Impact of this legislation but theres no doubt that this is backing off of commitment that this nation has made so that all people in our country can freely participate in home ownership. Theyll try to minimize and say its only Credit Unions and banks under only issue 500 or fewer mortgages. But when you add all those folks up, that ends up being a whole lot of mortgages, mr. Speaker. If it was only certain types of data. That data is critical to making sure people are included in the American Dream. We are urging a very powerful no vote. People who advocate this its too , they say much burden its too much burden on businesses. Cant involve them with having to fill out forms, its quite inconvenient. The problem is, if it was such a problem, wed all come together an figure out how to make it easier to meet the requirements of hmda, but thats not whats oing on. They want to delay the implementation of collection of critical data, which will lead to the furtherance of the American Dream. Which is home ownership. They want mr. Speaker, it was only eight ago that we went through the largest foreclosure crisis in the history of our country other than the ago that great d. Eight years ago. Wasnt decades ago. It was just a few years ago, well within the memory of people who serve in this body right now. Many of us were wasnt decades body in that foreclosure crisis. Mr. Speaker, all americans were hurt. They were hurt when the value of of their homes went down. They were hurt when they say unemployment go up. All americans were hurt. If we are perfectly honest, mr. Speaker, not all americans were hurt the same. Africanamerican and latino households wealth took the biggest hit of all. And because of this devastating we because of this shot, saw the stripping away of africanamerican wealth to extreme degrees. Not to mention people from latino families. You know, we we saw the cannot say on the one hand, pull yourself up by the boot straps, work hard so you can own a home, and on the other hand take away the tools by which people can get that home. Ut thats exactly what were doing right here. We are saying were going to take the tools you need to make for a fairer, more open, many more just neighborhood, were going to take those tool which is you rely on and were going to say, you cannot have those tools because the demands of business require that we dont do that. Its just too expensive. Too burdensome. Too inconvenient. You this. You this. 250 years slavery, 100 years jim crow, and another 70 years of , pretty more equal, more perfect union, why would we back track on it . , pretty pretty doggone inconvenient too. If hmda is a tool we use to make our society a why would we back slide on it. Why would we do those things . With that, i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Hensarling thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield myself 30 seconds to say, it was a most interesting and passionate speech my colleague gave. I have good news for him, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are not repealed by this bill and neither is hmda, hmda is not repealed. Even the new cfpb regulations that double the data of hmda is not repealed. I urge the gentleman from minnesota to actually read the bill which happens to be four pages long and he would find out that a current, a current exemption that exists under current law for the smallest Financial Institutions that are trying to make loans to the very people he claim he is wants to protect, that is slightly enlarged. Now, mr. Speaker, very happy to yield three to yield three minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, the majority whip of the Financial Services committee, mr. Hill. Mr. Hill thank you, mr. Speaker. I thank our distinguished chairman, i appreciate my friend, mr. Emmer, for introducing this bill. To make this very modest change which does help Community Banks allocate cape capital, make more Mortgage Loans out there in our country. I would say to my friend from minnesota who knows i have Great Respect for him and his eloquence that no one on this side of the aisle is any less interested in justice. Than he is. And i must say, mr. Speaker, that as the chairman noted, this bill does nothing about eliminating protections under the fair housing act, protections under the fair lending act, for discrimination in housing or lending or for minorities in this nation. This is really instead about continuing the theme of the home disclosure act which is to relieve some burden from the smallest Financial Institutions across the country. The act, for example, exempts institutions with less that 50 million in assets that are in an m. S. A. From requiring reports of the act for example the act for example exempts those under 50 million that are not in an m. S. A. From any reporting. Mr. Emmers bill definitely continues on that theme while protecting justice, while protecting the ability to have data to make sure that we in fact in this country have fair lending. This requirement enacted, lenders would be to collect more than double the data points they do now. Its some 300,000 fields of data on a loan act tiffity report to measure compliance with hmda. 300,000 lines of activity. F you have a 10 error rate, mr. Speaker, you are a bad actor. And can submit many more challenges to maintain your even independence as a bank. I would argue that on the backs of other Regulatory Burdens on small banks, like the one that was supposed to be a big help for consumers, its raised costs, limited credit. His comes on the back of that. I believe h. R. 2954 preserves more lending options for the markets these banks serve. I thank my friend, mr. Emmer, for his thoughtful work and i yield back my time, mr. Chairman. Thank you and i thank the chairman. The chair the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. Mr. El sn as i mentioned efore, the Home Mortgage disclosure act, the underlying bill, the bill that is being amended today didnt drop out of the sky. We had demonstrable discrimination, thats why we had it. In this bill, the Home Mortgage disclosure adjustment act, completely different piece which i argue back slides on our commitment to fair housing, would undermine our ability to stop discrimination by exempting 85 of the nations banks and Credit Unions and 48 of the nations nonbank lenders from having to follow the data requirements. And what are these reporting requirements . Theyre things that banks collect already. Theyre pieces of information being requirements. Collected n. All they have to do is take one piece of paper that theyve already prepared the documentation for and put it into another document. Thats it. Now, the applications borrowers age. Thats an important thing to combat age discrimination. Credit score, name, version of their credit scoring model. Thats an important piece of information. Thats already in the underwriting file and in fcra. The debt to income ratio which is already in the underwriting file and is required by q. N. Compliance. Automated underwriting system name. Hats in the file. Other information about the property securing the loan. The value of the property to secure the loan. Thats in the underwritten file and other information its in the r. Combined loan to value ratio. Thats in there. Already. Because of underwriting. Manufactured home property type. Land or without land, thats in the underwriting of the file and let me tell you, mr. Speaker that information is critical because the manufactured housing industry, we know, there is predatory lending and unfairness to borrowers a lot. So we need that kind of information to protect borrowers. I reject the argument that somehow if we dont have common sense regulations and disclosure that somehow thats going to being in more, more loans issued. Theres no evidence to support that. What it will likely result in is more discrimination happening and perhaps people who own the banks and Credit Unions just pocketing more being issued. Theres no money but the fact that less regulation and oversight is going to yield more justice for people who have historically been excluded, theres no basis to believe that. Ill reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Hensarling im happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. Audermilk. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Loudermilk thank you for allowing me time to speak on this act. As i sit and listen to the having in here having in here think of what people back home must be thinking is that its often for us here to actually see what its like, boots on the ground back home. So i tend to go back home and talk to the source. What is it that we do up here that can hurt you or help you in your business and your life . And so recently i had a gathering of Small Business owners, executives from larger businesses from across my district and i posed a question to them. If we could only do one thing to help your business, what would that be . Would you rather us lower taxes or reduce regulation . Without exception, every person in that room said are reduce regulation on my business which surprised me. And they them why said because by lowering their taxes, you can help our bottom ine. And by lowering our taxes you can elp our bottom line. Its things such as this, they say that actually gets in the way of me helping the customer. Its not about incomes of the small guy. Its about serving the needs and actually providing access to the capital. The Small Business owner, the back bone of america. Actually needs. Now this bill is a perfect example of how we are simply reducing the burden on these businesses so they can meet the needs of the consumer much better. It doesnt do away with the regulation. It just reduces some of the reporting requirements that are onerous, that are duplicative this basically tailors ata toward the small bank. And the Small Business. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Hensarling i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Theyre supposed to making many loans to the small guy. I want them to make more many loans. Mr. Ellison the gentleman made a point that i thought was worth mentioning. He wanted to know how this is these the law plays out, boots on the ground back at home. He talked about does it hurt you or does it help you . Made a specific point about getting real life, tangible experience people have with the law. Im glad he mentioned that. And the reason why is that, i m point a woman as earlier this week as i prepared to be here today and she said, you know, she scrubbed floors in the hospital for 30 years. She scrubbed floors in the hospital for 30 years and she got up every day she saved her money, her family never owned a home. They rented. Thats all they could ever afford to do. And she applied for a loan at aback for a home to buy a home once shed gotten her money together and she was hopeful. She was optimistic. Even had a home picked out she wanted to own and have her grandchildren and her she had kids live with her in that home. And she was denied. She had a good credit score. She saved her money. She shared she shared with me she felt it was because of her race. Now, of course, nobodys going to admit that. When it comes to mortgage lending, mr. Speaker, you know, the people who make decisions that exclude one group of people and include another when they dont use the nasty, ugly language that all of us condemn, they dont come in here and say the n word. They dont say ugly stuff. They wear suits, they wear ties, they wear nice pressed white shirts, sometimes they have monograms on their shirts, they are members of the country club. And yet this lady who worked so hard for so long that was trying to buy a home was denied. It was when Statistical Analysis that was brought forward that people thought they should give her that home after all. It was when she went to legal aid and complained. I can tell you this, its the kind of thing that is important. Ow do people on the ground experience the Home Mortgage disclosure act . They experience it as something that gives them a chance to have a good life too. If you never felt the sting of discrimination, maybe its just a business regulation to you. But if you have been looked in the eye and said no and you know that this is not right and you know its probably because of who you are, then and only then will you understand why it is important not to weaken the Home Mortgage disclosure act. Look, i dont doubt that people who are offering this amendment, you know, to relieve the regulate, quoteunquote, burden. I dont think they have animus in their heart. I really dont believe they do. I will tell you this, they are listening to folks in the country club, they are listening to folks who are on the other side of the table. They are not listening to the people who need that mortgage, who worked for that mortgage, who deserve that mortgage. Thats not who theyre talking to, and if they would sit down and listen to folks who just want to own a home, maybe they wouldnt see this as just some sort of some sort of a bothersome regulation. Its getting in the way of business. How can we possibly ever allow that . Because to the folks who would say that, discrimination is a theoretical concept. It might happen to some people but none of the fine people they know in the Banking Industry would ever do that. Mr. Speaker, the underlining bill came up because people were being denied. It came up because people were being told no who should have been told yes. Thats whats going on right now. Thats why this bill, this bill, this Home Mortgage adjustment act needs to be needs to be defeated. Now, if you want to talk about, you know, visa regulation, we can talk about how to help people comply with the law. I am not against that. But what i am against is backsliding and backtracking on the credit on the progress that this country has made in favor of equal access to credit and mortgage lending, and this bill is a threat to that. There shouldnt be anyone who votes for this piece of legislation who seriously considers how damaging discrimination has been historically and who considers how the peoples lives who spent so much time simply trying to be part of this country have been told no. Let me just tell you, theres a lot of groups that agree. 173 national and statebased civil rights and fair housing and consumer and Community Organizations agree. 25 community, labor, and Public Interest groups agree. They say this h. R. 2954 would nearly quadruple the number of banks exempted from the key mortgage disclosures designed to detect predatory and discriminatory lending, leading to 5,400 banks being exempted as well as an additional 487 nonbanks. This is not a small thing. And i just say, look, i give everybody credit for good intentions. I really do. But i think that folks need to really think about what it means to be on the other side of that desk when you are applying for that mortgage, not just the business men and women who deny mortgages or grant them as they see fit. Public citizens says this bill would eliminate race, gender Home Mortgage reporting requirements for lenders who ed end wer than 500 close Mortgage Loans. There is really no benefit to such an exemption as the reporting requirements are negligible. Lenders who write them maintain reporting a few items of this data is not cumbersome. The potential harm on the other hand is to subvert the basic intent of the act which is to publicize whether a bank is serving its geographic data on a race and gender blind basis. What about the center for American Progress . They say, while on its face, this appears to be a simple regulate relief bill. This would prevent them from new home from new Home Mortgage disclosure act reporting requirements. The Home Mortgage disclosure act reporting is the primary source of information on the availability and quality of mortgage lending and serves a vital function and fair lending assessments. This bill would effectively paint an incomplete or inaccurate picture of lending across the country making it vastly more difficult for regulators and researchers alike to assess the state of the mortgage market. I urge members to vote no on this piece of legislation. Its wrong. Its not the right thing. There are other ways to do what the authors want to do, but simply saying all these people are exempt, you dont have to comply is not the right way to go. It will set us back as a nation. It will turn us back as a nation, and im urging a no vote for this moment. I do reserve. The speaker pro tempore the entleman reserves. The gentleman from texas. Mr. Hensarling i believe i have the right to close. I continue to reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman continues to reserve. Mr. Ellison mr. Speaker, i yield the balance of the time to the Ranking Member from california, ms. Maxine waters. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Ms. Waters thank you very much, mr. Ellison. I want to thank you for spending the time that you have spent with us today opposing this legislation. Your history is such that everyone understands that you represent the least of these, that you represent working people, that you represent poor people, and whenever there is an opportunity to speak up for them you always do and i thank you. And so, mr. Chairman, i think we need to remember what this is all about, so let me state the facts. Data allows us to identify underserved communities and populations to combat discriminatory lending. This data was determined what many expected during the subprime bubble, persons of color, particularly africanamericans, received predatory subprime loans than white borrowers and received these loans even when they loans. Ave gotten prime showed violations of the fair housing act. It might be true that h. R. 2954 could provide relief to some Financial Institutions by exempting lenders from the pdating reporting requi