau is allowed to make mistakes, then our constituents should also be allowed to make innocent mistakes without penalty for a brief period of time to establish the systems necessary to reliably comply. the bureau, however, has proven unwilling to act. so today we consider a bill that implements the grace period requested in that letter, the homebuyers assistance act simply provides a grace period until february 1, 2016, to ensure that homebuyers and sellers can be assured their transaction will not be delayed and industry participants won't need to fear enforcement actions or fisk louis lawsuits over data -- frivolous lawsuits over data entry or typos. it's what 92 of our democratic colleagues requested just five months ago. but today, faced with a legislative solution to the problem, our colleagues are

balking. the president has issued a veto threat. leader pelosi is whipping her members against the bill. this is quite baffling. it seems to me that the interests of trial lawyers are trumping those of consumers. trying to buy or sell their homes. make no mistake, this only benefits litigious attorneys and overzealous bureaucrats. so i rise in support of the bill and the underlying rule and hope my colleagues will do the same. in closing, let me address the response that we should be on the side of consumers. absolutely correct. would should be. what my constituents tell me back home is that this unfortunately, this new regulation doesn't make home buying simpler. in fact, the number of pages are the same. look at the regulation. is this had pro-consumer? -- is this pro-consumer? this is the regulation from washington. this is complex. this is not simplification for consumers. this makes the home buying

process more difficult. mr. stivers: i yield the gentleman another two minutes. mr. barr: thank you. this makes the home buying process more difficult for consumers. but at the end of the day, even if we're going to go forward with this new complicated regulation, 1,800 pages or so, at least, at least give the participants the closing attorneys -- the participants, the closing attorneys, the title insurance agents, the realtors, the advocates for the homebuyers, the advocates for the consumers, let them have a brief period of time where they can get up to speed with the complexity of this rule so that innocent mistakes are not punished. and that homebuyers are not punished. let's set the politics aside on this. his is not about democrat or republican here. we've got a big bipartisan letter. this is something that protects our constituents. this is what our constituents are telling us they need, to

come into compliance with this new complex law. isn't buying and selling a home, isn't moving from home to home complex enough? let's not let the bureaucrats make it even more difficult. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back to my friend from ohio. mr. stivers: i continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. let me just say to my friend, the gentleman from kentucky, i signed his letter. i agree with him. should be a grace period. and if that's what we were talking about right now, i don't think there would be much of a debate. but -- and we got what we wanted. but yes is not a good enough answer from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. so you bring something that, you know, might be a redundant bill. but i'd be less exercised over voting for a redundant bill if that's all it was. but you expanded it. you added something that wasn't in the letter. basically you added something that we've strongly believed jeopardizes consumers. now, what makes this even more exercised over here is that the rules committee reported out a

rule that denied the right of the ranking member of the financial services committee, ms. waters, to bring an amendment to remedy that, to the floor. totally closed rule. the one controversial part, real controversy about what we're doing here today, is this provision that we think hurts consumers and we can't have a vote on it. the amendment was germane. she's the ranking member. only asking for one minute. we're not doing anything else here of any consequence. we're not trying to figure out our long term budget problems. so could you give us another 10 minutes to debate an amendment. and you've chosen to not do that. i just say one other thing. everybody holds up that prop, the 1,00 pages of regulations. but let's help break it down. because we're into a lot of props in this place. we ought to also understand what the facts are. first, the 1,800 pages are

contained in the double-spaced document. the text in the federal register is not 1,800 pages but 634 pages, roughly 1/3 of that. the rule itself, the regulatory text, is only 26 pages. only 26 pages. 171 pages are sample and model forms. which, you know, my friends on the other side of the aisle say, you know, we want the agency to help provide industry with concrete guidance, so there's 171 pages of sample and model forms in there. and a further breakdown here if my friends are interested. but let's be clear. none of us here object in fact, we all support the grace period. that is not what is contentious about this debate. it is this anti-consumer provision that has been inserted in this bill by my republican friends that have us concerned. at a minimum the rules committee ought to have allowed for there to be a debate where

that could be voted up or down. if my friends don't like it, they could vote no. instead we hear excuses, you know, no, oh,, no it wasn't offered in the full committee. as if that somehow is a reason to deny a member the right to offer an amendment on the floor. oh, we can't make it in order because it won't pass nature. a new standard now -- anyway. a new standard now by the rules committee of what will be made in order. just give us the amendment. let's have a real debate and actually be deliberative for a change here. with that i reserve the balance of my time. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. stivers: would the gentleman from massachusetts enter into a quick colloquy with me? i am curious if you are arguing, because it sounds to me, mr. speaker, like the gentleman from massachusetts is arguing that we only want to give people protections from administrative actions, we don't want to give them equal protection in the courts that they're getting from administrative regulations when they're acting in good faith. is that what you're arguing?

if they're acting in good faith they should still allowed to be sued and they should still have all the penalties for a wrong comma, even if they're acting in good faith? i'll yield you time in a second. is that what you're arguing? if there's a comma misplaced or they tried to comply but in good faith made an accident, you think they should suffer all the slings and arrows in court, even though they wouldn't suffer any slings and arrows from regulaters? i yield the gentleman from massachusetts time to answer that question. mr. mcgovern: what i argue is the burden should be on the consumer. your legislation add as whole new dimension to this debate. that quite frankly has us concerned. at a minimum it deserves a debate on this floor. this is the rule. we're debating how we're going to debate the underlying legislation and i have not yet heard one reason why we can't have an amendment to try to correct what we think is an injustice, a potential harmful impact on our consumers. mr. stivers: reclaiming my time. i didn't hear an answer there. the point is, people deserve

equal protection during a grace period in the courts if they acted in good faith. the key here is good faith. it's written right into the bill. they deserve the same protections in court if they act in good faith that they deserve from administrative action from the regulators. they deserve the same help and remediation to get their attention -- their deficits corrected as opposed to punitive action. the problem is, without that provision, and let me add, this is a temporary provision until february 1, 2016. the good faith protections don't even last past february 1. it's the same protection for the same time period in the courts as from administrative action. i also yield a minute to the gentleman from kentucky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman. just briefly in response to my colleague from massachusetts and the analysis that this is a prop, this 1,800-page regulation is just a prop, and

he blames about 171 pages on explanations and guidance and suggestion that, well, that's a good thing, we want explanations and guidance from the bureaucrats to explain how this works, let me tell you what my constituentses back in kentucky are telling me, what happens in the real world. mr. barr: in the real world, how closing attorneys, a closing attorney in kentucky who says this, interprets this stack of paper and says, i'm going to have to do two closings. a trid compliance closing and then another closing that actually informs my compliant what's going on in the transaction. now, is that simplifying things for consumers? does that make things easier for a homebuyer and home seller, to have enclose two closings? one that's trid compliant, compliant with the bureaucracy, and one that actually helps the homebuyer? with a h.u.d. settlement statement? i don't think so. i would yield back. the point here is, i thank the gentleman, the point here is that we should be making things

easier. and if it's so complicate sthraud to have two closings -- complicated that you have to have two closings, at least give us six months to figure this out. six months of a grace period for good faith efforts to come into compliance, where innocent mistakes happen. i yield back. mr. stivers: mr. speaker, i would request how much time each side has. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has six minutes. the gentleman from massachusetts has 6 1/2 minutes. mr. stivers: i continue to reserve my time and i would inform my colleague i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me again say, we have no objection to a grace period. in fact, we support it. i signed the gentleman from kentucky's letter. that's not the controversy here -- controversy here. it is what we think lack wadge -- language that could do potential harm to consumers. in the real world we have seen consumers get a raw deal time and time again. in large part because of the lack of oversight and the lack

of defense that they get in this chamber. so, yeah, we are standing up for consumers because we don't want to see them continue to get a raw deal. and that's what we're concerned about. and if you want to disagree with me on that, fine. but that is no reason to not allow there to be a debate on an amendment that is germane to this bill, that would correct what we think is a flaw in this legislation. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. speaker, and -- mr. speaker and members, we have to keep saying over and over again, this is not about the grace period. they keep arguing that somehow they favor a grace period and we do not. we have made it clear that's not what this debate is about. we support a grace period. not only that, mr. cordray at

the consumer financial protection bureau supports a grace period. that's not the argument here. the argument is what you don't want to talk about. my amendment that i attempted and you came to this floor with a closed rule to keep us from talking about an amendment that would protect the consumers. my amendment would allow that the consumers have a right to have their day in court. and when you talk about good faith and the way that this bill is written, of course, when a consumer, in my opinion, when a consumer in this grace period takes a look at the documents and if it is simply a comma, as one has indicated, well, that could be a mistake in good faith. and the lender will be ok. but when the interest rates change, when there are more fees than were anticipated, when the cost of that mortgage

goes up and the consumer says, hey, this is not what i really intended, this is not what i agreed to, and the lender says, sorry, that's it, that's what you signed up for, then the consumer has a right to go to court and even though you would place the responsibility on the consumer to have to prove that the lender did not act in good faith, different from what the law is now, that consumer should have the right to go to court and make his or her case and that's what this amendment is all about and you know it. it's not about bringing your say this is ing to the bill. that's not the bill. . so let's get some truth out here and have people understand what the amendment is and not just props showing that you have thousands of pages of a bill. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. does the gentleman from massachusetts reserve? mr. mcgovern: is the gentleman -- mr. stivers: i'll reserve. i'm prepared to close. mr. mcgovern: then i'll yield myself the remaining time. how much time do i have left, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes. mr. mcgovern: first, i want to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter signed by a number of consumer rights organizations, civil rights organizations, all opposed to this bill because of the provision that ms. waters and i have been talking about now for -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: close to an hour. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's letter will be entered in the record. mr. mcgovern: you know, it's clear we have a disagreement here and it ought to be resolved in an open and fair fashion with a debate and vote on an amendment. we are not going to have that, so i'm just going to close by saying to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, i got a

radical idea for what i think is the greatest democratic institution in the world, the united states congress, and that radical idea is that we ought to allow a little democracy to happen here. we ought to not be afraid of debate. we ought to not be afraid of allowing at least one amendment, that's all, one amendment to come to the floor so that the concerns that we have voiced on our side of the aisle worry consumers will once again become victims and get a raw deal could be avoided. we ought to have that debate and we ought to vote up or down on it. this grace period is not a -- as i said, supported by everybody. it's supported by, you know, by the cfpb. we're all -- we're all on board on that. that's not the controversy. the controversy is added stuff, and the way the majority has decided to handle this, to shut the whole process down, that's i think beneath what this

institution should be about. so i would urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms, please vote against this rule. send a message to the leadership here that we need to do this better. we need a better process. this process is lousy, and we all should be fed up with it. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized to close. the gentleman has six minutes remaining. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to address the thing that the gentleman has continued to talk about, good faith. good faith is known in all 50 states. it's been enacted in the uniform commercial code. it is kind of interpreted two ways. there's two ways -- and by the way, they hold defendants are the ones they acted in good faith, not the litigants, not the people who bring the lawsuit but the defendants have to meet one of two standards to prove they acted in good faith. number one is a reasonableness standard. in general, you know, they

relied on something, they were reasonable in their dealings. the plaintiff does not have to prove anything, just the defendant. the second also uses reasonableness but it's -- it also makes sure they intended to comply with the standard, that's the thing that the defendant brings forward here. let me be clear, nothing changes the standard for a plaintiff in this. this whole argument about whether good faith, somebody can act in good faith and yet deceive people, any court in the land would say that can't happen. you can't deceive somebody and say you acted in good faith. that's not good faith. so we stand with consumers who want to close on their homes for the american dream in a timely way. we also stand by those who are trying in good faith to comply with 1,886 pages of regulation. it's important to note this is a temporary standard through

february 1 of 2016 to give people a grace people from bothed a -- grace period from both administrative actions and legal actions. you have to give a grace period in both categories. if you only give an administrative grace period, as the other side of the aisle argued, people will simply run to the courts and there's no grace period for good faith efforts. it's good faith is important. it means something. we stand with consumers. we do not stand with trial lawyers. this bill allows transition period to occur and ensure that buyers and sellers can have closings during that period and those that are acting in good faith will be protected from both regulation and litigation. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. and without objection -- mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that 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 and be counted. without objection, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i rise to question the privileges of the house and offer a resolution previously noted the clerk: whereas the attacks on benghazi, libya, on september 11, 2012, took the lives of u.s. ambassador christopher stevens, foreign service officer shawn smith and tyrone woods and glen daugherty and the actions immediately in the aftermath were rightfully and thoroughly examined to honor the memory of the victims

and to improve the safety of the men and women serving our country overseas. whereas the independent accountability review board convened by the u.s. state department investigated the events in ben fwazzy and found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. whereas five committees in the u.s. house of representatives investigated the events in benghazi and found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. whereas four committees in the u.s. senate investigated the events in benghazi and found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. whereas in each fiscal year more than $4 billion is appropriated to run the congress with untold amounts of this taxpayer money expended by nine congressional committees to investigate the events in bens, none of which pro-- benghazi, none of which produced any wrongdoing. whereas after the exhaustive, thorough and costly investigations by nine congressional committees and the independent accountable review board found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, republican leaders in the house

insisted on using taxpayer dollars to fund a new duplicative select committee on the events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in benghazi. hereafter, the select committee to re-examine the matter. whereas, this taxpayer funded committee was given broad powers to pursue its investigations including unlimited taxpayer budget and granting the chairman the legal authority to subpoena documents and compel testimony without any debate or a vote. whereas the ongoing republican-led investigation into the events in benghazi is now one of the longest running and least productive investigations in congressional history. whereas a widely quoted statement made by -- made on september 29, 2015, by representative kevin mccarthy, the republican leader of the house of representatives, has called into question the integrity of the proceedings of the select committee and the house of representatives as a whole. whereas the statement by representative mccarthy demonstrates that select committee established by republican leaders in the house

of representatives was created to influence public opinion of a presidential candidate. whereas the select committee has been in existence for 17 months but has held only three hearings. whereas the select committee abandoned its plans to obtain public testimony from defense department and intelligence community leaders. whereas the select committee excluded democratic members from interviews of witnesses who provided exculpatory information related to its investigation. whereas information obtained by the select committee has been selectively and inaccurately leaked to influence the electoral standing of a candidate for public office. whereas such actions represent an abuse of power that demonstrates the partisan nature of the select committee. whereas the select committee has spent more than $4.5 million in taxpayer funds to date to advance its partisan efforts. whereas this amount does not include the costs of the

independent accountable review board, the hearings and reports by nine congressional committees, the time, money and resources consumed by federal agencies to comply with select committee requests or the opportunity cost of not spending this money elsewhere, such as improving security for our diplomatic officers abroad, where it is an outrage that more than $4.5 million in taxpayer funds have been used by republicans in the house of representatives not to run the government but to interfere inappropriately with an election for president of the united states. whereas the use of taxpayer dollars by the house of representatives for campaign purposes is a violation of the rules of the house and federal law. resolved that, one, this misuse of the official resources of the house of representatives for political purposes undermines the integrity of the proceedings of the house and brings discredit to the house. two, the integrity of the proceedings of the house can be fully restored only by the dissolution of the select

committee. and, three, the select committee shall be dismantled and is hereby to make public transcripts of all interviews and depositions it has conducted. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would now entertain argument on whether the resolution qualifies as a question of the privileges of the house. does any member seek recognition? if there is none, the chair will rule. the gentlewoman from new york seeks to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the house under rule 9. the resolution ledges that a select committee established by order of the house has misused house resource force a political purpose and proposes to dismantle the select committee. in evaluating the resolution under rule 9, the chair must determine whether it affects the rights of the house collectively, safety, dignity and integrity of its proceedings, unquote. precedence volume 6, section 395 cites the precedent of september 24, 1917, for the

proposition that, quote, the presence of unprivileged matter destroys the privilege of a resolution otherwise privileged, end quote. that ruling is the foundation for the principle that the entire resolution is privileged or none of it. section 706 of the house rules and manuals documents, several precedence holding that a resolution allegeding a question of the privilege of the house may not collaterally change the rule of the house. one such precedent occurred on january 23, 1984. on that date, speaker o'neil ruled that a resolution changing political ratios of membership did not qualify as a question of privilege because that issue could otherwise be presented to the house in a privileged manner. the speaker noted that the resolution itself did knot constitute a change in the rules of the house but nevertheless held that the resolution did not qualify because it presented a collateral challenge to an adopted rule of the house. the chair would also note the events of january 31, 1996, when a resolution directing the speaker to withdrawal an

invitation for a foreign head of state to address a joint meeting of congress was held not to present a question of privilege because it proposed a collateral change in a previous order of the house. in all of these instances, the crucial question was whether the resolution presented a collateral challenge to an existing rule or order of the house. now, the resolution offered by the gentlewoman from new york proposes to dismantle the select committee on the events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in benghazi, which was established in the 114th congress by section 4-a of house resolution 5 and adopted by the house on january 6, 2015. the resolution presents a collateral change to that order of the house. as such, the resolution does not constitute a question of the privileges of the house. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker. i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is shall the decision of the chair stand as a judgment of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio -- mr. stivers: i move to lay the appeal on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to

table. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. 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. this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by five-minute vote on adoption of the resolution. 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 238.

the nays are 183. the motion is adopted. ithout objection -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240. the nays are 183. the motion is adopted.

without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 462, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar 64, house resolution 462, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3192, to to provide for a temporary safe harbor from the enforcement of integrated disclosure requirements for mortgage loan transactions under the real estate settlement procedures act of 197 4 and the truth in lending act, and for other purposes. and providing for proceedings during the period from october 12, 2015, through october 19, 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the estion is on adoption of the resolution. 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 238. the nays are 181. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

he house will be in order. he house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to recommit on h.r. 3192 be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 462rks i call up the bill h.r. 3192 to provide a temporary safe harbor under the real estate settlement procedures act of 1974 anti-truth in lending act, and for other purposes, 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 210, h.r. 3192, a bill to provide for a temporary safe harbor from the enforcement of integrated disclosure requirements for mortgage loans transactions under the real estate settlement procedures act of 1974, and the truth in lending act, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 462, the bill is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters,

each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and submit remarks extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 3192, the home buyers assistance act. it's a very modest act and it also happens to be a very bipartisan act that would bring some temporary relief to mortgage market participants who are attempting to secure financing and close on their homes. it will help allow there to be a transition period for a very complicated rule that has been promulgated by the consumer financial protection bureau that went into effect saturday. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct.

he gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. members will take their conversations out of the house and off the back and into the loakrooms. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, we want to make sure that hardworking americans do not lose out on their opportunity for their portion of the american dream, including homeownership, as this new rule is brought to bear. now, let me be the first to say that as a member of this body who finds very little good to be found in the dodd-frank act, directing the cfpb to try to make disclosures more simple and more easily and readily understandable is a good thing. but the problem, mr. speaker,

in trying to integrate something called the t.l.a., truth in lending act, disclosures with something called respa, the real estate settlement procedures act, two different acts to try to cfpb ile those two, the promulgated a 1,888-page rule complete with guidance. so now those who are involved in the marketplace trying to help finance homes are left with this behemoth to try to put into their computer systems, their i.t. systems, into training. so being able to streamline disclosures is a very, very important thing to do. but it's fairly difficult to do when there are almost 2,000 ages of complex, compound,

complicated language. we know that when these new systems are put into place, mr. speaker, there can be glitches. there can be temporary setbacks. sometimes the software doesn't quite work as intended. just ask those in charge of the obamacare rollout. obamacare was on the books as law for many, many years before the rollout came. and it was a disastrous rollout. i have no doubt people were operating in good faith, but they rolled it out and it failed. so all over america title agencies and mortgage lenders are having to change their software, they are having to change their processes and procedures, we don't want low moderate income people who finally put enough money away for a down payment to be set back in their attempt to get their mortgage. so i want to thank the

gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill, who is the author of the bill, that is, again, a very, very bipartisan bill. i want to thank him for his leadership. before that the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, had been very, very engaged in this issue. i want to thank them for their leadership because without it, again, what we are looking at here is people losing out on the opportunity to close on their homes. so the bill is a simple bill. it says, you know what, for four months, for four months let's create a temporary trial period and safe harbor for those who act in good faith in trying to implement this new 1,888-page behemoth rule. let's allow a little bit of a transition period to hold these people harmless. if they act in good faith, again, mr. speaker, if they are

acting in good faith. you know, the cfpb which promulgated the rule, i assume they acted in good faith, but guess what, mr. speaker? they made a mistake. they violated the law in rolling out this rule, yet they were held harmless in their so-called trial period. can't we do the same for those trying to make the american dream of homeownership come true? if we do not pass this bill, i'm afraid what we'll hear is what i have heard from different people back in my home state of texas. what i heard from one texas land title man is, quote, no question more conservative lending in sales volumes will result. this will impact both buyers and sellers. and the new rules could have a cost impact. lenders may decide to raise fees to cover potential exposure. another real estate individual in texas went on to say, large lenders have already announced

they are not going to do one-time closings anymore due to the uncertainty. we are hearing all kinds of language, and that's one of the reasons that 255 members of this body, mr. speaker, including 91 democrats, wrote to the head of the cfpb asking him to do exactly what this bill would do. . 41 senators signed almost an identical letter asking the cfpb director for this very short period of time for people who operate in good faith to be held harmless and not to be sued, not to be fined, not to be persecuted and so that the american people can enjoy their right of homeownership. it's a modest bill, it's a bipartisan bill, it's for the homeowner and i urge its adoption.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i yield myself five minutes for an opening statement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 3192, a proposal that i believe erodes consumers' ability to have their day in court and that undermines efforts to comply with the cfpb's new t.l.a. respa integrated disclosure act. when i say t.l.a. and respa, i'm talking about the truth in lending act, and the real estate settlement procedures act. mr. speaker, i stand in full support of the consumer financial protection bureau's decision to engage in restrained enforcement of the new disclosure rules until 2016, and i support the ffiec's recent announcement that prudential supervisor

compliance with the new rules will recognize the scope and scale of the changes necessary for financial institutions and other affected entities to effectively comply. simply speaking, when the business community and democrats and republicans all basically said we believe that these integrated rules are complicated, it's going to take industry time to get up to speed. they have got to change their paper. they have got to train their employees, etc., etc., we all agree that there should be a grace period. and so with that my support for a temporary period of restrained administrative enforcement and supervision reflects the recognition of the massive undertaking that lenders and other settlement providers have undergone in preparation for the new disclosure rules. now, given the administrative

ability -- liability that lenders would face under both the real estate settlement procedures act and the truth in lending act, i fully understand the real concerns that affected entities have given the scale and scope of the changes called for under the new disclosure rules. mr. speaker, industry request today that the bureau and other federal regulators take a more thoughtful approach with respect to their enforcement and supervision is reasonable. my support for the actions taken to date by regulators to consider good faith compliance efforts by lenders and other entities affected by the new disclosure rules does not have, however, extend to suspending even temporarily one of the more important consumer protections available to the truth in lending act, which is a consumer's right to bring an action protecting themselves in the event that a lender makes an inaccurate, untimely, misleading disclosure.

basically, what we're talking about now is who is going to protect the consumer in all of this? we're saying that there's a need to protect the consumers. those who opposed the amendment to do just that are saying they are not on the side of the consumer. while the good faith provision in h.r. 3192 does allow consumers to bring actions in response to egregious violations of the truth in lending act, consumers can still rely on inaccurate or misleading disclosure errors that are made in good faith. under current law, borrowers can bring an action where disclosure is inaccurate or misleading, even if the error is made in good faith. and the burden, under current law, is on the lender to prove that their disclosure is consistent with the truth in lending act. now, we have a change. in contrast, under h.r. 3192,

this legislation, the burden is placed on the consumer to demonstrate from the onset of an action that the error was not plead in good faith, a bar that is virtually impossible for most consumers to overcome and that is a drastic departure from current law. the private right of action, under the truth in lending act, serves two important purposes. first, it allows consumers to protect themselves from inaccurate, untimely or misleading mortgage disclosures. second, through the act's provision of statutory and clients' actions, damages, as well as attorneys' fees and court costs, t.l.a. also provides clear incentives for lenders to ensure that the closures they provide are timely and accurate. i just want to -- taking a look at what the t.l.a. respa integrated disclosure would require, let us take a look at what we're talking about.

in this document they identify the amounts for the loan, the interest rate, the monthly principal and interest, whether there are prepayment penlspenlts, whether or not there is a balloon payment, on and on and on. and it gets down to exactly what is being disclosed to the consumers. i will yield back -- i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: just to say hat if the ranking member is supportive of a safe harbor, she has a funny way of showing it. i would remind her there is no private right of action under respa. there is one under t.l.a. but under t.l.a., there is an exception, a safe harbor for nintentional violations in

bona fide errors which will be found in section 1640 of title 15. there is another good faith -- there is another safe harbor for good faith compliance for rule regulation and interpretation. i now yield five minutes to the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hill: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding me some time on this important measure and, mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that remarks by the chairman of our housing insurance subcommittee, representative luke meyer of missouri, be inserted in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hill: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3192, the homebuyers assistance act. this commonsense, bipartisan bill which will provide certainty for the short transition period for the real estate industry preventing costly market disruptions and delays for american homebuyers. i na mr. sherman for his help

in design and leadership and also thank my friend, mr. vargas, and mr. pearce, who worked on this bill as well. this straightforward measure will provide a temporary hold harmless period from enforcement action and litigation during the initial implementation of this new t.l.a. respa integrated disclosure form. this rule, by the way, became effective this past saturday. companies out in the real world are trying to get this closing regime right and have spent billions of dollars in updating their systems and hundreds of man-hours training employees to comply with this 1,800-page rule. again, i remind my colleagues that at the height of the depression in rewriting all of the banking laws, the banking law of 1933 consumed only 37 pages. there is no opportunity to test. this is a bright line rule that just turns on and you have to

have the new forms and new substantive changes and these compliance challenges are many. this temporary grace period will allow the industry to work with the cfpb to ensure a smooth transition. as previously noted, 300 bipartisan members have urged this grace period, including the ranking member. we're here today by the inadequate response of the cfpb to a lot of concerns across our nation, from realtors, mortgage lenders, title companies, people in the appraisal business. for mr. cordray could have provided this certainty, just like h.u.d. did for the revised respa disclosures back in 2010. but statements from mr. cordray like, let the industry read between the lines, that doesn't constitute certainty in the real world. it might here in the beltway but as a member of congress who, until the end of 2014 was c.e.o. of a community bank, i can assure you that kind of

read between the lines certainty doesn't work in the real world. a recent survey by the american bankers association indicated over 40% of institutions have not yet received compliant software needed to implement trend. very frustrating to members on both sides of the aisle, particularly after the number of years that we've talked about a new form, but nonetheless, it is a fact. 90% of institutions were still testing the incorporation into their lending platforms. i can tell you this is more complicated than it looks, to someone who's a bureaucrat in washington. you have a loan operating system and a loan doc prep system, typically from two different surrenders, both require software -- vendors, both require software changes. and 2/3 of those surveyed in the mortgage banking industry said they needed a few weeks or

few months for debugging and testing, so this commonsense bill will allow them to perform that task, not disrupt closings, and allow people to have a safe harbor from potential litigation or enforcement penalties. one bank in arkansas called me monday, two days after tred went live, to say they are still not expected to get the final fix from their software providers until thanksgiving. and in addition to these kinds of operating implementation issues, many are still out there waiting for clarification from the cfpb on certain issues. the chairman mentioned one time close. one of the most popular products in banking today, particularly among community banks is a construction into per nant closing, where one can build their home and go to a permanent home closing all with one application and one set of forms and a single closing. but because of confusion over

how to properly disclose information under new -- the new form, i think this is a problem and several banks, as noted, are going to cease one-time construction into permanent loan making, again, one of the most popular products in community banking. i want to emphasize that this temporary protection only applies to those making a good faith effort to comply to this very complex rule. it no way alters the underlying rule and while i disagree with much of dodd-frank, i support the general purpose of this rule, which is to attempt to streamline and simplify mortgage disclosures for consumers. albeit comparing the forms side by side, i don't know if that was accomplished or not, but it was absolutely a worthy objective. our title companies, bankers and others in the industry who are earnestly trying to comply --

mr. hensarling: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. hill: trying to comply with these new rules need to have the confidence and certainty they can go into this closing regime giving excellent customer service and not looking over their shoulder of an inadvertent penalty or civil litigation. and mr. speaker, we are pro-consumer. 400,000 consumers buy a home every month in this country, and over 230,000 consumers refinance a mortgage. all will be positively impacted by this temporary measure. i urge its consideration. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york is recognized -- i mean, from california -- the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentlelady from new york five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her leadership as ranking member on the financial services committee. and i rise in opposition to 192. 3 the democrats have worked hard

to help consumers and in dodd-frank created the consumer financial protection bureau which has already returned $11 billion to 25 million consumers in just the first four years of its existence. their goal is to protect consumers, and that is what they have done in the new rule that they came out with. democrats believe that consumers deserve easy-to-understand disclosures of the cost of buying and financing a home. so in response to the mortgage crisis, the consumer financial protection bureau has proposed to streamline and combine the disclosures that consumers get when they're buying a home, so it's easier for them to understand. they used to get multiple disclosure forms. some under the truth in lending act, some under the real estate settlement procedures act, or respa. now, the cfpb has streamlined them into a new integrated

disclosure, which is important because it will make it far easier for americans to understand the loan terms and the fees that they are paying when they buy a home. . integrating a new form will also be complicated and it will take the industry some time to adjust to the new rules. an industry raised those concerns to us. this bill would give lendors a safe harbor from the cfpb's integrated disclosure rule until february 1, 2016. while i think this bill addresses an important issue because implementing the new integrated forms will be complex, the truth is that the cfpb has already given the industry significant relief on the rule. they have already done it. along with my colleague and very good fren from kentucky, mr. barr, we -- friend from kentucky, mr. barr, we wrote a bipartisan letter, signed by

254 members of this body, including ranking members waters requesting a grace period on the integrated disclosure requirement. just two weeks later -- i would like permission to place in the record the letter that mr. barr and i circulated with all 254 signaturors -- significant tories. -- signatories. within two weeks we received a letter back from the cfpb promising that they would do that. i respect -- i request the opportunity to place that letter into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. maloney: thank you so much. i thank the director for responding so quickly to mr. barr's concerns and my concerns. the grace period that the bureau did for the qualified mortgage rule, which they gave earlier, was very successful and i have no doubt that the grace period for the integrated disclosure rule will be just as

successful. in fact, the integrated disclosure rule took effect last saturday which means that the grace period that the director promised which this bill would codify is already in effect. the grace period is happening right now and that's why this bill is just absolutely not necessary. it's also important to note that the bill would prohibit consumers from suing for improper disclosure during the grace period. now, that's of deep concern to me because that takes a right away from consumers. i certainly did not come to congress to vote in any way to limit a or rollback consumer protections. this is something that i'm incredibly uncomfortable with because i don't think it's a good idea to suspend both public enforcement and private enforcement through lawsuits. in the same time. i don't think that's good

policy because it takes away all the guardrails for consumers during this grace period. this is also something that the white house strongly opposes. in fact, they have issued a veto threat on this bill because they feel so strockly -- strongly about maintaining consumer's private right to sue. i request unanimous consent to place into the record a statement from the white house from president obama's white house, stating that he is opposed to rolling back any rights of consumers. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. maloney: so while i am very sympathetic to the concerns that motivated this bill, i have to oppose the bill because i believe it is unnecessary. they say the purpose is to codify it. the director responded to congress' request. they responded to industry's request. and they granted the grace

period. we have it. so this bill does nothing but roll back consumer protections. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. maloney: i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. i applaud my colleagues that signed the letter that led to the relief we have today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield myself 10 seconds to say we certainly don't see a grace period from him. we see i'm going to be a sensitive and read between the lines. so the worst charge here is this bill is redundant. this bill does nothing to constrain consumer rights, but what it does do is constrain trial lawyers who are going to take away homeownership opportunities. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, the chairman of the capital markets subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech for two minutes. >> i guess we have a new definition. we just heard that the cfpb has streamlined things for local banks. mr. garrett: i guess this is washington's version of streamlining regulations. 1,888 pages.

my gosh. i come to the floor today to support -- not at this point. i commend the chairman of the committee and mr. hill for moving this legislation before us, h.r. 3192. and for members from both sides of the aisle who have supported this type of legislation as well. let us understand what this legislation does not do. it does not remove any authority from the cfpb to take place enforcement actions against bad actors under the new integrated disclosure rule. secondly, it does not remove any kind of incentives for lenders to simply comply with the new rule. i think it's important that we recognize what it does not do despite some of the claims we are hearing from the other side of the aisle. what does the bill do? it simply row vidse -- provides a grace period for the lenders, local bankers, who act in good faith to comply with this 1,888 page simplification of the new rules that the cfpb has put out

there. i think it's ironic that cfpb took over 1,800 pages of rule making authority and analysis. and yet the agency is unwilling to provide the lenders, your local banks, in order to comply with all the rigamarole, the technology for them to come up to speed on this. clearly the length of rule making suggest it was a complicated project for the cfpb. it took them a long time to complete it, so why are they not willing to, in writing, basically say here, you folks, your local bankers, you also will have the same leniency as well. it's a very straightforward and simple bill. it is intended to provide a brief, brief four-month grace period to comply in good faith. nothing more. nothing less. at the end of the day, who are we really helping here? it's not the bankers. it's not the lenters. really -- lenders. really, who are really helping it's all the american people trying to get a loan, trying to go get financing, those are the

people that this legislation would help. with that i yield back. search the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ranking member of the small business committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for three minutes. ms. velazquez: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 3192. protect americans investment in their homes. the new t.l.a.-respa disclosure rules are critical consumer protection that is will provide consumers with expanded information before buying a home. what we are doing today with this legislation is to use dilatory tactics to prevent cfpb from doing their job in protecting consumers. this legislation, however, is a solution in search of a problem. just last week before a financial services committee

hearing, the consumer financial protection bureau director indicated that the agency will implement a hold harmless period so that the industry could implement rules without risk of enforcement. h.r. 3192, which will further extend the grace period, is there -- therefore unnecessary. the consumer protection financial bureau has already indicated a willingness to work hand in hand with the industry. but i guess that is not enough. if this bill is enacted, the private right of action will be blocked. denying consumers their basic right to a day in court. that is not right. and this body should not stand for it. this will undermine the intent of the integrated disclosure which is to provide clear,

straightforward information to consumers regarding their mortgage. how could you call this piece of legislation protect american investment in their homes, and yet use all these dilatory tactics to prevent consumers from having their right in court and from having the information that they need in order to make a wise decision. we are trying to mage -- make the process bert for consumers, and there is already a path before us that strikes a balance between the industry and millions of home buyers. i am confident that the cf 36789 b -- cfpb director will not deviate from this course. if he does, then we can hold the agency accountable. for this reason i urge the members of this house to oppose

this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. i would be happy to yield any of my democratic colleagues who would show me the director has used the words hold harmless. where he's ever used the words grace period. i continue to hear these words bantied about, but he's appeared before the house financial services committee, senate banking committee, he's written letters, conducted interviews, he's never said this. never said this. so at worst again, mr. speaker, the bill is redundant. if so, if my colleagues will yield back their time, i'll be happy to yield back our time. we'll have the vote and we'll get on with the other business of the house. if the worst they can say this is redundant. i now at this time, mr. speaker -- >> you said you would yield to a democrat who could quote -- mr. hensarling: i said i would yield to a democrat where he can give me a quote where the

director says he would hold harmless or grace period. >> i am so close to that. mr. hensarling: i would be glad to yield to him. mr. sherman: he said of this grace period, it will be diagnostic and corrective and not punitive and there will be time for them to work to get it right. mr. hensarling: reclaiming my time. i continue to hear the word diagnostic and read between the lines. again, at worst the bill is redundant. at this time, mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, chairman of the financial institution subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech for three minutes. mr. neugebauer: i thank the distinguished chairman and thank him for his work on this important piece of legislation. as well as my good friend, mr. hill, from arkansas. mr. speaker, a good portion of my life before congress i was in the housing business. and had the opportunity to help a lot of american families own their first home. sometimes their second home. i had the opportunity to buy my

first home. i was thinking earlier today is that when you look at the history of the closings over the years since i have been in the housing business, the first 1973. bought was in and i came away with six pieces of paper. a copy of the note that i signed i said i would promise to pay monthly payments of x. i had the deed of trust which gave the bank security for the loan that i was taking out. and a copy of the closing statement which was on one page. over the years i watched that grow and grow and grow until today, i wish hi an opportunity to do that, that many cases the families walk out of closing with hundreds of pages of closing documents because we have gotten more and more, new regulations and nuances into the buying the home process. let me talk about what i hear a lot of my colleagues on the other side say this bill does. let me tell you what it doesn't do. it doesn't do one thing that

inhibits the protections that are in t.l.a. and respa for home buyers in this country. does nothing. what it also does not do is it does not give anybody safe harbor if they are not acting in good faith. basically what this bill says is, look, we have a new process. i think it was a good idea. i have supported it. in fact, i worked on working together to see if we could come with one disclosure statement because two or sometimes -- two are sometimes confusing to the home buyer. one made sense. what didn't make sense is to take 1,888 pages to describe what we ought to do on one form, a combined form. what this does do is it says we have a very sophisticated process now because we have added all of these documents to closings and all these disclosures. what it says is now effective saturday we are going to implement a new system. and that new system is complicated. it has a lot of moving parts. buying a home can have a lot of different parts because each

borrower, each buyer of a home has different circumstances and different verifications and different transactional pieces of that. and trying to bring those all together in a new environment with new saft wear -- software is difficult. what we said is if you're trying to act in good faith and implement this and working on the glitches in your processes and in your computer system, possibly, and you're doing that, and for some reason you miss one of the guidelines in this combined statement, you know, we are not going to give you a penalty. i think that makes sense. the american people are tired of an oppressive government. they are tired of the government being the enemy. what we need for the cf 36789 b -- cfpb to be doing is working with the financial industry to make sure this process is smooth. if there is nuances or glitches in the system, it makes the system better when we share those. so with that i support h.r. 3192 and encourage my

colleagues to vote for it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. speaker, members, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle keep making the argument about the grace period. that should not even be discussed here. we have agreed, the director has agreed, everybody has agreed there should have been a grace period. that's not what my amendment was not about that they would not allow me to take up on the floor. my amendment is about consumer protection and they know it, and they are trying to keep people misled by coming in here with their props saying this bill is 1,800 pages when it is not. i want everybody to be clear this is not about the grace period. this is not about not giving the industry an opportunity to get

its act together. really, the debate should be about whether or not they protect consumers and they don't. i yield to the gentleman from california four minutes. mr. sherman: this bill would have passed on suspension, it is bipartisan and it is small and it is temporary. both sides have praised the cfpb's efforts in coming out with this rule. both sides believe in a grace period. and the question before is whether we should codify that grace period and apply it to trial lauren forcement or whether we should have it be more vague than the chairman would want and whether this grace period should apply to private enforcement or government enforcement. 91 democrats called for the grace period. half the democrats on the committee voted for the bill.

the bill applies only to the end of january. it's small, it's temporary and applies om to lenders who operate in good faith. now, i know the incredible -- and i said until the end of january, some would say it applies until february 1. either way, it's a temporary bill. i know the pressure the democrats are under. anybody who shows up at democratic club meetings. there, the thinking is, any bill, no matter how small, temporary or practical is favored by the financial services industry must be a complete sellout to banks. as one of the members against the tarp bill, i can go to any democratic club holding up my head. the cfpb recognized the importance of this grace period

saying in the letter of october 1, we recognize that the industry needs to make significant systems and operational changes. and they document all those and review them. and that's why they provide for the four -- for a grace period which they have indicated may last longer than four months. so why are smaller participants in the industry, small escrow companies, small lenders, backing away, abandonning consumers to only the biggest who know how to comply with this regulation without worrying about a period of a shakedown cruise of getting organized? why? because they have the administrative enforcement that has been praised, they don't have the restrained trial lauren forcement. this bill if he can you eighths

what the cfpb is trying to do. let people do, do a shakedown cruise, make things work appropriately and the cfpb can do that only with regard to governmental enforcement. it is up to this congress to make sure it applies to private enforcement. that is the purpose of this bill. let us achieve the purpose that the cfpb had when they issued their letter of october 1. let us make sure that those who act in good faith will not face retribution. make sure that the smaller escrow companies can continue to operate to do so in good faith. let us not hand a huge competitive advantage to those who have the most lawyers and computer programmers. if we are going to have a grace

period it needs to apply to private enforcement as well as public enforcement through the cfpb. that's why i hope that members will vote for this bill. and if i can put in the record this letter of october 1, i ask unanimous consent -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sherman: i do want to quote. the cfpb recognizes the mortgage industry and needed to make significant systems and operational changes to adjust to requirements of the rule. grace on to say why the period is needed and make sure it applies to public and private enforcement and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from ichigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huizenga: i rise in support of h.r. 3192 and reinforce what

my colleague from california was talking about. this is a period here where we are going to be moving forward to make sure what the cfpb is -page whether it's 1,888 rule is moving forward and i would ask, what is more pro-consumer, moving forward with a clarified rule that grants certainty to those businesses and those individuals like realtors. i'm a former realtor and mortgage folks like myself, used to be in the business. or not doing the deal and not doing the closing, because that's what's going to happen. that's what's going to happen, you are going to see these companies say, wait a minute, i don't know what our legal exposure here.

he said he will give sensitivity to this moving forward. that is not a grace period. that is not clarity and anybody who has a lawyer advising them or a c.p.a. or anybody else to make sure that their client understands what is happening and the inat the present time, would not say that is going to stand up in court. and i also know as a former realtor that home buying process, buying and selling can be one of the most confusing, stressful times especially for a first-time home buyer. there is marriage, death and changing where you live. that is a very difficult time. and as we are moving forward on this, there often has to be this dominoe effect of homes closing to get that closing settled and move beyond to the next deal and you will have two, three, four,

five, six homes lined up, five, six families waiting for this one closing to happen. and that's going to cause more confusion. i support the intent and the spirit of the rule because i have sat at that closing table, having to go through form after form after form. cramp.dy gets writer's and this was a good thing about dodd-frank and combining these various forms and various legal documents that have to be signed makes total sense. what does not make total sense is the elimination -- mr. hensarling: yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huizenga: the intent and the spirit of the rule makes a lot of sense. having something that's going to negatively impact those home buyers, the first-time home

buyers is not pro-consumer or pro-growth. and what we are trying to do with this particular bill and i applaud my new colleague for this is to allow the stake holders, which is the buyer, the seller, the companies that have the legal responsibility to do this closely properly to move forward and make sure this is done in the proper way for those consumers. hank you, madam chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to our leader, nancy pelosi. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding and relentless championing of the rights of consumers in this country. i come to the floor on this legislation because it's something that runs deep in

terms of our commitment and our responsibility to the consumers in our country. it is very curious to me that this is called the home owner's assistance bill because it is exactly the opposite of that. and i say that with regret, because i think there could have been some good features of this bill and there had been, that we all agreed on, that is there is legislation as there had been dodd-frank and regulations that spring from it, that we have had adequate time for the regulations to be implemented, to listen to the private sector to say, what are the ramifications of these regulations and do you need more time. we all subscribe that a certain amount of time, not the amount of time that is going to deter implementing the regulations, but a good faith attempt to come to terms.

what is unfortunate about this legislation, though, is that in taking that goodwill and turning it into a bill, what the republicans have decided to do is to take away the right of private action for a homeowner for a consumer. they are trying to destroy homeowner's right to be heard in court when they think they have een tricked or misled in any kind of a transaction. and this is so really important. it was in september of 2008 when we had a meeting in my office then at the time, democrats and republicans, house and senate, to talk about what was happening to the financial institutions in our country. there was a meltdown of such seriousness as described by the secretary of the treasury that when i asked the chairman of the

fed, mr. bernanke, did he agree with that characterization of the situation we were in, he said if we do not act immediately, we will not have an economy by monday. this was thursday night. so we went forward largely with democratic votes to support the republican president, president bush, whose administration put forth legislation and we worked together to make it something that we could pass on the floor. overwhelmingly democratic votes supporting the republican president in order to protect our economy. what we couldn't do in that legislation or since, was include the ability for a homeowner to declare bankruptcy. not that we wanted them to and not that they hoped they ever needed to, but they had the leverage, they had the leverage in the negotiations with their

lender to do so. many of them were seriously abused by bundling and all other kinds of things happening, but it was not my home loan from my community banker, that these mortgages were sold and sold and sold some nobody knew who their lender was. but we refused them to give the right to bankruptcy. here we are again these years later since september of 2008 to october of 2015, seven years later, we had passed that bill that pulled back the financial institutions from their serious meltdown, helping main street as well as our financial institutions, necessary for our economy. we passed the tarp bill. we passed dodd-frank to make sure that the abuses that occurred that caused that meltdown in 2008 would not happen again because of what it

did to our economy, to our working families, to our financial institutions in our country. and so, with dodd-frank, we had something that was really a breakthrough to protect the consumers. that financial consumer rotection agency and something really important to protect average people, consumers. and so the regulations were released and the private sector said we need more time. take more time. the administrator of the agency said ok, take more time. then our republican friends said no, bring it to the floor and turn it into the bill to take more time. but then to put this like a trojan horse, this bill comes in with this underbelly of taking away the right of private action for a consumer.

how many people have we heard from one reason or another engage in a financial was action where the devil not in the details, terrible for them and they had no right of private action. this just isn't right. we may have our differences of opinion as to the amount of regulation or the timing of regulation, that's a legitimate debate for us to have and to listen to the private sector in our public-private discussions to make sure that the intent of congress and the inat the present time of protecting the american people is intact. and i don't paint everyone in the private sector with the same brush as i come out against those who say let's take away that right for consumers to have their day in court. . so i ask my colleagues, think about the consumer, what it

means to the consumer to have his or her day in court. we are not supposed to be constricting leverage for the consumer in our country. we're supposed to be expanding opportunity for them. so that when they engage in a transaction they are respected because they have leverage at the table. don't diminish their leverage by passing this legislation. i'm so pleased that the president's staff has said this they would recommend a veto should this bill come to the president's desk. we move all doubt in the consumer's mind. we're not here to deter them but to empower them. i thank the gentlelady again for her leadership, the members of the committee who have been so protective of america's consumers. because, you know what? the consumers are the life

blood of our economy. we are a consumer economy. and until consumers have consumer confidence to invest, to spend, to buy a home, to inject demand into the economy, our economy will never turn around. we are middle class economy, we are a consumer economy, let's strengthen that by voting no on this bill and saying yes to consumers. strong at m to be as the negotiating table as they can be. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: may i inquire how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 9 1/4 minutes remaining. and the gentlelady from alifornia, 11 1/2.

the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i yield myself 10 seconds just to say, i know it is the custom of my friends on the other side of the aisle to want to vote on a bill before they read a bill, but i would suggest they actually read h.r. 3192. they will discover the private right of action is preserved. there is merely a hold harmless section for those who act in good faith. i would commend the distinguished minority leader and all democrats they actually read the bill and they might discover that. i'm now very happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, the chairman of our oversight investigation subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. duffy: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the sponsor of this bill, mr. hill, for his good work and our chairman for driving this legislation. it's bipartisan. listening to the remarks that just took place from the minority leader, i know there is a comment, madam speaker,

about consumers, but i think this is more of a play for the trial bar. because if this -- if this four-month hold harmless doesn't move forward, it's the consumers who are going to get hurt. t's the divorcee who needs the proceeds from the sale of her home from her husband to actually work on putting her life back together, that now won't have that sale go through. in communities like mine in rural america, where you don't have large -- really large lenders and large title companies and large realtors, we have small institutions, it's those communities that are going to be hurt the worst if we don't have this four-month hold harmless. you've given up your lease. you expect to close on a house. and that closing's not going to happen. or you're getting a new job and you're proving -- moving to rural america and you didn't secure a lease because you're

buying a house but you can't buy a house because you have the whole seblingter -- sector of this space that's not willing to take the risk. -- we're beating a horse here of 1,00-plus pages. it's a significant -- 1,800-plus pages. it's a significant rule. it's very complex. it baffles me that we wouldn't make sure that as the system is implemented that we have a hold harmless provision, as long as those folks who are imposing new systems are making a good faith effort to comply. i think you were listening to the debate. we're all saying the same thing. want to make sure we protect consumers, we want to make sure the private sector can actually implement the rule effectively. mr. cordray has come forward and indicated he's supportive of hold harmless, but i think the gentleman from california made a good point. it's not just the exposure that you have on the governmental side. it's also the exposure that you have on the private side from private litigation. and so i'm concerned that we'll

have consumers who are set to buy a home -- mr. hensarling: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. duffy: consumers who are set to buy a home, who won't have that sale go through and it's those families who are hurt the worst. there's a lot of stuff that we have to fight about. that we disagree on. but it seems like we're so close on this one. let's just go forward and do what's right for the consumers and right for the private sector and make sure that we have a four-month hold harmless provision. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to congressman ellison, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. eleanor clift let me thank the ranking member -- mr. ellison: let me thank the ranking member for her hard work on this. i urge members to vote no. the reason why is because we have been considering and considering and trying to implement dodd-frank for such a long time, every step of the way we have seen delay, every step of the way we have seen

things that just couldn't happen now for all these good reasons. but the fact of the matter is, is that what brought us to dodd-frank was serious abuses in the financial industry and this bill and all the rules associated need to be implemented. now, the know before you owe rule is a huge victory for homebuyers. it's a good thing for homebuyers to know exactly what's going on before they execute on a home loan. anyone who has bought a home remembers the anxiety of wondering if they're going to have enough cash to close, to cover all the expenses. they also remember feeling bewildered by all of the various fees, of $100 or $200, all these surprises. homebuyers need access to clear disclosures and plenty of time to comparison shop for -- and challenge junk fees. the bill we consider today would remove the right of the

legal right of homeowners to seek legal redress if they do not receive accurate disclosures until february, 2016. the consumer protections are already in place now. we shouldn't postpone them. if we really want to quote-unquote assist homebuyers, and this bill is ironically called the homebuyer assistance act, don't postpone what's already in the law today. homebuyers should get a clear loan estimate when they apply for loan. homebuyers should get their actual closing costs three days prior to settlement. and if a homebuyer is mistreated in the closing process, the homebuyer should retain the right to go to court and seek a remedy. i remain concerned that homebuyers are overcharged at closing. not all. i'm not one of those who paints with a broad brush. i believe many of our folks in the industry are excellent. but there are enough exceptions to that to concern all us. i strongly oppose those who

receive a financial benefit for a referral, affiliated business arrangements and reverse competition are not good for homebuyers. and consumers need information to protect themselves from overcharges and kickback schemes. please stand up for homebuyers and vote no on h.r. 3192. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, madam speaker. i'm now happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. guinta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. guinta: thank you, chairman hensarling. madam speaker, i'd like to thank the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill, for introducing this very important and significant piece of legislation. h.r. 3192 acknowledges the learning curve that the companies' implementation of any new regulation. the disclosure rule has been in effect now for four days. at this early stage, agencies

are unable to protect the industry from liability risk that will follow during the early days of compliance. director cordray has acknowledged that compliance would be difficult during these days of implementation. the law should take into account director cordray's statement and protect homebuyers, sellers and the industry from regulatory and civil liability. make good faith efforts to comply with the latest cfpb requirements. i met with new hampshire banksers, credit unions and realtors in september. they shared their concerns about what could happen if mis rep -- if misinterpreting the new rules they would unfortunately, and if they made an unfortunate or unintentional error. compliance costs from other cfpb rules currently in effect have hobbled new hampshire's financial institutions. the risk of this new rule could even lead some to quit the residential lending business and that has already happened in one circumstance in my district. that means less consumer

choice, fewer options for homebuyers in a shrinking real estate market and inevitably raising the price for the very consumer we try to protect. madam speaker, i want to remind everyone that the private right of action is preserved in this piece of legislation. and that this bill passed the house financial services committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 45-13. i want to thank mr. hill and mr. sherman for this legislation. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it, to prevent frustrating and costly delays for the american consumer. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, we're ready to close. i understand i have the right to close, in which case i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much.

madam speaker, i think it is important for us all to really understand what is taking place here today. first of all, i want to warn against misleading information. hen we keep hearing that those stack of papers represent the bill, that the bill is 1,800 pages long, that is not the case. the atter of fact, chairman of the committee knows that 171 pages are simply sample model forms to say to the banks, these are the kind of forms that you need and you can take these samples and use them. 63 pages of description -- are description, of the rationale behind this rule. why do we have this rule?

15 pages summarizing the rulemaking process. 308 pages with section by section anal sills. so that is not the bill, those pages that you see, the props that are being used. if we go to the beginning of this, you have to understand that it was dodd-frank that decided they wanted to make this process more easily understood by the consumers. and out of the dodd-frank legislation, they are the ones that combined both t.l.a. and respa into this disclosure form to make it simpler. and so despite the fact that the banks and the industry have , particularly the big banks, have thousands of employees, millions of dollars, doing big trades, etc., etc., they said, we really can't get our act together in the length of time that's given us with this rule. so, for some of us who thought, well, you know, they are very

well staffed, they have a lot of money, they could really do this, but we will take them at their word, and not only that some of us on the democratic side said we would take them at their word, mr. cordray led the effort in saying, all right, there should be a grace period. and i don't care what my chairman says, if mr. cordray did not say it in the exact words the way that he wanted him to say it, that's just too bad. but the fact of the matter is, he did say it. that he would support a grace period. and that's what we have all done. so, given that he's said that, given that we have support for it on the democratic side and the republican side, really there's no need for the bill. this is just taking up precious time and energy for something that's not needed. but i think i know why there's such a fight for this legislation. because it includes in it

something that would protect the lenders, even when they make a big mistake. we talk about good faith but i want to tell you what's included in this integrated disclosure. eople are talking about real issues here. will the loan amount be the same that the consumer has agreed upon? will the interest rate be the same? or will somehow there be a little mistake, instead of 3.8% in interest rates it's going to end up 4.2% or 4.3%. if that happens, what can the consumer do? if you don't give them the right to go into court? basically they can do nothing and the lender can say, too bad about that. but we cannot treat consumers that way. we have to give them the right to have their day in court and even with the burden being on the consumer, to have to prove

that the lender acted in good faith, the consumer needs to have the right to go and make the case. . my amendment that was not allowed in the rules committee and we didn't get a chance to come to the floor and debate it because they closed down the rule, simply means that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle said, we don't care what you are saying about protecting the consumers. we know there could be mistakes. however, we say that those mistakes were made, was made in good faith and they didn't mean to do it and the consumer doesn't have the right to go into court and make the case. that is not right and should not happen. as our leader has said we have gone through a period of time where this country almost had a depression. we certainly did have a recession because the big banks and too many of the banks and

financial institutions in this country came up with all of these exotic products. people were misled and signed on the dotted line for mortgages many of them could not afford. these mortgages reset and people ended up paying higher interest rates six months a year after they signed on the dotted line. they didn't know and didn't understand. so you can say the banks who treated the consumers this way were acting in good fate and didn't intend to do it, but we know we cannot represent on representations of i didn't mean it. if you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have done it. and if you did it, you ought to be dealt with in a court of law. here we are with this legislation and if you had not put that part in the legislation, it wouldn't have to be a discussion. you are absolutely right. it could have been brought on

suspension. but, no, the concern about the consumer is not what appears to be foremost in the minds of those who would dismiss their opportunity to go into court. we should not treat our consumers that way. we should have learned our lesson. and folks who are buying this home, maybe for the first time, this is the biggest decision and this is the biggest credit action that they're going to take in their lifetime. and they need to have some assurances that they are being treated right. why do you think we have these disclosure laws? before these laws were developed, people were misled and ended up with balloon payments, prepayment penalties, on and on and on. we're saying yes, let's have a grace period. let's allow the banks to use this time to get their house in

order. they can train their staff and get papers together, we agree to all of that. that is not an issue and we say it over and over again because we don't want people to think we are standing in the way of a grace period. we agreed to that. objecting to is no protection of the consumers. our regulators didn't pay attention to consumerism. they were supposed to be there not only to deal with the possible risk in the system, et cetera, and the consumers, but nobody was looking out for the consumers. so this is the centerpiece of dodd-frank reform. the consumer financial protection bureau, the centerpiece of dodd-frank to protect consumers and not allow them to be tricked, not allow

them to be misled or prevented from going in court. you can describe it any way you want to describe it. but the fact of the matter is, you are either with the consumers or you're not. we on this side of the aisle for the most part are telling you over and over again that we agree with the grace period and not with your actions and that part of the bill that will not allow our consumers to be protected. and you can protest all you want, but you cannot tell me if ms. jones in signing on the dotted line ends up with a higher interest rate than she thought she was getting and if she does not have the right to go into court, what happens? who's going to protect her if she doesn't have the right to go into court and make the case and show that this is not simply an error of a comma or a period.

this is an action that does not show good faith. this is an action that will cause me to pay hundreds of more dollars for my loan that i had not anticipated. consumers should not be treated that way. consumers should be protected in every possible way that we can, because in the final analysis, that's why they send us to congress to be able to be their voice to speak for them and we on this side of the aisle will continue to do that in spite of the tricks of the trade that are being employed by others. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: how much time do i have remaining? this the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 4 1/2 minutes. . hensarling: h.r. 3192, the whombuyer's assistance act is bipartisan. half, half of the democrats on the house financial services

committee supported it. over 200 members of this body wrote to the head of the cfpb king for a hold harmless period. so what we have is a modest bipartisan bill that says, you know what? for 120 days, actually fewer than 120 days now, madam speaker, for those who in good faith are trying to implement which -- the most dramatic changes in our disclosure laws in a decade, if they act in good faith, you know for 120 days, we'll let you get your systems in and hold you harmless as long as you are in good faith. if you intentionally or purposefully violate the law, that's something different. if you act in good faith, during this rollout we will hold you

harmless because we want people to be able to partake in that portion of the american dream which is home ownership. and rule, guidance, forms, there the 888 pages of text from cfpb that must be looked at by very expensive attorneys that have to be integrated into the information technology system, 1,888 pages courtesy of the cfpb in order to simplify forms. i'm not sure the cfpb got it right, but the bottom line is the cfpb prevented, prevented people in the industry from even having a trial of their systems. they were not's loud to go live before october 3. this is the first time they had

to do it. and the federal government ought to know something about failed rollouts. look at obamacare. they weren't held harmless rolling out something complex. what's going to happen hire if we don't pass this bill? i talked to the people involved in the industry and where i heard that at a workshop dealing with this integrated disclosure rule, a the gentleman from el paso said it was going to stop residential mortgage lending for a time until they could get a good feeling on how the regulations are going to be interpreted. they keep talking about a grace period from mr. cordray. he appeared before our committee and said quote, i don't think it's appropriate for me to say i won't enforce the law."

i didn't see the words grace period. it doesn't exist. the worst thing they can say about this bill is redundant. people who have been wronged by those who act purposely have a right to litigation. it only appears in t.l.a. and not in respa. you can't tell me where it appears in these forms. whose side are you on? are you on the side of the wealthy lawyers looking for the next big class-action payday or looking to help people who worked hard to put together a nest egg? who are you for? at least half of the democrats on this committee said we want to be with the homeowner. we don't want to be with the trial attorneys. and so that's really the choice

we are making here. it is again, such a modest bipartisan bill. i have heard the ranking member say it's a waste of time. well then, why did she yield back. should call this on the suspension calendar and should have been taken care of. but somebody wishes to protect the wealthy trial attorneys. you have to make a choice. and i hope that the house comes down clearly on the side of the erican home buyer and passes h.r. 3192. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive the message. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate that the senate has agreed conference report h.r. 3735 the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2016.

the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 462, 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: an act to provide for temporary safe harbor from the enforcement of integrated disclosure requirements for mortgage loan transactions under the procedures act of 1974 and truth in lending act and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> in its current form. the clerk: the gentleman from massachusetts moves to recommit the bill to the committee on financial services with instructions to report the same back to the house forth with

with the following amendment. add at the end of the bill the following new section, section 3, protecting service members and others. the safe harbor provided by ction 2 shall not apply to veterans, seniors and students. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. moulton: this is the final amendment to the bill. it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will proceed immediately to final passage as amended. we all agree that the men and women who serve in our nation's military should be afforded every opportunity to live the american dream that they risked their lives to defend. unfortunately, too often, our service members, veterans and their families fall victim to

unfair and abusive financial practices. in 2014 alone, the consumer financial protection bureau received more than 17,000 complaints from service members, veterans and their families on a variety of issues from deceptive subprime auto lending, to troublesome credit card fees and predatory mortgage loans. that same year, the cfpb was able to return $1.6 million to these families. the cfpb is a vital watchdog for american consumers. the bill before us today would delay the enforcement of the cfpb's rule regarding disclosures that mortgage lenders must provide to home buyers. additionally, the bill would permanently eliminate a borrower's ability to enforce his or her legal rights if a lender fails to disclose or

obscures important information for all loans originated over the next five minutes so long as the error is made, quote, in good faith, a term that the bill does not define and narrows existing protections for consumers afforded under the truth in lending act. the mortgage industry has had nearly two years to implement these new disclosure re quirmingtse and was given an additional grace period this year. . this assurances, legislation could leave millions of american homebuyers without the legal protections to which all citizens are entitled. the amendment i am offering today would allow our service members, veterans, seniors and

students, some of our nation's most vulnerable populations, with the opportunity to seek their day in court if a mortgage lender acts in bad faith. as we learned following the 2008 financial crisis, far too often the people with the fewest resources pay the heaviest price when they are deceived by bad actors in the financial marketplace. while reasonable people can disagree on the merits of the underlying bill, i hope we can all agree that our service members, veterans, students and seniors deserve the consumer financial protections the cfpb offers. that's what this amendment would help to achieve and i support. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i rise to claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, madam speaker. again, this underlying bill, ..r. 3192, modest, bipartisan grace period for those who act in good faith in trying to implement the most dramatic changes in our real estate disclosure laws in a decade, 1,888 pages worth. we know, madam speaker, if we do not enact this bill, people will going to be denied -- people are going to be denied home ownership opportunities. we have already heard within our committee, we have heard from our constituents already, for example, quote, large lenders have already announced they are not going to do one-time closings anymore due to the uncertainty. that comes from an individual in tyler, texas. i quoted earlier one from el

i o who stated, quote, presented in el paso institutions stopping residential mortgage lending for a time until they can get a good feeling on how the regulations are going to be ofingtsely interpreted -- officially interpreted. americans are being denied home ownership opportunities and all the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill, the author of h.r. 3192, says is, let's have, for those who operate in good faith , a temporary grace period in trying to roll this out. so what the motion to recommit does, and i know this is not the gentleman's purpose, but what his motion to recommit does if adopted by the house would actually discriminate against the very people that he says he wishes to help. because now all of a sudden it's going to be our service members, our veterans, our seniors, our students and

family members of service members, veterans, seniors and students who are going to be denied their home ownership opportunities. now, maybe in the gentleman's district they prefer the lawsuit. in my district, in the fifth district of texas, they prefer the home ownership opportunity. and any bad actors can still be sued under t.l.a. in a private right of action. but why, when we're trying to ensure that people are not denied their home ownership opportunities, why would we want to discriminate against our service members and veterans? because all of a sudden then there's extra liability. so everybody will know now that if you're going to lend on a home mortgage to a veteran, you're going to have extra liability. are you going to make that loan? are you going to charge them more? this house should reject any discrimination against our service members, our veterans and seniors, and students, and family members of service members, veterans, seniors and students, and reject this motion to recommit.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. moulton: i ask for a vorded -- recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. moulton: yes, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to the order of the of the house of today, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 461 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 63, house resolution 461, resolved that there is hereby established a select investigative panel for the committee on energy and commerce, herein after select panel. section 2-a, the select panel shall be composed of not more than 13 members, delegates or the resident commissioner appointed by the speaker, of whom not more than five shall be appointed on the recommendation of the minority leader, any vacancy in the select panel shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. b, each member appointed to the select panel shall be treated as though a member of the committee on energy and commerce for purposes of the

select panel. c, no member may serve on the select panel in an ex afinish yo capacity. d, the speaker shall designate as chair of the select panel a member elected to the committee on energy and commerce. section 3, a, the select panel is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete investigative and study and issue a final report of its findings on such interim reports as it may deem necessary regarding, 1, medical procedures and business practices used by entities involved in fetal tissue procurement. 2, any other relevant matters with respect to fetal tissue procurement. three, federal funding and support for abortion providers. four, the practices of providers of second and third trimefter abortions, including partial birth abortion and procedures that may lead to a child born alive as a result of an attempted abortion. five, medical procedures for the care of a child born alive

as a result of an attempted abortion. and six, any changes in law or regulation necessary as a result of any findings made under this subsection. b, the chair of the committee on energy and commerce shall cause any such report to be prohibited and made publicly available -- printed and made publicly available in electronic form. section 4, rule 11 and the rules of the committee on energy and commerce shall apply to the select panel in the same manner as a subcommittee, except as follows. one, the chair of the select panel may authorize and issue subpoenas pursuant to clause 2-m of rule 11 in the investigation and study conducted pursuant to section 3, including for the purpose of taking department tigses -- depositions two, the chair of the select panel may order the taking of depositions under oath and pursuant to notice or subpoena by a member of the select panel or a counsel of the select panel. such deposition shall be governed by the regulations issued by the chair of the

committee on rules, pursuant to section 3 h been -- 3-b-2 of house resolution 5 and printed in the congressional record. the select panel shall be deemed to be a committee for purposes of such regulations. three, the chair of the select panel may, after consultation with the ranking minority member, recognize, a, members of the select panel to question a witness for periods longer than five minutes, as though pursuant to clause 247b j-2-b of rule 11 and b, staff of the select panel to question a witness as though pursuant to clause 2-j-2-c of rule 11. section 5. service on the select panel shall not count against the limitations in clause 5-b-2 h an of rule 10. section six. the select panel shall cease to exist 30 days after filing the final report required under section 3. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one hour.

ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: madam speaker, house resolution 461 provides for the creation of a select investigative panel of the committee on energy and commerce. the resolution ensures the house exercises one of its most fundamental institutional sponlts -- constitutional responsibilities. oversight of the use of federal funds and compliance with federal law. undercover investigations have revealed that an organization that receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually, planned parenthood,

has also been taking the remains of unborn children and selling them to tissue collection firms. its staff has reportedly even altered their medical procedures to more effectively dismember unborn children. with one abortionist saying that, quote, we've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver because we know that, so i'm not going to crush that part. i'm going to basically crush below, i'm going to crush above and i'm going to see if i can get it all in tact, end quote. there are also allegations that children may have been born alive and left to die in order to harvest their tissue. how can we in congress ignore these charges? it is clear that a full investigation is not only warranted but imperative into these issues. even if these abortion

providers somehow manage to comply with all federal laws while dismembering children, it's clear we need to learn more about their barbaric tactics so we can amend those laws and ensure practices like these never happen again. particularly by organizations receiving millions from u.s. taxpayers. madam speaker, in order to effectively continue the oversight that the house has begun into these issues, house resolution 461 would establish a select investigative panel at the committee on energy and commerce to provide a full investigation and study into these allegations. this panel would be made up of 13 members appointed by the speaker, five of which will be by the recommendation of the minority leader and chaired by a member of the energy and commerce committee. its operation will not require any additional appropriations

of funds. the investigation will be focused on medical procedures and business practices of entities involved in fetal tissue procurement. federal funding and support for abortion providers, practices of providers of second and third trimester abortions, including partial birth abortions, medical care provided to children born alive as a result of an attempted abortion, and necessary changes in law or regulation identified by this investigation. this type of investigation or special panel is far from unprecedented. when in the majority, my colleagues across the aisle formed the select intelligence oversight panel under the appropriations committee, as well as a select committee on energy and independence in global warming. the creation of a select investigative panel on the

issues surrounding the sale of unborn children's tissue is clearly within precedent, and i hope members on both sides of the aisle will agree that we must get to the bottom of this. we've seen video evidence of children being dismembered to facilitate the sale of their hearts and other organs. few tissues can make us come together like our children and it is my hope that our partisan battles will cease for a brief moment to enable us to have a full investigation into the fate of children at the most vulnerable time of their lives. even for those who support abortion on demand, it should be simple to unite behind the principle that organizations receiving hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds are subject to congressional oversights,