[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] ROOTING OUT DISCRIMINATION IN MORTGAGE LENDING: USING HMDA AS A TOOL FOR FAIR LENDING ENFORCEMENT ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ---------- JULY 25, 2007 ---------- Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 110-54 ROOTING OUT DISCRIMINATION IN MORTGAGE LENDING: USING HMDA AS A TOOL FOR FAIR LENDING ENFORCEMENT ROOTING OUT DISCRIMINATION IN MORTGAGE LENDING: USING HMDA AS A TOOL FOR FAIR LENDING ENFORCEMENT ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JULY 25, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 110-54 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 38-394 WASHINGTON : 2007 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MAXINE WATERS, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York PETER T. KING, New York MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina EDWARD R. ROYCE, California GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma JULIA CARSON, Indiana RON PAUL, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS MOORE, Kansas DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas Carolina WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut JOE BACA, California GARY G. MILLER, California STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West BRAD MILLER, North Carolina Virginia DAVID SCOTT, Georgia TOM FEENEY, Florida AL GREEN, Texas JEB HENSARLING, Texas EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota TOM PRICE, Georgia RON KLEIN, Florida GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky TIM MAHONEY, Florida PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio JOHN CAMPBELL, California ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ADAM PUTNAM, Florida CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota JOE DONNELLY, Indiana PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois ROBERT WEXLER, Florida KENNY MARCHANT, Texas JIM MARSHALL, Georgia THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan DAN BOREN, Oklahoma Jeanne M. Roslanowick, Staff Director and Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina, Chairman LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois GARY G. MILLER, California MAXINE WATERS, California PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York RON PAUL, Texas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina RON KLEIN, Florida TOM PRICE, Georgia TIM MAHONEY, Florida MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota ROBERT WEXLER, Florida PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: July 25, 2007................................................ 1 Appendix: July 25, 2007................................................ 61 WITNESSES Wednesday, July 25, 2007 Becker, Grace Chung, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice.................... 44 Braunstein, Sandra F., Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board.......................................................... 36 Hagins, Calvin R., Director for Compliance Policy, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.................................... 42 Hamilton, Ginny, Executive Director, Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston................................................. 10 Himpler, Bill, Executive Vice President, American Financial Services Association........................................... 17 Kendrick, Kim, Assistant Secretary, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.................................................... 46 LaCour-Little, Michael, Professor of Finance, California State University at Fullerton........................................ 16 Marquis, David M., Director, Office of Examination and Insurance, National Credit Union Administration........................... 40 Parnes, Lydia B., Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission....................................... 47 Shelton, Hilary O., Director, Washington Bureau, NAACP........... 12 Solorzano, Saul, Executive Director, Central American Resource Center (CARECEN)............................................... 14 Taylor, John, President and CEO, National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC)............................................... 7 Thompson, Sandra L., Director, Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation..... 37 Yakimov, Montrice Godard, Managing Director, Compliance and Consumer Protection, Office of Thrift Supervision.............. 39 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Baca, Hon. Joe............................................... 62 Miller, Hon. Gary............................................ 63 Becker, Grace Chung.......................................... 66 Braunstein, Sandra F......................................... 76 Hagins, Calvin R............................................. 87 Hamilton, Ginny.............................................. 114 Himpler, Bill................................................ 129 Kendrick, Kim................................................ 138 LaCour-Little, Michael....................................... 148 Marquis, David M............................................. 202 Parnes, Lydia B.............................................. 235 Shelton, Hilary O............................................ 252 Solorzano, Saul.............................................. 255 Taylor, John................................................. 261 Thompson, Sandra L........................................... 279 Yakimov, Montrice Godard..................................... 301 Additional Material Submitted for the Record Baca, Hon. Joe: Newspaper article entitled, ``Inland default notices see sharp rise''............................................... 312 Watt, Hon. Melvin L.: Responses to questions submitted to Sandra F. Braunstein..... 315 Responses to questions submitted to Lydia B. Parnes.......... 324 Responses to questions submitted to Kim Kendrick............. 334 Responses to questions submitted to Calvin R. Hagins......... 444 Bloomberg News article dated June 13, 2007, entitled, ``Regulators quiet as lenders targeted minorities''........ 452 ROOTING OUT DISCRIMINATION IN MORTGAGE LENDING: USING HMDA AS A TOOL FOR FAIR LENDING ENFORCEMENT ---------- Wednesday, July 25, 1007 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Melvin L. Watt [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives Watt, Lynch, McCarthy; Miller and McHenry. Also present: Representatives Frank, Green, Jackson Lee, and Baca. Chairman Watt. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will come to order. Without objection, all members' opening statements will be made a part of the record in their entirety, and I don't seem to see that as a major problem at this point, so I'll recognize myself for an opening statement. Today's hearing is entitled, ``Rooting Out Discrimination in Mortgage Lending: Using HMDA as a Tool for Fair Lending Enforcement.'' Home ownership is the key to the American dream and a primary driver of our economic engine. Recent years have seen an explosion in home ownership caused in part by the proliferation of mortgage products that have allowed more people to buy more homes. It is good that home ownership rates are at historically high levels. However, this expansion of home ownership has come at a cost. Too many lenders saddle borrowers with high-priced, unaffordable, and unfair home loans. I read somewhere that one financial institution offered as many as 105 different mortgage products. When I bought my first home, the standard mortgage was a 30-year fixed rate mortgage. Some of these exotic mortgages, 80-10-10 loans, hybrid ARMs, and ARMs with exploding balloon payments are not only confusing, but they can be grossly unfair. We now have a foreclosure crisis looming due to dangerous high-cost lending by lenders. Subprime and predatory lending have taken a toll on the market, leading some to question whether, ultimately, such loans provide a net gain in home ownership. We're here today, however, to examine an even more troubling and persistent problem: Discrimination in mortgage lending. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, HMDA, requires lenders with offices in metropolitan areas to disclose to the public information about the mortgage loan's geographic location, price, as well as the race, gender, and marital status of the borrower, among other factors. Ever since loan pricing data started to be collected in 2004, HMDA data has revealed a very troubling trend. Minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, receive a disproportionate amount of high-priced loans. While HMDA data alone does not prove discrimination, recent studies seem to confirm that even when you control for income and creditworthiness, minorities still pay significantly higher prices for mortgage loans. The author of one of these studies, Mr. John Taylor, from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, will present their findings today. The pertinent question for this hearing concerns whether the Federal Government has been asleep at the wheel regarding Fair Lending Enforcement, even more consistently and persistently than it has about lender standards and other abuse. In a June 13, 2007, article in ``Bloomberg News,'' HUD Secretary Alfonso Jackson charged that blacks and Hispanics are being targeted--those are his words--for high cost, unfair loans. I'd like to submit for the record the article appearing in the June 13, 2007 issue of ``Bloomberg News,'' entitled, ``Regulators Quiet as Lenders Targeted Minorities.'' And without objection, we will submit that for the record. The article reveals that the U.S. agencies that supervise more than 8,000 banks have not censured a single bank for violating Fair Lending laws, some 3 years after Federal Reserve researchers gathered data demonstrating that blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to be saddled with high- priced loans. We are fortunate to have all of the Federal regulatory agencies with us today, as well as HUD and the Department of Justice, to explain what they are and are not doing to enforce the Nation's Fair Lending laws. In fact, I structured this hearing in reverse order of what is customary, putting our consumer witnesses on the first panel so that our representatives from government agencies can hear firsthand what consumers and their representatives have to say. Perhaps they'll take heed and consider taking some action to stop it. The cost of a quarter point in interest over the life of a mortgage is substantial, and we simply can't tolerate that extra quarter point being based on race. With that, I will recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Frank--Gary Miller, I'm sorry, for his opening statement. Mr. Miller. Somebody told me Mr. Frank came in, and Barney and I sound a lot alike. Chairman Watt. Yes. Mr. Miller. I know that we part our hair on the same side, so I can understand why you'd be confused. Chairman Watt. And there used to be a member actually named Gary Frank. Mr. Miller. But he looked more like the chairman than he did like--well, Barney, it's good to have you with us today, regardless. Chairman Watt. In any event, I'm recognizing my ranking member here, Mr. Miller, I think his name is. Mr. Miller. Two minutes of my time is gone already, I know. Chairman Watt. For 5 whole minutes or such time--such reasonable time, as you may consume. Mr. Miller. Well, I'll be reasonable. Thanks for holding this hearing today to examine how the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, that's called HMDA, has been used to help enforce our Nation's Fair Lending laws. I am pleased that we have with us today a panel of banking regulators, enforcement agencies, industry representatives, and others to shed light on efforts to eliminate discrimination in the mortgage industry. Housing finance is vital to helping families achieve the American dream of home ownership to help the overall health of the economy. To foster home ownership in this country we must eliminate abusive lending practices while preserving and promoting access to affordable mortgage credit. There's no question that some non-prime borrowers are subject to abusive practices. This should absolutely be prevented. However, there is no question that vast numbers of borrowers who are not victims of such practices can be harmed by overzealous efforts to restrict non- prime credibility. HMDA data has been an important tool in striking this balance between protecting consumers while not inhibiting the availability of credit that gives many families the ability to become homeowners. HMDA data helps to determine whether disparities exist so that our enforcement agencies can investigate such disparities to determine whether they are caused by illegal discrimination practices. I believe the question before us today is how the data has been utilized to enforce our Fair Lending laws and if more can be done to root out discrimination. Clearly the price of a mortgage should be based on the economic risk of making a loan, not on racial, ethnic, or gender considerations. As we hear from the panel today, I want to remind my colleagues that subprime lending is a legitimate segment of the financial service industry that gives consumers who are unable to obtain traditional financing the opportunity to achieve the dream of home ownership. Subprime mortgages have provided millions of Americans with a way to achieve home ownership. The subprime market offers customized mortgage products to meet customers' varying credit needs and situations. And, as one would reasonably expect, subprime borrowers will pay a somewhat higher rate to offset their greater risk. Literally millions of Americans are unable to qualify for the lowest rate mortgages available in the so-called ``prime,'' also called ``conventional'' or ``conforming'' market, because they have less than perfect credit, or--if they cannot meet some of the other tougher underwriting requirements of the subprime market. This is not to say that anybody should be discriminated against, though. As we battle unscrupulous actors and we work to protect home buyers, we also have the duty and obligation of ensuring that we do not act in a way that constricts the flow of capital to credit-starved communities. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today so that this subcommittee can assure that the detection and enforcement tools that are in place to protect home buyers in this country are working appropriately. Thank you. I yield back. Chairman Watt. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement. I will yield 5 minutes, or as much time as he may consume, to the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Frank. I have to remember his name. Mr. Frank. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee. And sometimes things that aren't planned work out better than others. It was--it's the seniority system that decides who gets to chair what around here. And, in this particular case, the fact that the gentleman from North Carolina is the chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of this full committee at this time is a very fortuitous circumstance. The HMDA data that just came out was one of the most depressing things that I've seen in my capacity as a Member of Congress in the domestic area. Obviously, massive loss of life is the worst thing that we can see. We tend to see that, with the exception of hurricanes, outside the country. But looking at the public policies in the country, the fact that in 2007, so many years after we supposedly officially banned segregation as part of the constitutionally-accepted practice, we have such evidence of racial discrimination in an important aspect of our human life, ought to make everybody sad. And our first response should not be accusatory, but rather how do we fix it? And I don't believe that it's all, or even primarily, explicit racism on the part of lending institutions. But no one who has lived in America and is familiar with this country's history will expect anyone to believe that racism is not part of it, and the statistics don't fully explain everything, but there are clearly terribly disturbing inferences that are inescapable. And then I recently, of course, saw the study in my own hometown, the metropolitan area of Boston, in which African- Americans in the upper income bracket are more likely to be pushed into subprime lending/borrowing than white people in much worse economic categories. There simply are not statistical explanations for that. So we have this combination of the subprime problem and of the racially discriminatory aspect of it. And it isn't clear at this point what we can do. I will say this: If working together, as it is important that we do, we can come up with ways to improve the situation, to diminish this terrible, terrible statistic of racial discrimination, then this committee will do everything it can. And that's why I say Mr. Watt from North Carolina, unlike many Members of this House, actually practiced law for 20 years. He is a skillful lawyer, who has now returned to put his skills to work in the public policy area. When you have, as chairman of this Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, the immediate past chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, with his skills and experience as a lawyer, and the full backing of this committee, I hope everybody will take very seriously not just this hearing, but our commitment to changing public policy to the extent that we can. There is no excuse, and no one should be at all willing to settle for a situation in which the race of a borrower today makes so much of a negative difference for some people. So I thank the gentleman for holding this hearing and for all his work on the issue. And we have a first-rate staff, and I am glad to see my friend from California here, who has been a very strong supporter of our efforts to deal with the housing crisis. I really do believe, on a bipartisan basis, that we will be going forward on this. And shame on all of us, shame on this country, if the next HMDA survey shows data that is as bad as it shows today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Watt. I thank the chairman for his comments, both about the substance of the issue and about the chair of this subcommittee. Does the gentlelady from New York desire to make an opening statement? Ms. McCarthy. I thank the gentleman, but I have a policy of not doing opening statements. Chairman Watt. I recall that. She's not a big fan of opening statements. Mr. Frank. And she ends up giving dirty looks to people who give them. [Laughter] Chairman Watt. Yes. I do recall that she was not--I hope she won't be offended when I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts for an opening statement, if he desires to make one. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any such prohibition. Today's hearing on discrimination and mortgage lending is an important step, I think, for the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, and I am delighted that the chairman has taken this on as an initiative. It was a long time coming. The pattern of discrimination revealed by the 2004 and 2005 HMDA data requires our utmost attention. The 2005 HMDA data, like the 2004 data, revealed that black and Hispanic borrowers are more likely to obtain loans with prices above pricing thresholds than are non-Hispanic whites. Today I believe we will learn more, not only about the HMDA report and requirements, and the implications of these results, but also the efficacy of the Fair Lending enforcement that we conduct around the country. I am particularly pleased that a constituent of mine is here to testify this afternoon on the first panel. Ginny Hamilton is the executive director of the Fair Housing Center of Boston, a group that fights illegal housing discrimination in Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth, and Suffolk Counties of Massachusetts, including much of my district. And, as part of their mission, the Fair Housing Center researches and documents the nature and extent of housing discrimination, as well as the Fair Housing impacts of public policies. Ms. Hamilton will testify today regarding a report released by the group entitled, ``The Gap Persists,'' and I have a copy of it here, a report on racial and ethnic discrimination in the Greater Boston Home Mortgage Lending market. I am disheartened to know that this report also found differences in the treatment of disadvantaged minority home buyers in 9 out of 20 matched paired test cases, which is about 45 percent of the time. The interesting conclusion that they found was that, while there were seven cases that were pursuable or actionable, in legal terms, none of the tests revealed overt discrimination that would necessarily be captured by current Fair Lending Enforcement Programs that focus on overt discrimination, leading us to question whether HMDA data should be expanded to include borrower's credit history, debt-to-income ratio, and loan to property value ratios. It is important that we address these issues. As someone who grew up in the housing projects of South Boston, where a lot of families struggled to move from that environment into their own homes, I know the challenges that are there, not only for racial minorities, but also for single women, in most cases, single parents, trying to move their families out of public housing, or, in some cases, living with other members of other families. It's a struggle. I am delighted that Chairman Watt is holding this important hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Watt. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement. And, without objection, all other members opening statements will be made a part of the record. I would invite the members of the first panel to come to the table for brief introductions. As they come, I will just restate something that I said in my opening statement, that we structured this hearing in the reverse order of what has become customary in our committee process by putting our consumer witnesses on the first panel. That's not done to put the regulators in any kind of negative position, but I thought it would be helpful to help build the context around this issue. It may be helpful to hear some of the concerns that are being expressed by the consumer witnesses, and to allow the regulators to hear some of those concerns, before we hear what the regulators are doing to try to address them. So I welcome the witnesses. I am going to do a very, very brief introduction of the witnesses because we have a lot of witnesses, both on the first and second panel, and we want to move expeditiously to their testimony. Our first witness is Mr. John Taylor, president and CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. Our second witness, who has been introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts, is Ms. Ginny Hamilton, the executive director of the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston. Our third witness is Mr. Hilary O. Shelton, director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP. Our fourth witness is Mr. Saul Solorzano--did I get close-- the executive director of the Central American Resource Center. Our fifth witness is Mr. Michael LaCour-Little, professor of finance at the California State University at Fullerton. And our final witness on this panel is Mr. Bill Himpler, the executive vice president of the American Financial Services Association. And the rules--many of you have testified before, and you are aware that your full statements will be made a part of the record, so we ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. There's a lighting system right in front of you. At 4 minutes, the yellow light will come on. At 5 minutes, the red light will come on, and it would be helpful if you would, as quickly as possible, wrap up when the red light comes on. Every once in a while people will wrap up before the red light comes on. So I will now recognize Mr. Taylor for a summary for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF JOHN TAYLOR, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION (NCRC) Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman Watt, and Ranking Member Miller. I'm also a constituent of Mr. Lynch, but apparently my vote is not important to him anymore, so-- Mr. Lynch. Not at all. I did not see you in the crowd, Mr. Taylor, and I want to welcome you to this committee. You have been doing lots of work on fair lending and housing issues in my district. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I did not see Mr. Taylor in the crowd. Chairman Watt. Thank you. Mr. Taylor. Thank you for allowing me to fish for that compliment. Mr. Lynch. Not at all. Chairman Watt. I could recognize some other reasons that he might have ignored you, but-- Mr. Taylor. Yes. I understand. Chairman Watt. --we won't go there. Mr. Taylor. First, it's an honor to represent NCRC and our 600 members who have been working on this issue for many, many years. Regulatory oversight must promote competitive markets for all consumers, regardless of color, income, age, or gender. Unfortunately, we have a dual marketplace in which white and affluent communities enjoy a wide range of product choices while minority and working class communities are stuck with high-cost home mortgage lenders and payday outlets. By shining a public spotlight on the institution's lending activities, HMDA data has reduced the amount of discrimination and abuse. Yet as powerful as HMDA data has been, and efforts to stop discrimination, the full potential of HMDA has not been realized because key elements remain missing from the data. NCRC released a report this month entitled, ``Income is no Shield Against Racial Differences in Lending,'' and I would like to submit that for the record, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Watt. Without objection. Mr. Taylor. Using HMDA data from 2005, NCRC concluded that if a consumer is a minority, the consumer is more at risk of receiving a poorly-underwritten, high-cost loan. Middle income or upper income levels do not shield minorities from receiving dangerous, high-cost loans. Middle- and upper-income African-Americans are twice or more as likely, nationwide, than middle- and upper-income whites to receive high-cost loans in the 167 metro areas that we examined. In contrast, low- and moderate-income African-Americans are twice as likely to receive high-cost loans in 70 metro areas. So income is no barrier. As you become more successful, as African-Americans with more income, it actually gets worse, according to the data. Mr. Chairman, as you know, North Carolina's metropolitan areas had three of the worst five areas in terms of African- American white disparities. Moreover, in Charlotte, which is in your district, middle- and upper-income African-Americans were almost 3 times more likely than middle-income whites to receive high-cost loans. Three of the worst metropolitan areas for Hispanics are in my home State, and the chairman's home State, and my Congressman's home State, for Hispanics in terms of disparity between whites. I know Ginny will have a lot more to say about that. NCRC believes that additional data on the writing variables needs to be added to the HMDA data. But until this data becomes regularly available, the evidence suggests that the burden lies upon skeptics to disprove the existence of discrimination. Now, regarding fair lending consumer protection and regulatory enforcement, current Federal fair lending enforcement is inadequate to protect the interest of working class and minority consumers. In 2005 and 2006, the Federal Reserve Board used the HMDA data and referred about 470 lenders to their primary regulatory agencies for possible civil rights violations. Yet there have been only two discrimination cases, that I'm aware of, brought by Attorney General Gonzalez's Department of Justice to date, and none since the new pricing data has been available. Bank regulators are required by law to make referrals to the Department of Justice when they uncover a patent practice of the lender that suggests lending discrimination. In this outrageous period of high-cost loans, record foreclosures, and a plethora of disparate application of subprime versus prime loans to people of color, even for controlling for creditworthiness, two of the four bank regulatory agencies--only two of the four--made referrals to the Justice Department last year, as they're required to by law. That was the FDIC, which, to their credit, made almost 115 referrals, and then the Federal Reserve, which made several referrals. But the OCC and the OTS made zero referrals to the Justice Department on patterns of practice of lending discrimination in 2006. What the Justice Department did with these cases is not clear, but many of them, if not all of them, were referred back to the agencies. So the days of Janet Reno and others who took these cases seriously, and prosecuted people who were practicing discrimination because the regulators uncovered it, seem to be far away. Another overlooked component of Fair Lending Enforcement is CRA exams. In most cases, the Fair Lending section of the CRA exam reports, in one to three sentences, that the regulatory agency tested for evidence of discrimination lending that no such lending discrimination was found. The general public would have much more assurance that Fair Lending reviews were rigorous if the agencies described what type of Fair Lending reviews they conducted. The bank merger application process has become lax in the last few years, and this really matters. The last major applications where there were merger hearings were the Fleet Bank and Bank of America, and the Chase and Bank One mergers. That was back in 2004. Since then, there have been several large mergers from your home State as well, Mr. Chairman, with Wachovia, World Savings, and other financial institutions, where the public has not had an opportunity or the benefit of having a public hearing. These hearings are incredibly important for people in these communities to be able to express to the regulators what the impacts of the mergers have been, what the history of these banks have done in their community. In fact, through these merger hearings and through the commitments of these financial institutions, low- and moderate-income communities have gotten over $4 trillion in written CRA agreements. So this whole process is undermined when we don't have public hearings. NCRC appreciates the recent regulatory moves, such as the guidance regarding subprime lending, but these moves remain inadequate to create fair and competitive markets in working class and minority communities. Since Federal agencies have had difficulties indirectly policing brokers, it is encouraging that the Federal and State regulators announced the pilot program. But let's remember that it really is a pilot program consisting of about 12 institutions. And even if the Federal agencies rigorously implemented their recently-- Chairman Watt. You'll have to wrap up as quickly as possible. Mr. Taylor. Okay. That's what I get for messing around at the beginning, Mr. Chairman. I will try and wrap up as quickly as possibly, and conclude in saying that while HMDA has been the powerful tool for rooting out discrimination, the HMDA data needs to include more key variables. Otherwise, the abuse of lenders will be a step ahead of the public and the regulators, inventing new methods for deceptive and usurious practices. The agencies have inadequately used the existing tools in the arsenal to combat discriminatory lending. They must do a better job conducting Fair Lending reviews and processing merger applications. The ultimate answer to all this, of course, is a National Anti-Predatory Lending bill, which you are very aware of, Mr. Chairman. And, further, the HMDA data needs to be enhanced very quickly, including fee and price information, not just in high- class loans, creditworthiness of borrowers, loan terms whether their loans are fixed, whether they're ARMS; if they are ARMS, for what period they're fixed; a data field indicating whether the line was from a broker, a mortgage company, a depository institution; the age of the borrower's critical loan-to-value debt-to-income ratios. And we support Senator Reid's bill that would create a foreclosure and delinquency data base. In the interest that--we have a big panel, so I'm going to stop talking. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor can be found on page 261 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. And we now recognize Ms. Hamilton for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF GINNY HAMILTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF GREATER BOSTON Ms. Hamilton. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss discrimination in mortgage lending and tools for Fair Lending Enforcement. My name is Ginny Hamilton, and I am the executive director of the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston. We were founded in 1998, and we work to eliminate housing discrimination and promote open communities throughout the Greater Boston Region. We're a full service Fair Housing Center, and receive approximately half of our funding through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Fair Housing Initiatives, or FHIP, and we're an active member of the National Fair Housing Alliance. Discriminatory lending practices are particularly concentrated in our region, characterized by ongoing segregation, exorbitant housing prices, and below-national- average home ownership rates for African-American and Latino families. I'm here to speak with you today about the ways in which our organization uses HMDA data and paired testing to document and address housing discrimination in Greater Boston. I'll also provide recommendations for Congress, the Federal agencies, and regulators. HMDA data have long shown significant racial and ethnic disparities in mortgage lending. The staff and board members of the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston have conducted numerous studies, analyzing HMDA data, and I wish to highlight three of them here. I've also included all of these reports as appendices to my written testimony. Since the mid-1990's, the Massachusetts Community and Banking Council, a coalition of banks and community groups, including the Fair Housing Center, has published annual reports documenting disparities in the lending market. The first report, ``Changing Patterns,'' has shown consistently lower rates of lending to borrowers of color, both in the City of Boston and throughout Greater Boston. Although there have been improvements in some areas over the 16 years documented by ``Changing Patterns,'' lending to borrowers of color continues to lag behind lendings to whites. In recent years, there has been an increase in the ratio of loans denied to borrowers of color compared to white borrowers. The second MCBC study, ``Borrowing Trouble,'' looks specifically at the rapidly growing subprime lending market. Again, the studies document that a disproportionately large percentage of these high APR loans go to African-Americans and Latinos, even those with higher incomes. 2005 data show that upper income African-Americans are 8 times more likely to have a high-cost loan than whites in the same income bracket, and that's talking about households that make more than $152,000 per year. The Fair Housing Center's own study, ``More Than Money,'' used HMDA data to show that racial disparities in mortgage lending cannot be explained by affordability alone. In 80 percent of the cities and towns in Greater Boston, the number of African-American and Latino home buyers was less than half of what would be predicted by housing prices. Findings from HMDA data, however strong and however suggestive, are not conclusive proof of racial and ethnic discrimination. The evidence that is clear and convincing comes from paired testing. During the 4 months from October 2005 to January 2006, we conducted testing to determine the extent and nature of discrimination by mortgage lenders doing business in Greater Boston. We used trained volunteers to visit 10 banks and 10 mortgage offices and report on details of their experiences. Testers of color were assigned a slightly higher credit score and higher incomes and slightly lower debt compared to their white counterparts, so, in a discrimination-free environment, the tester of color would be slightly more qualified for the home loan. Even so, as Congressman Lynch said earlier, we found differences in treatment, disadvantaging the home buyer of color in 9 of the 20 match-pair tests we conducted. Two specific details from that. In 7 of the 20 tests, the white loan seeker received substantially more information from the lender about services or products. And in 5 of the 20 tests, the white tester was offered a discount on closing costs, which was not offered the tester of color or was quoted a substantially lower closing cost than the tester of color. The differences ranged from $500 to $3,600. Currently, most lending cases are brought by private fair housing organizations, and these private efforts are important. But the full engagement of responsible government agencies is an essential component of any serious effort to combat lending discrimination in all its changing forms. Lack of Federal enforcement actually provides a form of safe harbor for those in the industry engaging in discriminatory practice. We at the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston and my colleagues at the National Fair Housing Alliance believe that it's shameful that the four bank regulators and the other agencies charged with enforcing the Nation's fair housing laws have made such minimal and half-hearted efforts to identify and reduce racial and ethnic discrimination and mortgage lending. We have recommendations for Congress to implement and oversee. First, we ask that Congress appropriate at least $26 million to HUD's Fair Housing Initiatives Program, and pass the Housing Fairness Act of 2007, H.R. 2926, to support fair housing and Fair Lending work in our communities. HMDA data should be enhanced to include much more information, including the details John has already covered. Congress should require Federal enforcement agencies, including HUD, the Department of Justice, and the FTC to undertake more aggressive, effective, and extensive fair lending enforcement activities. Congress should require that Federal regulatory agencies use their authority to undertake stronger oversight and enforcement activities. And finally, Federal Government agencies and bank regulators should make much more aggressive and extensive use of paired testing in their own enforcement activities and investigations by contracting and working directly with qualified fair housing organizations around the country. Thank you, again, for this opportunity to testify before the committee. And I'm happy to answer questions and assist in any way that we can to help Congress fulfill your duties to enforce fair lending nationwide. [The prepared statement of Ms. Hamilton can be found on page 114 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. Thank you very much for your testimony. We now recognize Mr. Shelton for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF HILARY O. SHELTON, DIRECTOR, NAACP WASHINGTON BUREAU Mr. Shelton. Thank you very much. My name is Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington Bureau. The Washington Bureau-- Chairman Watt. Pull that microphone just a little bit closer to you. Mr. Shelton. --Federal Legislative and National Public Policy arm, our Nation's oldest and largest grassroots civil rights organization. I am very pleased to be here today to talk to you about the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, or HMDA, and its use in uncovering trends of discrimination in home lending. It is especially an honor to speak before Chairman Watt, who is indisputably one of the congressional leaders in the fight against predatory lending, and a champion of civil rights for all Americans. I would like to thank you, Chairman Watt, Chairman Frank, Congressman Green, and our many other friends and distinguished leaders who are here today to help us try to find a way to eradicate this awful plague throughout our Nation. Predatory lending is unequivocally a major civil rights issue of our time. As study after study has conclusively shown, predatory lenders target African-Americans, Latinos, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, the elderly, and women at such a disproportionate rate that the effect is devastating to not only individuals and families but whole communities as well. Predatory lending stymies families' attempts at wealth building, ruins people's lives, and given the disproportionate number of minority home owners who are targeted by predatory lenders, decimates whole communities. High concentrations of subprime lending is a predominately racial and ethnic minority neighborhoods, and racial disparities, in subprime lending exists in all regions of our Nation. And while not all subprime loans are predatory, indeed NAACP recognizes the benefits of subprime markets to an informed constituency, which includes many without a strong traditional credit history. It is estimated that the vast majority of predatory loans are those with owner's fees and/or conditions exist in the subprime market. And while many of the facts that I have just shared with you are common knowledge in our communities, they are also, thanks to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, verifiable facts. First enacted in 1975, HMDA was enacted to provide the public with data on mortgage lending patterns. Since that time, HMDA has become an individual tool to help the NAACP and other civil rights and consumer rights organizations in the fight to eliminate discrimination in mortgage lending. As a result of HMDA, we have several seminal reports, including: the Center for Responsible Lending's 2006 report, ``Unfair Lending: The Effect of Race and Ethnicity on the Price of Subprime Mortgages,'' which uses the 2004 HMDA data; ``Stubborn and Persistent'' and ``Stubborn and Persistent II,'' an analysis of the 2004 and 2006 HMDA data by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition; and ``Risk or Race,'' the 2003 report by Calvin Bradford for the Center for Community Change, to name just a few. As a result of these reports and their analysis of HMDA data, we can say conclusively that African-American and Latino borrowers receive a disproportionate share of higher-cost home loans, even when controlling for the factors, such as borrower's income and property location, and that this disparity rises as income rises as well. And while it offers little solace to know that the anecdotal stories we have heard all along from our communities about unfair lending are true, it does help us deal with the problem. Specifically, in addition to civil rights groups using HMDA data to focus national attention on lending discrimination issues, HMDA data is used by local municipalities when developing fair housing programs, and should be used by Federal banking regulatory agencies, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission, to boost enforcement of fair lending laws. HMDA data is also proving useful in litigation against unfair lenders, and is a key component in the case recently filed by the NAACP alleging systemic, institutionalized racism in subprime home mortgage lending. Like most good laws, however, HMDA could be improved upon. Specifically, the NAACP feels that the data would be greatly improved if the age of the borrowers were included, as well as the type of credit. The purpose of this second request is to determine if a mortgage broker was used as ``steering'' minorities to unaffordable loans, an especially prevalent problem in our communities. The NAACP, in collaboration with some of our allies who do some of the most in-depth analysis of the HMDA data, would also like to see more detailed pricing and underwriting information for subprime lenders in their HMDA data. Not only would this provide us with more detailed information, but it would also help to discourage pricing discrimination. Specifically, knowing the incidence of up-front fees, yield spread premiums, and pre-payment penalties would be significantly helpful in assessing the full breadth of subprime loans and who is receiving them. Finally, the NAACP would like to see more enforcement on the part of the Federal Government as a result of HMDA data. Despite the clear evidence of discrimination, which is illegal, the Federal agencies that regulate insured depository institutions have done little or nothing to eliminate discrimination in the mortgage market. Furthermore, the NAACP calls upon HUD and DoJ to enforce our Nation's fair lending laws--enforcement activities which have come to almost a standstill since 2000. In closing, HMDA is an invaluable tool for many civil and consumer rights organizations, as well as Federal, State, and local regulators in identifying and fighting discriminatory lending practices, and the NAACP is pleased to testify in support of this crucial law. I will take your questions upon your request. [The prepared statement of Mr. Shelton can be found on page 252 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. I never heard you talk so fast. [Laughter] Chairman Watt. But your content was outstanding. Mr. Solorzano is recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF SAUL SOLORZANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER (CARECEN) Mr. Solorzano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to participate in this panel. My name is Saul Solorzano, and I work as the executive director of the Central American Resource Center, in Washington, D.C. As you may know, a large percentage of Latinos in the Washington, D.C., area have a Central American background. Relevant to fair housing loans is that many Central Americans are in the United States under a temporary protective status known as TPS, or under other immigration laws that allow them to work legally in the United States, but do not give them a pass to permanent residency because their rights and they are potential victims of predatory lending in order of uses, including those for lack of language access. CARECEN is a community-based organization that was established in 1982, and, since then, it has been providing direct services to over 5,000 Latinos per year in the areas of legal services, citizenship, housing, and other educational programs. CARECEN is an affiliate of the National Council of La Raza. Our housing council will serve people who come to the offices with a variety of housing problems and questions, including the increasing rates of foreclosures, and their inability to sustain mortgage loans that, after accepting them originally, seemed to be a great deal, but quickly have turned into a nightmare. Also, we refer potential cases of fair housing discrimination to the Equal Rights Center and the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Human Rights, here in Washington, D.C. I have submitted written testimony to the committee, so in this presentation, I will only mention some of the main points in the statement. First, I would like to explain how practices in lending victimize many Latino families and immigrants in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. It is not difficult to find real estate agents and others who will offer low interest loans, and other types of loans, without explaining the full implications of the options. In many cases, these agents work with lenders, others, and intermediaries to cash in commissions without any regard for the victims. As an example, people making $400 per month, preparing vegetables and salads in downtown D.C., are enticed to take on loans of over $300,000. Of course, after a few months, or whenever someone moves out of the house, people are left with large mortgage payments and lose their homes. Another practice, or malpractice, is to overprice the homes and offer a first and second mortgage, with the second mortgage at a higher interest rate. Again, people with low salaries are approved for loans of up to $460,000 or more. In Montgomery County, in Maryland, a Latino man working as a bartender and making no more than $45,000 a year, got an 80- 20 loan, and a monthly payment of over $3,000. The man put the house up for sale, but after 3 months, we found a buyer. He moved out of the property. I could go on listing case after case, but I think that I have shown you the impact of predatory lending on our communities. Instead, I would like to raise another issue: Local ordinances, such as the one recently approved in Prince William and Loudon Counties in Virginia. One of the concerns that I am perceiving here today is how fair housing and civil rights violations may escalate in some areas, where local ordinances to prevent overcrowding in homes will also have civil rights implications. For example, standard families living in counties in Virginia could be the victim of forced foreclosure and displacement at the same time. Why? Because anti-immigrant activists are using zoning and other local ordinances to get rid of immigrants and non-immigrants Latino families. As you can see, educational complaints from the community are an urgent problem. I hope the members of this community and the U.S. Congress will see how important it is to fund programs and initiatives to protect minorities and to eliminate predatory lending and other abuses in the mortgage lending industry. In writing the statement, there are some recommendations that we think are important. I thank you for the opportunity to speak about this pressing issue. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Solorzano can be found on page 255 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. I thank Mr. Solorzano--see, that rolls off the Southern tongue better once I heard it--for your statement. And we'll now recognize Mr. LaCour-Little. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LACOUR-LITTLE, PROFESSOR OF FINANCE, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AT FULLERTON Mr. LaCour-Little. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subommittee. My name is Michael LaCour-Little, and I am a professor of finance at California State University at Fullerton. It's an honor to testify here today on the topic of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. My recent research paper, which is included with my written testimony, addresses aggregate patterns in the 2004 and 2005 HMDA data, and offers a forecast of 2006 results, which will be released later this year. Much of my testimony today will consist of highlights from that paper. In addition, I am currently editing a special issue of the ``Journal of Real Estate Research,'' on the topic of HMDA, and believe many of the papers contained in that volume will provide important additional information that policymakers should consider. Last year's release of the 2005 HMDA data raised a number of questions given the increase in the number and percentage of higher-cost loans, or what I will refer to as HMDA spread- reportable loans, and the continued differentials across racial and ethnic groups. My work, specifically, assesses three possible reasons for that increase, as well as proposing others. The three reasons evaluated include: Changes in lender business practices; changes in borrower credit profile; and changes in the interest rate environment. Since the incidence of HMDA spread-reportable loans increased during 2005, it is tempting to infer that subprime lending must have increased proportionately. Indeed, the media and some commentators tend to equate HMDA spread-reportable loans with subprime. My research indicates, however, that relationship is not so simple. It's important, also, to remember that the new HMDA data does not contain information on many of the factors that affect credit risk and the economics of the mortgage lending process. As a result, the new HMDA data is sufficient neither to explain the pricing of loans nor to draw conclusions about pricing fairness. At best, the bank regulatory agencies can use HMDA data as a preliminary screening tool to identify markets or institutions for further scrutiny. Let me highlight several major conclusions of my research for you. First: I did not find an increase in average borrower risk in 2005, though there does appear to be an increase in the use of riskier products, such as loans that allow negative amortization, and the average loan-to-value ratio did appear to increase for home purchase loans during 2006. Second: The yield curve accounted for a significant part of the growth in HMDA spread-reportable loans in 2005. Third: Wholesale originations played a major role in explaining the overall growth in HMDA spread-reportable lending. Results reported in my paper suggests that after controlling for the mix of loan types, credit risk factors, and the yield curve, there was no statistically significant increase in reportable lending directly by lenders during 2005, although wholesale originations did increase. My research identifies nine major factors that explain why a loan is HMDA spread-reportable: Loan size; term; property type; whether the line is an adjustable rate mortgage; credit score; loan-to-value ratio; origination channel; and the yield curve slope. In addition, I find that the market price of risk increased by approximately 15 basis points during both 2005 and 2006, implying that rates were higher for all borrowers on a risk- adjusted basis. Finally, let me offer a forecast for the 2006 results when they're released later this year. Given the change in interest rates, the likely mix of ARMs versus fixed, the increase in average LTV, and other factors, I predict that approximately 28 percent of loans will be HMDA spread-reportable. I mentioned earlier the special issue on HMDA that will be published later this year. Included in that volume will be an article that examines the differential in annual percentage rates paid by minority versus white borrowers, controlling for the segment of the market in which the loan is obtained, credit risk variables, and other economic factors. The paper utilizes a unique proprietary data set that includes over 1 million individual loan records from multiple lenders and many of the pricing variables that are not included in HMDA. The authors find that raw disparities in the APR, which are in the order of 50 to 100 basis points, decline to roughly 5 to 10 basis points when appropriate controls for market segment and credit risk are included. The authors remark, and I quote: ``Public policies aimed at remediating APR differentials would achieve a far greater return through the elimination of race and ethnicity differentials in FICO scores, income, wealth that might be used to lower loan-to-value ratios, and, arguably, financial literacy, than they would through the elimination of any possible disparate treatment.'' Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Professor LaCour-Little can be found on page 148 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. I recognize Mr. Himpler for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF BILL HIMPLER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION Mr. Himpler. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Bill Himpler, and I am the executive vice president for Federal affairs at the American Financial Services Association. AFSA's 350 members include consumer and commercial finance companies, auto finance companies, credit card issuers, mortgage lenders, industrial banks, and other firms that lend to consumers and small businesses. Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your colleagues for holding this hearing. We believe that HMDA is already working as intended. While other laws, such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Truth in Lending Act provide a means for enforcement against lending discrimination, HMDA serves as an early warning system by identifying lending patterns that warrant additional investigation. At the outset, let me state that the entire industry stands shoulder to shoulder with Congress and its commitment to combat lending discrimination. To that end, we believe there's a good story to tell. Over the last 20 years, the industry has worked with policymakers and consumer groups as we've developed new technology that has allowed us to better serve consumers. Prior to the 1990's, a consumer with blemishes on his or her credit record was essentially shut out from the dream of American home ownership. No one can argue that is the case today. Since 2002, 2.8 million families have become first-time home buyers. At the same time, the mortgage industry is working with its community partners to meet a new challenge--the rise in defaults and foreclosures. As part of my testimony, I've attached a summary of initiatives undertaken by AFSA member companies that help borrowers avoid losing their homes. While all of us are concerned about foreclosures, we must not lose sight of the fact that more than four out of five subprime borrowers are making timely payments. As we discuss the HMDA data and ways to make our credit system better, we must be mindful of how any changes might affect liquidity. More importantly, we should allow the industry to provide manageable borrowing options for consumers facing reset or the possibility of foreclosure. With that, let me turn to our assessment of HMDA's new reporting requirements. In 2005, lenders began reporting pricing information for higher-cost mortgages. Yet the HMDA data still did not contain credit scores or certain other information used to determine the credit risk associated with the loan. This begs the question as to why Congress shouldn't expand the HMDA data to include this information. There are four reasons I'd like to speak to this afternoon. First: An expansion would raise privacy concerns between HMDA data and other publicly available data. Already, the identity of borrowers can be determined. Many people would prefer that their neighbors not know their credit score. Second: A requirement to collect credit scores in the HMDA data would raise the question of which credit scoring system to include. Fair Isaac's FICO score is the best known, but it's not the only one used. Many creditors make lending decisions based on their own proprietary scoring systems in addition to a FICO score. Third: Lenders would have to divulge the weight that they give to different risk factors in pricing their loans, thereby eliminating any trade secrets that allow for vibrant competition. And, fourth: An expansion of HMDA wouldn't necessarily increase its effectiveness as a screening tool. If an expansion of HMDA data is not the way to go, what does AFSA recommend? As I stated at the beginning, we believe HMDA is working as it should. Following its analysis of the 2004 and 2005 data, the Federal Reserve saw patterns that it felt needed more scrutiny. Referrals were made to fellow regulators. Investigations are underway as we speak. We should recognize that this is the way the process is supposed to work. Regulators already have the authority to look at individual loan files. We must remember this and support their use of this when it is warranted. In addition, we must be mindful of how any changes to HMDA might affect the industry's ability to provide borrowing options for homeowners facing reset or foreclosure. This is absolutely critical, given the current housing market. Mr. Chairman, we stand ready to work with you as needed. I want to thank you for inviting me to participate in this very important hearing. That concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Himpler can be found on page 129 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. We thank you, Mr. Himpler, for your statement. And let me thank all of the witnesses for their statements. The members of the subcommittee will now be recognized for questions, for 5 minutes each. And I will recognize myself first for 5 minutes. As I have been kind of making notes here and reading the testimony, it seems that there are several recommendations that are being made that at least some of the witnesses here think would improve the information under HMDA. Let me list those and see if I've missed any, because what I want to do is, in the second panel, ask--and I'm alerting them if they are here--the regulators their opinions about these. Ms. Hamilton, I think, mentioned paired testing. If you're really going to get to a real evaluation of what's going on, on the ground, that's the only way to do it. Coverage of brokers, I think either in the testimony or in the written testimony has been suggested, and extending the data required to--extending the coverage of HMDA to other lenders that are not currently covered by HMDA, and I guess, although we're talking about brokers not being lenders, but they need to be included in this equation. Extending the data required to be reported under HMDA, I think was a point that Mr. Taylor made. And more aggressive enforcement by the regulators using the HMDA data, or at least more aggressive referrals and possibly more aggressive enforcement by the Department of Justice once the referrals are made. Are there any that I have missed? As I made notes, did I miss any of the recommendations, generally, without getting into the specific content of them? Mr. Taylor? Mr. Taylor. Yes, Mr. Chairman. You may not have missed it, it may have been in your remarks. But, clearly, the fees and price information on all loans, not just high-cost loans, would be very valuable. And then the creditworthiness of the borrowers. This can be done in a way to protect privacy, but that obviously would create, as my old friend, Phil Gramm, used to say, ``It would create sunshine on the process of lending.'' So that would be very helpful. Chairman Watt. Any others that I may have missed in the general summary, without specific details about getting into the details about it? Mr. Taylor. Public hearings was the other on merger applications. Chairman Watt. Public hearings on merger applications, and they go beyond current public hearings or what's the status on that? Mr. Taylor. Unfortunately, public hearings are becoming a thing of the past. The last ones were in 2004, as I mentioned, and there have been some major merger activities, where this data and other information becomes very relevant and available. So that would be helpful. Chairman Watt. All right. And I want to assure Mr. Himpler a bit. I'm not generalizing that everybody on the panel thinks that these are good ideas. I'm just summarizing the suggestions that are being made so we can ask the relevant questions about them. Ms. Hamilton. Mr. Chairman, one other detail I think worth considering is with regard to the complexity of brokered loans. These loans often involve offers then counteroffers. And technically, those would be rejections, but in many cases they might have been a better offer for the consumer. So I think there's room, especially in the issue of dealing with brokers and community advocates should sit down and figure out what are the ways that information can be captured, because that market is changing. It makes a big difference in the outcome for borrowers in the end. Chairman Watt. All right. In this brief remaining time that I have in my 5 minutes, can I get your thoughts about how brokers might best be included in the reporting requirement? Ms. Hamilton. I know in Massachusetts there has been some move at the State level to look for licensing, to have all brokers licensed, and, therefore, have to have an origination number be part of that loan process. I don't know how that would play into HMDA, but that's one way of helping to track how a loan began and what that information is. Chairman Watt. Okay. I think my time has expired. And I'll recognize the gentleman from California for 5 minutes. Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. I'm hearing from the four witnesses here that HMDA is demonstrating discrimination, yet Mr. Himpler, in your testimony, you have said that HMDA data is a useful tool, but it paints an incomplete picture regarding potential discrimination in the mortgage and lending process. Can you explain the difference here? Mr. Himpler. I think, essentially, going back to something that my friend, Mr. Taylor, mentioned with respect to adding additional credit information to the data set, it bears repeating, that with already existing HMDA data and publicly available recording records at local county seats, you can already identify, by comparing these two, in many instances, who the borrower is. So I don't know how, with adding any additional information, Mr. Taylor is going to be able to protect the privacy of those borrowers. At the same time, we believe that going through the regulators who are able to look at individual loan files and identify patterns that deserve further scrutiny, is the proper method. It protects the privacy of borrowers, it protects the modelling systems of lenders, and it keeps competition very vibrant. Mr. Miller. Mr. Taylor, you said in your comments that HMDA has demonstrated clearly that there is discrimination in the marketplace. The only exception I had with your comments was when you said, ``Skeptics must disprove discrimination.'' I don't think that's the response, but I think it's to prove discrimination. But you have said HMDA clearly proves there is discrimination in the marketplace. Mr. Taylor. Right. I think any fair analysis, in looking at the HMDA data, shows that there are really differences in treatment. Mr. Miller. But that's what we are trying to root out, isn't it? Mr. Taylor. The number one reason given for why they say, ``Well, it doesn't necessarily mean discrimination,'' is this issue of credit scoring data. They say, ``Well, you don't know what the credit scores are.'' Mr. Miller. But HMDA's-- Mr. Taylor. The problem-- Mr. Miller. --HMDA's--I only have 5 minutes. Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. Mr. Miller. HMDA's supposed to demonstrate if there's a problem in discrimination. And the regulators are supposed to review that information and then go to the lender and say, ``These are the documents we have proving discrimination,'' and then they really have to prove there was not. Is that not fair? Mr. Taylor. Yes. In fact, the regulators sitting behind us here, have actually more information than we have in HMDA data. They have the loan files. They have-- Mr. Miller. Because a lot of it's privacy. I know that. Mr. Taylor. No, no. They have the loan files that they can look at. Even the financial institutions. Mr. Miller. I know they do. Mr. Taylor. They actually have a lot more data where they can ferret out, follow the HMDA data trail, to these loan files and see if there are discrepancies. And the problem is, they actually have done that. The Federal Reserve identified 470 banks, which, by the way, in terms of assets, constitutes the majority of lenders in the United States, as in the last 2 years, as having some reasons that we need to look further as to why these discrepancies exist. Mr. Miller. Okay. Thank you. And I think that's where I'm trying to get to. Mr. Taylor. Yes. Mr. Miller. Also, Mr. LaCour-Little. I'm not sure which one you prefer to be used. But you agree, essentially, with the Feds that the new HMDA pricing data are helpful but cannot be used alone to draw conclusions about the appropriation, but their pricing exists. Can you explain how the pricing data is helpful? Mr. LaCour-Little. Well, the pricing data can indicate raw disparities, but unless one looks at the additional factors that affect loan pricing or the incidence of higher cost loan pricing, you can't determine whether those differences are related to race. Mr. Miller. So HMDA data might, if you just take it on the data form, might make you think something exists that really didn't until you get into the data the lender might have in their file? Mr. LaCour-Little. I think that's correct. It's widely recognized by professional economists that HMDA data produces a lot of what we call false positives, indications of something that isn't really there when you look more deeply. Mr. Miller. Well, Chairman Watt and I, along with Chairman Frank and many others have been wanting to do something on predatory lending, and I have co-authored many pieces to deal with that. But, Mr. Himpler, can you describe the mortgage market before this pricing and subprime lending existed, and weren't some families absolutely left out of the marketplace because their credit profile was not stellar? Mr. Himpler. Absolutely, Congressman. As recently as the 1990's, actually just prior to the 1990's, we were dealing with a credit system that was essentially an on-or-off switch. You either made it through the front door of home ownership because you had pristine credit or you were shut out altogether, for all intents and purposes. We now have a much more vibrant system that can price for risk that allows lenders to go deeper into the market to serve more and more consumers to price effectively and move folks into home ownership. And then, ultimately, up into less risk- layered forms of lending. Mr. Miller. Thank you. I see my time has expired. Chairman Watt. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask a couple questions here, and the panel can feel free to answer as they see fit. While we're talking about HMDA's, I'd say, static measurements--let me put it this way. HMDA; the goal is to create a level playing field where racial discrimination is rooted out, and we create a level playing field. The Community Reinvestment Act, on the other hand, requires something further. It requires lenders to affirmatively reach out into areas or populations that are underserved and to root out the discrimination that's out there. Mr. Taylor, at the end of your report, it was long and you didn't get to read it all, but at the very end you talked about something that we've been working on here, which is, under the CRA when it first started out, banks were making most of the lending decisions. They were generating most of the loans. Now the trend has been, private mortgage companies and credit unions making--you know, the share that the banks were doing is shrinking over time, so the money going into the CRA initiative is dwindling. And you mentioned that at least some of the large credit unions and some of the large independent mortgage brokers should be brought in under the same requirement. I know in Massachusetts, and Ms. Hamilton knows and Mr. Taylor knows, that we have a State law that requires that. But I do notice that on the second panel, we have the director of the National Credit Union Administration, David Marquis, who is going to step up. And I was wondering if you would have some recommendations to him and to the regulators here about the whole issue of resources coming to this problem. I mean, we can tighten up the measurement, of course, to induce compliance so that we can root out as much discrimination as we can, but if the resources aren't there to get into these neighborhoods and these populations that are not served, I'm afraid it's not going to be enough. And I'd just like to hear the panel's response and recommendations. Mr. Taylor. Thank you. I think you're absolutely right, Representative Lynch, about a number of points that you've made. But in a lot of ways, the private, independent mortgage makers, that segment that makes these mortgages outside of the banking industry is shrinking rapidly because of some of the unsavory practices that occurred. And even when they were doing a lot of their business, a lot of that still involved banks that were securitizing it or buying them as tranches of loans, that they package and re-sell. So it's not like the banks were divorced from this. But, clearly, we want more consumers into the mainstream financial institutions, frankly, because their basic banking services are more competitive and better than payday lenders, pawn shops, and check cashers as a way for basic banking services, but also because of CRA. As you have pointed out, the banks have an affirmative obligation, and that's the language of the law, to serve the credit needs of underserved people, including low- and moderate-income communities. It is appalling to me that the credit union industry does not embrace this concept. You are going to hear--I mean, I've seen some testimony where some of the associations for the credit union's going to brag about how they're doing 2 percent more to people under $40,000 income in terms of loans. But the truth of the matter is, when you look at minorities, and you look at women, they're underserved in the credit union industry compared to banks. Banks weren't created to serve people of small means. That's the language from the Credit Union Act when it was created. It was created to serve people with small means. And the credit unions will get up and brag about how they're slightly beating the banks in this area, but, in fact, they are way behind the banks in other areas. And the Credit Union Administration ought to be coming to this hearing saying we embrace and we support what our colleagues and the other agencies embrace and support, and that is a strong CRA. And we hope that law does get expanded to them and to others who are in the mortgage business, because it's good business to have an affirmative obligation to make sure that competitor products are going to working class Americans as well. Mr. Lynch. Ms. Hamilton? Ms. Hamilton. I think one thing we need to watch for in looking at the improvement that CRA has brought, and I see in my neighborhood, banks that are now in a central city neighborhood that weren't there 15 years ago. What we need to look at, though, is how the corporation as a whole is using their services and selling their products. Are they marketing different products in predominately African- American or Latino communities than they are in predominately white neighborhoods? Are they only setting up a subprime affiliate in an urban neighborhood and the prime affiliates in the suburban neighborhoods? And, right now, the way regulations happen, those affiliates are examined on their own rather than the entire corporation being looked at. So each affiliate could be treating all their applicants fairly, but the overall corporation's lending is highly unfair. Those sorts of pictures can be found looking at HMDA data and looking at practices if regulators are doing assertive looking. Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to abuse my privilege. Chairman Watt. I thank the gentleman, and the gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from North Carolina, my North Carolina colleague, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. McHenry. I thank the chairman, my colleague and friend and neighbor. Mr. LaCour-Little, can you discuss why borrowers have different rates? I think this is important in the context of this discussion. Mr. LaCour-Little. Of course, Congressman. The most important determinant of mortgage rates is, of course, the prevailing level of interest rates. But to that level, lenders add credit risk spreads to reflect factors such as the borrower's credit score, the loan-to-value ratio with the particular product that's been selected, the purpose of the loan, whether it's a refinance or a home purchase loan. All of those factors have been shown to determine credit risk and default rates over time, so lenders add risk spreads, risk premiums, to the base rate to reflect those characteristics. And I should mention, too, Congressman, that if the loan is originated through a mortgage broker, that mortgage broker will also mark up the loan. And in some other research that I've done I find that loans originated through a mortgage broker cost consumers about 20 basis points more than loans originated directly by lenders. Mr. McHenry. But also the key point of that is underwriting standards. Is that correct, going to the cost of the mortgage? Mr. LaCour-Little. Well, underwriting really reflects the accept/reject decision, whether the lender is willing to make the loan or not, and then the pricing of the loan is a separate issue. HMDA data has traditionally been used, both to consider disparities in approval rates by race and ethnicity. And now, with the new pricing data, disparities in the incidence of higher cost or HMDA spread-reportable lending. Mr. McHenry. Now, are certain borrowers--within your research, have you found that certain borrowers are more willing to shop than others? Have you come to any conclusions on that? Mr. LaCour-Little. Well, that's outside of the scope of the research that I did for this project. But I believe there has been research that suggests that lower income and lower credit scoring borrowers are less aware of the options available to them, and they may shop less diligently, and they're just more vulnerable, as I think the committee recognizes. Mr. McHenry. And that goes to your mentioning of financial literacy-- Mr. LaCour-Little. Yes. Mr. McHenry. --in some respects. Mr. Himpler, you said in your testimony, you discussed about numerous weighting differences within underwriting, within the mortgage industry, different companies have different weighting standards to find how they can be profitable with a certain type of mortgage and things like that. Can you explain to me this weighting system and how that gives a competitive advantage? This is something that we have not heard about too much before this committee. Mr. Himpler. Essentially, weighting refers to the types of considerations the different lenders give to different risk factors, particularly to credit score. As I mentioned in my testimony, there's a FICO score. We also have the three credit bureaus that each have their own scoring system. A number of lenders will use one score from the Bureaus or FICO more weight than another, or a combination of the two, or an average, or the mean. In addition, a number of major lenders also have their own proprietary scoring system. They might use that in isolation or they might use that in combination with the Bureau's scores. Their staff has essentially made the calculation that the weight that they give puts them at the best advantage to price the loan effectively, to serve the consumer best in terms of making access to credit loans most affordable. Mr. McHenry. And some level of assurance that they'll be able to repay the loan. Mr. Himpler. Correct. Mr. McHenry. There has been a statistic that we've seen before the committee that it costs roughly $50,000 for the lender. A cost of $50,000 for every foreclosure. That's nationwide. You know, a lot of discrepancies here within the testimony on your conclusions based on the data we have. Well, there's an overall question within the mortgage industry that we need to ask, and I'll do this in conclusion. If you all could simply answer, ``yes'' or ``no'' and maybe a sentence, but no more. And if we could start with Mr. Taylor. Do you think the disclosure statements that Congress mandates and the regulators mandate are effective at allowing consumers to understand the products they're about to purchase? Meaning, would it be helpful if Congress put forward, for instance, a one-page disclosure statement, giving all the essence of a mortgage and what is necessary for all to know? Pre-payment penalties, percentage, interest rate, and things of those sort. You can just answer briefly. Chairman Watt. The gentleman's time has expired, but I'll allow each of the witnesses to answer very quickly. Mr. Taylor. I'm terrible at single sentences. [Laughter] Mr. Taylor. But I will say that it is very difficult for people to understand in the mortgage closing process all the details and data and information and documents, and that what needs to really occur is a system that creates responsibility on the part of the professional to ensure that the borrower understands what he or she is getting into and what all those documents mean and how it impacts them. I think that's a sentence. Chairman Watt. Ms. Hamilton, I hope your sentence is shorter. Ms. Hamilton. I think a clear Disclosure Statement that does not change at closing would also be something helpful to avoid the bait-and-switch tactics that we hear happen all the time. Mr. Shelton. I agree with the same thing as both of the previous speakers--the need for more information, more disclosure. Mr. Solorzano. Same here. Mr. LaCour-Little. I think disclosures can certainly be improved, but I'd point out that these are very complex contracts, and improving them is not going to be a simple task. Mr. Himpler. The industry stands fully shoulder-to-shoulder with this Congress in wanting to make sure the borrowers understand the mortgage process that they're about to undertake, so disclosure would be a good thing. Chairman Watt. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady from New York is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the testimony of everybody. As we've been hearing in the papers and on TV, we're seeing more and more foreclosures coming forward. This morning on one of the news shows that deal basically with just business issues, we saw that the percentage of people making late payments has dramatically increased, even among those on the higher and middle incomes, and mainly because they brought or bought creative mortgages. What you have mentioned earlier, Ms. Hamilton, was talking about the mortgage brokers and how Boston or Massachusetts was looking on licensing. We've had that discussion on one of our other committees, mainly because if the State just does the licensing, that person can leave that State, and then go to another State and do the same harm in another part of the country that they might have done in your own State. So that's something that we're looking into, which I think is important for us to do. But, with that being said, I have several minority communities in my district, and in the majority of them, they don't even have banks. That's one of the things that we have been fighting for, to bring banks into the communities. So, with that, I mean with the mortgage brokers that are out there, or others, where are they steering my constituents to get their loans because we all have our problem with predatory rates. So anyone out there that wants to try to answer; I know there are three questions in there. Mr. Taylor. I will say this. I think you've tapped into a very, very critical thing and another part of the regulatory failure here, is over the last 3 decades, without much problem whatsoever, mainstream financial institutions have been able to close their branches in a lot of these neighborhoods. And, as Ginny Hamilton mentioned earlier, in Boston what we did is we actually worked, in fact, in concert with the Massachusetts Banker's Association and with the regulators and others, and the banks, to try to get them to commit to open branches, because it really, really matters. Where you see some of the worst discriminatory practices, in those areas where there isn't the kind of mainstream full service access that is brought by a financial institution, part of the exam, the CRA exam of banks, 25 percent of their grade is what's called the service test. Primarily, what is the history of opening and closing branches in underserved neighborhoods. It's not a fact by the-- it's not something they really--and they're not going to like this, but it's not something they really look at, because these banks are able to close their branches willy-nilly, and is having a real disparate impact on neighborhoods in terms of not just whether they're subprime or predatory loans but basic banking services to having them come from check cashers, pawn shops, and payday lenders, instead of full service branches. So this is a critical issue. I think it's important for all of America that the mainstream financial institutions that will treat people more decently, at least historically, than some of these other actors, that they need to be back in these communities. And what we need to do is to influence the regulators and create laws to make sure that they're profitable and competitive in these communities. Mr. Himpler. Ms. McCarthy, if I may, you mentioned at the outset the articles you have been seeing or the TV reports for default in payments. We recognize that's a very real issue. I'd be remiss if I did not implore this committee, as we see these reports come in, that the committee exercise restraint. The regulators that you'll hear from on the next panel issued non-traditional mortgage guidance last year that tightened up credit. More recently, they have issued a statement on subprime to their examiners that calls for underwriting loans at a fully-indexed rate. They are doing the right things. We ask that you give the regulators time to see how that plays out. The last thing that we need, as an economy, is to tighten liquidity further when folks, like your constituents, are facing defaults and an increased possibility of foreclosure. Ms. McCarthy. I agree with you. But, I mean, we did have a hearing on this, and, you know, we met with a number of the bankers and everything and, certainly to their own, they want to make sure their reputation is out there. They don't want to go into the business of foreclosure. And, as far as the economy goes, I mean, this is going to hurt us into the year 2009, they're saying now. We had the first wave. They're afraid about the second wave, which is actually starting sooner, I think, than everybody even thought. So I think I go back to what Mr. Taylor had mentioned. It would be in the best interest of the financial institutions, the banks, to come into the communities to make sure that good packages are being put into those particular communities. They should have been regulating, or even bringing it up, about these specialty mortgage brokers, and I'll even say that to the regulators. They knew this was going on. Why did they wait so long to step forward to say, ``Hey, we're going to take care of this.'' It's a little bit too late for an awful lot of people. Ms. McCarthy. I yield back the--Ms. Hamilton? Ms. Hamilton. I just want to share a quick story from one of the actual test incidents as we did, where we had an African-American tester go into a prime bank, a mainstream bank, and the bank representative told her that the bank usually dealt with commercial lending and did not really provide residential mortgages, and as part of other information, including--even though her credit score was good, that closing fees would be $8- to $9,000 for the loan she was looking to make. Two days later, the white tester, with a lower credit score, was told by the same bank that they provided home mortgage loans and was immediately given information about how she could work with them. So certainly, the locations and the CRA work are important, but it doesn't stop the discrimination from happening unless we're looking at the discriminatory behavior happening in incidences. And those are real people, real people who are discouraged by that interaction, and, therefore, more likely to go to another broker who's going to tell them, ``Sure, I'll give you a great deal, your credit score's wonderful.'' Chairman Watt. The gentlelady's time has expired. This is an extremely important issue that has substantial implications in a number of communities around the country. And, for that reason, I'm pleased to welcome to the subcommittee's hearing three members who are not on the subcommittee itself, two of whom are on the full Financial Services Committee, but do not serve on the subcommittee. And I'm pleased to ask unanimous consent that they be allowed to ask questions. Without objection, I will then recognize Mr. Green for 5 minutes. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the witnesses for appearing today. Let me start by indicating that there's a term called ``voir dire'' or ``voir dire,'' depending on where you're from. In Texas, we say ``voir dire.'' It is a French term, and it means to speak the truth. And I have found that it is very helpful to approach large numbers of persons with the process that we use in ``voir dire'' or ``voir dire.'' So I'd like to ask questions to you as a panel, and that way I can get more answers within a shorter period of time. Let me start with something that I believe to be the case, but because I have friends that I have debated with through the years and did not ask early on what their position was, I found that I was entirely wrong, and, as a result, I should have been debating another point. So let me start with the question, does everyone agree that invidious discrimination exists in lending? If you agree, would you kindly extend the hand into the air? [Hands raise] Mr. Green. Okay. You may lower your hands. Now, let's go to the very end. Mr. Himpler, you do not agree that invidious discrimination exists in lending? Mr. Himpler. I think that it's--you can't argue that there are no incidents of discrimination. I'm not sure that I would characterize the entire lending system, as-- Mr. Green. Let me continue, and let's agree that we're not talking about all lenders, but that it exists in lending institutions to the extinct that it is abhorrent and ought to be eliminated. Do you agree that invidious discrimination exists? Mr. Himpler. That there are incidents of invidious discrimination? Mr. Green. Yes, sir. Mr. Himpler. I would agree with that. Mr. Green. And let me go quickly to Mr. LaCour-Little. Do you agree? I didn't see your hand go up. Mr. LaCour-Little. Yes. Certainly-- Mr. Green. Could you bring that microphone closer, please? Mr. LaCour-Little. Yes. Certainly individual instances of disparate treatment are an important concern. Mr. Green. For edification purposes, invidious discrimination is actionable discrimination, that which one can be sued for in the context that we are talking about today. Do you agree that kind of discrimination exists in lending? Mr. LaCour-Little. There certainly could be individual cases that-- Mr. Green. You said, ``could be,'' so I assume that you're not--you don't have the empirical data, but your suspicions are that it may not exist if you say, ``could.'' Mr. LaCour-Little. That's not my focus, Congressman. As a professional economist, I look at aggregate patterns and data, and I don't see aggregate evidence. Mr. Green. Do you agree that some exist? Mr. LaCour-Little. I agree that there could be individual-- Mr. Green. Could be. Mr. LaCour-Little. There may be. Mr. Green. All right. Was there someone else who did not extend their hand? If so, raise your hand now. All right, sir. Do you agree that invidious discrimination exists? Mr. Solorzano. Yes, I do agree. Mr. Green. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Solorzano. I was too slow to raise my hand. Mr. Green. Okay. It's important to understand this because when you get a better understanding of where people are, you get a better understanding of where the debate really is. And now, I'll have to use just a bit of my time to explain something that I probably shouldn't have to explain. But I heard this commercial recently that indicated that a certain thing that took place took more than an act of Congress. It took our Congress willing to act. And many things take weight power, but they also require willpower. And to have the willpower to do something necessarily, one must conclude that something must be done. So if you don't conclude that there is a need to do something, then there's a good likelihood that you won't be about the business of doing whatever it is that others may see as needing to be done. With this said, to the economist, I would ask, sir, do you believe that we can construct an acid test, that we shall call HMDA data, an acid test that will reveal whether or not invidious discrimination exists? Mr. LaCour-Little. Well, Congressman, I think it's not related to HMDA data, but I think the sort of matched pair testing that the witness from Boston-- Mr. Green. Let me just say this, if I may quickly. Mr. LaCour-Little. Yes. Mr. Green. There are many occasions when persons have finished, and I don't know whether they have said ``yes'' or ``no.'' So let me just ask you this way: Yes or no, sir; can we construct an acid test so as to indicate to us whether or not invidious discrimination exists? Can such a test be constructed? Mr. LaCour-Little. Not using HMDA data. Mr. Green. Well, let's not call it HMDA. A rose by any name smells just as sweet as far as I'm concerned. Whatever--by whatever name can an acid test be constructed such that we can determine whether invidious discrimination exists in lending? Mr. LaCour-Little. Again, I believe that the matched pair testing of the type described by Ms. Hamilton is-- Mr. Green. Would that-- Mr. LaCour-Little. --the best approach. Mr. Green. --would that be testing? Is that right? Mr. LaCour-Little. Yes. Mr. Green. Okay. Now, let's talk about the-- Chairman Watt. Unfortunately, the gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Green. Can I get one additional question, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Watt. I ask unanimous consent for one additional minute for the gentleman. Mr. Green. Okay. You are aware that to perform the testing of which you speak, we would have to change the Federal law because you cannot file applications for testing beyond the pre-application phase, which means that we're now back to something that ought to be done, that can't be done, because Federal law prohibits it from being done. And perhaps I won't ask a question. I'll just leave you with that comment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You were more than generous. Chairman Watt. Thank you very much for participating in this important hearing. The gentleman from California, Mr. Baca, who chairs the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Baca. Well, first of all, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having this important hearing and for your leadership of one an equality and fairness in this area, because we need to wipe out mortgage discrimination and predatory lending once and for all, and we must do more to protect our families. And thank you, you know, for being a leader there. I'd like to address a couple of things, not only as chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and a member of this committee, but, according to the 2005 HMDA data, 52 percent of African-Americans and 40 percent of Latinos are in high-cost subprime loans compared to 19 percent of whites. For Hispanics, almost 20 percent who receive high interest, subprime loans, are likely to go into foreclosures, and data shows that 73,000 out of 375,000 subprime loans made to Hispanics in the year 2000 are more likely to end in foreclosure. In my district alone, the foreclosure rate is 3 times higher than it was just 1 year ago. And, for the record, I'd like to enter this newspaper article that came out by the Riverside press, ``Inland default notices see sharp rises.'' It's alarming to us when we have the largest growth, we have the biggest attractions, and we have the housing development, and everybody is moving into the Inland Empire, both San Bernardino and Riverside, yet there are high numbers that we see in terms of foreclosures. I'd like to ask my first question to Mr. Shelton. Can you talk about some of the studies that have been based on HMDA that show racial discrimination in predatory lending? Mr. Shelton. Yes. Let me just say that the study that we found to be most enlightening was the study by the Center for Responsible Lending, entitled, ``Unfair Lending: The Effects of Race and Ethnicity on the Price of Subprime Mortgages.'' This is a study that was done May 31, 2006, and, of course, was based on 2004 HMDA data. It clearly pointed out that racial discrimination is very much a part of the landscape. There are a couple of other studies I think will be very helpful for the community to consider. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition has a study entitled, ``Income is No Shield Against Racial Differences in Lending,'' dated July 2007. And this uses 2005 HMDA data as well, clearly establishing the same point, that, indeed, racial discrimination occurs in the lending process. The last two I would just throw out for your consideration. A study by Calvin Bradford for the Center for Community Change, called ``RISK'' or ``Race,'' which was done in 2003. And a study by ACORN in 2004, called, ``Separate and Unequal Predatory Lending in America, 2004,'' was also published in 2004. Each of these studies points to the same conclusions, that, indeed, based on HMDA data, we're able to establish that, indeed, discrimination occurs in the lending field, home mortgages, across the board, particularly looking at African- Americans and Latinos. Mr. Baca. Thank you for your testimony. The next question I have is for Ms. Hamilton. In your lending testing described in ``The Gap Persists,'' what type of discrimination did you find against Latinos, and what did your organization do to follow up on the discrimination you found? Ms. Hamilton. For the test, we conducted five pairs matching a Latino tester and a non-Hispanic white tester. In two of those, we found evidence of discrimination. Differences included different quotes on the monthly payments they would have, also giving more information to the white tester about all of the costs involved in the process, and different advice about how to work with better loan products when you have a mid-range credit score. The white loan seeker also got a lot of informational literature about the products and follow up e-mail information, whereas a Latino loan seeker didn't receive any of that information. In the second case, we saw--this was at a bank rather than a mortgage company, and the white home seeker was told about more loan products, was encouraged to submit an application as soon as possible, and there was no application conversation with the Latino home seeker. Again, the white home seeker was given lots of pamphlets about different mortgage products, a guidebook about mortgages, a work sheet for calculating mortgage costs, and the application, and the Latino home seeker was sent away with none of this information. Mr. Baca. One final question that I have: How do you think that the Federal banking regulators and the Federal enforcement agencies could make more of an impact in fighting discrimination against Latinos and other protected classes? Ms. Hamilton. I think the data that is here, the cases that have been referred by the Feds, should be aggressively investigated. They should be looking at that data, looking at those files, and partnering with Department of Justice, HUD, and HUD-funded agencies, such as my own, that do testing, to use testing as part of the process to see whether or not the behavior in the banks towards actual loan seekers spells out what the data is showing. Mr. Baca. And plus more accountability from us in Congress to hold them accountable, of course, right? Ms. Hamilton. Of course. Mr. Baca. Okay. Thank you. Chairman Watt. The gentleman's time has expired. The chairman recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you. I am a total guest. In as much as I am not a member of the full committee, let me thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Watt, and, of course, the ranking member for their generosity. I was confronted this morning by the same news that continues to ascend to, I think, the crisis level, which is, don't think you can rest on your laurels. These foreclosures will continue into 2009. That's a long period of time to watch the mountain collapse, probably the number one asset of most Americans, and that is their home. Coming from Houston, Texas, we have been on this cycle before, but it was economic. When the energy industry crashed in the 1970's, we saw the massive walk-away of people who only wanted to have the American dream and to have a job. But the industry collapsed. I saw the same kind of spiraling disappointment in the massive surge of effort to reform the bankruptcy laws, to, unfortunately, after 7 years of fighting, we lost the battle. And I have heard from not only bankruptcy lawyers but individuals who are in the Bankruptcy Court, but bankruptcy judges, who said that that legislation had enormous negative impact on people being able to retain their assets. Let me give two themes that have been used. Generally, all money is green, and the privileges of due process. We all have a right to know our rights. And I notice, Mr. Taylor, in your comments, the interesting thing is the lending disparities for African-Americans were large and increased significantly as income levels increased. That looks like the most attractive person that you could ever have. Here comes someone with a check, with money, with debt. Hispanics also experience greater disparities in high- cost lending compared to whites as income levels rose. I'm not going to go to you first, but I am going to ask the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Himpler, at the end, to ask the question, as this committee moves forward, they will have the legislative jurisdiction. And we see the improvements that came after the Community Reinvestment Act, but we've seen some diminishing of its power. Would you welcome racial factors and racial criteria that the lending entities would have to meet based upon this preliminary data, and it is research by non-governmental entities. But would you welcome the fact a cure for what seems to be an obvious and conspicuous discrimination? Not that someone would have to go and file a lawsuit, but would you welcome the industry, this particular home-lending industry, this component of the financial services industry, to have to use and have to be tested and have to assess racial criteria, how many loans they gave, what kind of loans they gave based on race, age, and African-American, Hispanic, and if there are other distinctive groups, Native American. Mr. Himpler. Well, Congresswoman, with respect to the example you cited with different borrowers with different incomes, with minority borrowers with higher incomes ending up with higher interest rates, it gets back to a very basic point in my testimony earlier, that the HMDA data does not contain credit information. Our lenders do not make credit decisions based on income alone. At the same time, that begs the question, I understand, of why not to include credit risk information. Ms. Jackson Lee. And since my time is short, my question is, there are high income that get discriminated against, therefore, it seems obvious on the face it's race. Would you welcome that additional indicia that you have to report on, rejecting a high income person of a different race? Mr. Himpler. I think to a large extent the data set that we report under HMDA, that ultimately goes to the regulators, was put to that test through the examination process. Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Taylor, can you more--thank you very much--refine--give me a more refined answer. Can we work with those parameters? We seem to have high income persons. That's a good litmus test. Mr. Taylor. Right. Ms. Jackson Lee. When we send the low income folk in, somebody has an excuse. High income, they are discriminated against. How can we solve that? And I know there's a list of criteria. Mr. Taylor. We need more sunshine in this area. I mean, what's odd about this conversation, to me, is they say, well, HMDA doesn't quite show that there's discrimination. Then we say, all right, well, let's get the data that shows whether it exists or not. And then, through discovery, you can go through the process of court cases that really reveal what's really going on. But they don't want to do that, and they don't want to do that because they--we all know why they don't want to do that. And I liked the distinction you brought about in Texas, and especially in Houston. You've been through this before. But what happened in those foreclosures is that people lost their income. Ms. Jackson Lee. They lost their income. Chairman Watt. The gentlelady's time is expired. Mr. Taylor. Does that mean my time is? Chairman Watt. Finish your answer. Mr. Taylor. Okay. See, they had the foreclosures, and this is an important thing for us. The foreclosures are primarily relating to a change in product, not a change in income. And that ought to give people pause for concern. We have a vibrant mortgage system, but it's not as vibrant as it used to be. Wall Street is shaking from these mortgage backed securities and CDOs that are absolutely causing havoc on the market. If we don't recognize that we need to do something for the good of all of America to change the system, to make it more accountable, to make it fairer, and to ensure that people are able to stay in their homes, we're going to have this problem again in the future. Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the chairman and I thank the witnesses. Chairman Watt. And I thank the members for their attention, both members of the subcommittee and members who are not on the subcommittee. I thank the panel of witnesses for your testimony and for being responsive to the questions. I think you have helped to frame this discussion in a way that helps us going forward to the second panel. So let me express the thanks of the subcommittee and ask the second panel to come forward. Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Watt. If we could encourage those in the audience to conclude their conversations so that we could move to the second panel, that would be most appreciated. I would like to start by thanking the members of the second panel for being here. I know it is somewhat out of the ordinary to reverse the order of the panels, but we thought we would try it to try to frame some of the issues that are being raised so that you could more effectively talk about those issues and perhaps get to a constructive set of responses. So we thank you, especially those of you who came and heard the first panel. We gave you the option of not having to do that if you chose not to, so as not to take up your time, but I think most of you were here, and I'm most appreciative of you doing that, and even more appreciative of your being here to testify. I will now introduce the members of the second panel: We have Ms. Sandra Braunstein, Director of the Division of Consumer and Community Affairs of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board; Ms. Sandra L. Thompson, Director of the Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Ms. Montrice Yakimov, Managing Director, Compliance and Consumer Protection, Office of Thrift Supervision; Mr. David M. Marquis, Director of the Office of Examination and Insurance, National Credit Union Administration; Mr. Calvin R. Hagins, Director for Compliance Policy, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; Ms. Grace Chung Becker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Ms. Kim Kendrick, Assistant Secretary, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Ms. Lydia Parnes, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission. I thank you on behalf of the subcommittee. And before I recognize Ms. Braunstein, let me ask unanimous consent to submit for the record questions to these witnesses, asking them about various enforcement practices and efforts that they have made in this area, and I will ask unanimous consent to submit your responses for the record so that you won't necessarily have to go in detail over all of the things that you've said. And I'll remind you--and without objection, these will be submitted for the record. Also, without objection, your full written statements will be submitted for the record. And we would, therefore, ask you to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or so, as we asked the first panel to do. Again, there will be a yellow light that comes on at 4 minutes, and a red light that comes on at 5 minutes, so we would ask you to wrap up at that point, as expeditiously as you can. Ms. Braunstein is recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF SANDRA F. BRAUNSTEIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD Ms. Braunstein. Thank you. Chairman Watt, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the Board's efforts to promote fair lending. It is widely known that there are racial and ethnic gaps in the availability and price of mortgage credit. In mortgage lending, these gaps have been highlighted by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, or HMDA data, including pricing data required by the Board's regulation. Like racial and ethnic disparities in income, education, employment, and health care, gaps and access to credit have long presented our society with moral, legal, social, and economic challenges. The Federal Reserve shares concerns that credit gaps may result in part from illegal discrimination, and we vigorously enforce compliance with fair lending laws. The Board has a long-standing commitment to ensuring that every bank it supervises complies fully with the fair lending laws. We have made consumer compliance supervision, including fair lending, a distinct function in the Reserve banks and at the Board, including specialist examiners and a separate report of examination. When conducting fair lending examinations, our consumer compliance examiners perform two distinct functions. First: Examiners evaluate the bank's overall Fair Lending Compliance Program to ensure that management is committed to fair lending and has put in place the appropriate systems, policies, and staff to prevent violations. Second: Examiners determine if the bank has violated the fair lending laws. If we have reason to believe that there is a pattern or practice of discrimination under the Equal Opportunity Act, the Board, like other Federal banking agencies, has a statutory responsibility under the Act to refer the matter to the Department of Justice, or DoJ, which reviews the referral and decides if further investigation is warranted. A DoJ investigation may result in a public civil enforcement action or settlement. The DoJ may decide, instead, to return the matter to the Federal Reserve for administrative enforcement. When this occurs, we ensure that the institution corrects the problems and makes amends to the victims. We take our responsibility to refer matters to the DoJ seriously. In the first 6 months of this year alone, we referred five institutions after concluding that we had reason to believe they engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. Two of those referrals involved ethnic and racial discrimination in mortgage pricing by nationwide lenders. One referral involved racial discrimination in the pricing of automobile loans. One referral involved discrimination against unmarried people. And one referral involved an institution with two loan policies prohibiting lending on Native American lands, and the other policy restricted lending on row houses, which resulted in discrimination against African-Americans. Last year we referred four institutions to the DoJ for issues, including pricing discrimination in auto lending, mortgage red-lining, and age discrimination. We referred an additional five matters in 2004 and 2005. The Federal Reserve conducted targeted reviews of institutions for pricing discrimination when the HMDA pricing data first became available in 2005. As a result of these reviews, as I previously mentioned, we referred nationwide lenders to the DoJ for mortgage pricing discrimination. Additionally, these reviews have reinforced several important aspects of fair lending supervision and enforcement. First: HMDA data are most helpful as a fair lending tool when they are used in conjunction with other risk factors and supervisory information to identify institutions that warrant closer review. In particular, our referrals have confirmed that pricing discretion and incentives to charge more remain significant fair lending risks. Second: To be accurate, our reviews need to be based on an institution's specific pricing policies and product offerings. Third: It is important to test separately for discrimination in different geographic markets. A lender may have relatively small, unexplained pricing disparities across the Nation as a whole but still discriminate in some distinct geographic markets, such as individual MSAs. The Federal Reserve is committed to addressing racial and ethnic gaps in availability and affordability of credit. With our supervisory and enforcement authority, we ensure that the banks we supervise comply fully with the fair lending laws and take strong action in the rare cases when they do not. We are pleased to have this opportunity to work with you to ensure the consumer credit markets are free from illegal discrimination. [The prepared statement of Ms. Braunstein can be found on page 76 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. Thank you, Ms. Braunstein, for your testimony. Ms. Thompson is recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF SANDRA L. THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SUPERVISION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Ms. Thompson. Chairman Watt, Congressman Miller, and members of the subcommittee, I'm the Director of Supervision and Consumer Protection for the FDIC. In this role, I oversee the Agency's bank supervision activities, which include both safety and soundness and compliance with consumer protection and fair lending laws. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the FDIC to discuss enforcement of fair lending laws and our use of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data to uncover illegal discrimination. The FDIC does not tolerate credit discrimination in the banks we supervise. We examine institutions for their compliance with fair lending laws regardless of whether they report pricing data under HMDA, and fair lending exams are conducted in conjunction with each scheduled compliance examination. HMDA data is an important component of fair lending examinations and provides examiners with valuable information about a bank's mortgage loan products and its lending practices. Even if a bank is not required to report HMDA data, all banks must retain the information mandated under HMDA. This is particularly significant for the FDIC because many of the banks we supervise are small banks, and they are not subject to HMDA reporting requirements, either because their assets are below the thresholds for HMDA filing or the banks are located in a rural area. Slightly more than half of the banks supervised by the FDIC are HMDA data reporters. However, while the other half of our banks are not required to report HMDA data, they still undergo a fair lending examination where FDIC examiners carefully review HMDA data to look for evidence of discriminatory lending. In addition to providing important information for fair lending exams, the HMDA pricing data is useful for targeting disparities that require further review. When the HMDA data indicates the possibility of discriminatory pricing, the FDIC focuses special attention on the institution. Examiners review individual loan files and they conduct additional statistical analysis. Examiners also consider the presence of employee or broker discretion and pricing decisions and the relationship, if any, between loan pricing and compensation of loan officers or brokers. When we discover fair lending violations, in all cases, the FDIC requires the banks to take immediate corrective action. The corrective action may vary in each case, but the goal is to ensure that the practice is stopped and that any victims are identified and receive appropriate remedies. In addition, since 2004, the FDIC has taken 53 enforcement actions. Let me emphasize that the FDIC can and does require the bank to take corrective action even before a case is referred to the Department of Justice. The FDIC is currently reviewing all cases involving possible discriminatory practices that have been referred to the Department of Justice for appropriate enforcement action. We intend to pursue these cases aggressively and to move forward in a timely manner. In conclusion, the FDIC takes very seriously our responsibility to protect consumers and enforce the fair lending laws. We will continue to work to assess our supervisory practices in order to identify fair lending violations and maximize the value of the HMDA data. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Thompson can be found on page 279 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. Thank you, Ms. Thompson, for your testimony. I will now recognize Ms. Yakimov for 5 minutes. Ms. Yakimov. Thank you. STATEMENT OF MONTRICE GODARD YAKIMOV, MANAGING DIRECTOR, COMPLIANCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION Ms. Yakimov. Good afternoon, Chairman Watt, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Office of Thrift Supervision's fair lending program. Three pillars form the basis of our approach to fair lending compliance and enforcement. A rigorous and regular exam program, ongoing initiatives to ensure appropriate resources and attention are devoted to fair lending compliance and enforcement, and setting forth clear supervisory expectations relating to compliance with fair lending laws and all consumer protection statutes for the institutions we regulate. OTS examiners conduct a fair lending assessment during each comprehensive safety and soundness and compliance exam, which occur every 12 to 18 months, depending on the institution's asset size. In addition, our examiners conduct targeted fair lending reviews when an evaluation of an institution's HMDA data, or other factors suggest potential fair lending concerns. OTS utilizes interagency exam procedures, which require all examiners to evaluate savings associations for various indications of discrimination, including potential discrimination in pricing, underwriting, steering, and red- lining. Because the HMDA data include valuable information, but not all the factors needed to determine fair lending compliance, OTS examiners consider additional information about a lender's practices before reaching conclusions. Institutions identified as requiring additional analysis due to the HMDA data, or other issues, are asked to provide supplemental information, such as credit scores, debt-to-income ratios, loan-to-value ratios, the extent of discretionary pricing, and related factors. If unlawful discrimination is found, the institution is referred to the Department of Justice or HUD in accordance with Federal fair lending laws. Depending on the outcome of the referral and the nature of the violation, OTS also takes action to resolve the matter fully. For example, as a result of routine and targeted fair lending reviews at institutions whose 2004 and 2005 HMDA data revealed potential fair lending concerns, OTS directed several institutions to take steps to strengthen their fair lending compliance program, including expanding fair lending training to employees, enhancing monitoring systems for brokers and correspondence, and implementing more detailed underwriting standards to better ensure compliance with fair lending laws. In addition to these steps, OTS has also undertaken 10 enforcement actions, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and 9 actions involving HMDA since January 1, 2004. These cases have resulted in three cease and desist orders and civil money penalties, totalling approximately $118,000. Pillar two of our fair lending program involves an ongoing evaluation of the resources we allocate to this critical area. As of June 30th, OTS employed 556 examiners, specialists, and managers. Our examiners and managers are cross-trained in both safety and soundness and consumer compliance. However, our cadre of examiners and managers includes a team of 65 specialists with advanced knowledge and expertise in fair lending laws and regulations. In 2006, we hired 80 new examiners, and we're in the process of hiring an additional 40 more. We have also created five new complaint examination specialist positions, one in each of our regional offices, again, to buttress our resources in this critical area. The third pillar I will discuss and close with involves the commitment of OTS to ensure that the entities that we regulate understand our supervisory expectations, relating to the laws and regulations that broadly apply to them, and that we consistently apply these standards to all segments of the industry we regulate. Consistent with this commitment to provide clarity, OTS is developing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that will seek comment on various issues involving unfair or deceptive acts and practices, including various approaches and models OTS could use in connection with such a rulemaking. Our goal is to solicit public comment on whether and how the OTS should expand its current prohibitions involving unfair acts or practices, and to provide greater clarity regarding how we will make UDAP determinations going forward. I will close by reiterating that OTS is committed to fair lending examination and enforcement. It is the core of our mission. I appreciate the opportunity to join you today to describe OTS initiatives in this critical area. [The prepared statement of Ms. Yakimov can be found on page 301 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. Thank you so much for your testimony. Mr. Marquis is recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF DAVID M. MARQUIS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EXAMINATION AND INSURANCE, NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Mr. Marquis. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today regarding NCUA oversight of consumer laws pertaining to mortgage lending and housing. I am the director of examination and insurance, and I'm responsible for the exam program at NCUA. This is a timely and important subject that merits congressional oversight. I commend you for your interest in rules available to help consumers with what is arguably the most important purchase they'll ever make--their home. NCUA places a priority on ensuring credit unions comply with all non-discrimination laws and works to protect consumers against discrimination of unfair home mortgage lending practices. NCUA enforces fair lending laws through a comprehensive examination process and HMDA data. Approximately 2,300 credit unions filed HMDA data in 2005. Combined with a careful review of member complaints, NCUA is able to evaluate each credit union's compliance with the law in gaining a more complete picture of how a credit union makes mortgage loans. As of 2006, just over 5,600 insured credit unions-- federally insured credit unions--made mortgage loans comprising approximately 2 percent of the mortgage market. With those credit unions subject to HMDA, NCUA works closely with the credit unions to ensure timely filings. NCUA issues regulate alerts periodically on this and other consumer protection compliance issues. With regard to timely HMDA filings, NCUA noted disappointing trends and began assessing civil money penalties against late filers; 17 penalties were assessed in 2005 and 22 in 2006. NCUA adopted the fair lending exam procedures developed jointly by the FFIEC in 2000. These rigorous new standards enabled NCUA to more effectively allocate resources devoted to oversight of fair lending practices. NCUA also evaluates fair lending compliance as part of its risk-focus examination. Compliance is one of 7 risk areas considered by our 45 examiners during this overall assessment of an institution's safety and soundness. If a violation is noted, it is documented in the Agency's compliance data base, and the examiner communicates corrective action to be taken. Separate from the normal examination, NCUA has 25 examiners devoted to fair lending compliance. NCUA selects credit unions for failing the examination based on factors such as the HMDA data, member complaints, and the complexity of lending programs offered by Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac union members have several avenues through which to facilitate the handling of consumer complaints about possible discrimination and home mortgage lending. NCUA maintains a 1-800 consumer helpline and an Internet site, but, in addition to receiving complaints by mail, which continues to provide the greatest amount of consumer input in this area. NCUA encourages the resolution of consumer complaints at the credit union level first. NCUA initially directs the credit union to investigate the complaint, inform NCUA of the results of the investigation, and resolve the matter according to applicable laws and regulations. The Federal Credit Union Act requires each Federal credit union to have a supervisory committee, which ensures independent oversight of the credit union's board of directors and advocates the best interest of its members. All supervisory committee members are volunteers, and they are the first responders in investigating member complaints. It is important to know, however, that NCUA reviews supervisory committee recommendations and actions, and follows up with the complainant to ensure that the matter is properly resolved. Corrective actions can include letters of understanding and agreement, which reflect a credit union's CAMO rating, to cease and desist and civil money penalties. Our experience is that the overwhelming majority of member complaints stem from poor communication between the credit union and the member or misunderstanding of the credit union's lending policies. As a result, virtually all complaints are resolved after the NCUA directs the credit union to address the complaint with the member. NCUA continues to refine this method in overseeing industry compliance with Federal lending laws. Examiner training has become more sophisticated and has resulted in a better understanding of lending activity in specific geographic areas, as well as a heightened awareness about how to detect discrimination. In addition, NCUA constantly urges the credit union industry to promote financial education to credit union members and participate in industry compliance seminars and training in order to be more proactive in helping credit unions institute adequate compliance programs and oversight procedures. Credit union members are entitled to fair treatment, not just because the law says so, but because they are, in fact, the owners of these institutions. When their treatment is not fair and within the law, NCUA is there to step in and make certain that no member is subject to discrimination in any form or fashion. Thank you for listening, and I'll be glad to answer questions later. [The prepared statement of Mr. Marquis can be found on page 202 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Hagins, of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, is recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF CALVIN R. HAGINS, DIRECTOR FOR COMPLIANCE POLICY, OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY Mr. Hagins. Thank you. Chairman Watt, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the subcommittee, I'm Calvin Hagins, the Director for Compliance Policy at the OCC. I'm pleased to be here with you to discuss the OCC's commitment to ensuring compliance with fair lending laws. Let me begin by saying there is no room in the national banking system for illegal discrimination. I've been a national bank examiner for over 20 years, and I've participated in dozens of exams of fair lending during that time. I can assure you that the OCC is looking hard at fair lending and has not hesitated to take action when we've found evidence of illegal discrimination. The OCC has developed a supervisory approach that drills down into those institutions, markets, and loan products that appear at greatest risk for discriminatory practices. We rely heavily on the HMDA data to help us target our supervisory activities, but we also make use of consumer complaints, academic and community organization studies, and census bureau data for risk-screening purposes. We conduct targeted fair lending examinations to determine whether different outcomes and lending decisions are the result of unlawful discrimination. If we find that they are, we take appropriate steps to address the problem. Since 1993, we've made dozens of referrals of matters involving discrimination to the Department of Justice or HUD. These actions have resulted in several highly-publicized multi- million dollar settlements for consumers. Since then, the number of referrals by the OCC has dropped. Referrals alone can be misleading, however. Our fair lending supervision involves a four-pronged approach: First, we have a fair lending and risk assessment and screening process to identify banks that exhibit higher fair lending risks; Second, we conduct fair lending examinations of those banks, including statistical analysis; Third, we seek corrective action to address deficiencies; and Fourth, when necessary, we take enforcement actions to address violations of law. Formal enforcement actions involving referrals generally should be necessary only if preventive measures have failed to ensure compliance with the fair lending laws. We believe that's why the fair lending exams have been conducted--we believe that's why the fair lending exams we've conducted to follow up on disparities shown in the HMDA data have found that disparities were the result of legitimate, non- discriminatory credit factors, such as an applicant's credit score or debt-to-income ratio. I also believe the national banks got the message that compliance with fair lending laws would be carefully scrutinized and many adopt the systems and controls to improve their fair lending compliance, because they knew we would be looking. Regular and rigorous oversight by the OCC may also explain why national banks are not major players in the market for high-cost mortgages, just as it explains why they are relatively small players in the market for subprime lending. Nevertheless, we remain committed to fully investigating price and disparities for unlawful discrimination, and we will continue to refine our fair lending strategies and techniques. The OCC is working with the other banking agencies, and on our own, to improve our supervisory capabilities. We routinely coordinate and share information so that we can learn from each other. We recently initiated a review through the FFIEC to evaluate whether the interagency fair lending procedures needed to be refined to better deal with pricing disparities. And to address two risk areas that are an increasing concern, the OCC will also conduct intensified reviews of bank controls over brokers and reviews of practices that might involve discriminatory steering. We will continue to review and enhance our fair lending supervisory processes, to ensure that the institutions we supervise do not engage in unlawful discrimination. I look forward to answering your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hagins can be found on page 87 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Hagins. Ms. Becker, of the U.S. Department of Justice, is recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF GRACE CHUNG BECKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Ms. Becker. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the subcommittee. All Americans have the right to purchase homes and automobiles, and to borrow money for their businesses or their own personal consumer purchases, free of illegal discrimination. Lending discrimination is especially pernicious because these financial transactions are so critical to the American dream--the ability to purchase a home, to start a new business, or to pay for your children's education. While the Department of Justice recognizes that lenders may legitimately consider a range of factors in determining whether to make a loan to an applicant, illegal discrimination has no place in this determination. The Civil Rights Division's Fair Lending Enforcement focuses primarily on two statutes: The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. During this Administration, over 70 percent of the Division's fair lending cases have involved race and national origin discrimination, primarily on behalf of African-American and Hispanic-American communities. The consent decrees that we have secured on behalf of minority victims have included monetary relief of over $25 million. We've also recently brought cases involving discrimination on the basis of marital status and filed the first ever sexual harassment case under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Redlining--when lenders illegally refuse to do business in minority communities--constitutes over half of our fair lending enforcement in this Administration and relies heavily upon HMDA data. The Division's redlining cases complement the predatory lending enforcement conducted by the other Federal agencies represented here today. When communities are abandoned by prime lenders through redlining, those communities become targets for less scrupulous lenders who may prey on minority communities using abusive products or loans. As one measured predatory practices, the Division includes consumer education as a component of our consent decrees, which helps to reduce the likelihood that individuals in these communities will become victims of predatory lending. For example, the Justice Department initiated a redlining investigation that culminated in a settlement with Centier Bank in Indiana. Under the settlement, Centier will open new offices and expand existing operations in previously excluded areas. The bank will also invest $3.5 million in a special financing program and spend at least $875,000 for consumer financial education, outreach to potential customers, and promotion of its products and services in these previously- excluded areas. The Division has also utilized HMDA data extensively in other fair lending enforcement efforts. The recent expansion of HMDA reporting to include pricing data has been a welcome additional source of information for identifying potential fair lending violations. We analyzed the HMDA pricing data as a starting point to identify disparities in the pricing of loans, primarily focusing on race or national origin. According to the 2004 data, there were 200 lenders that were identified as having statistically significant disparities that could not be explained by the reported HMDA data. The 2005 data identified 270 lenders. Now, there's some overlap there. There was a reference on the first plan to 470 referrals. I just want to clarify the 400--I think the witness was referring to the 470 lenders, adding those 2 lenders together, not taking into account the overlap but just to make clear that the Justice Department hasn't received 470 referrals. The first pricing referrals that we've received came over the last several months. We've received three referrals from the FDIC and two referrals from the Federal Reserve Board, stemming from the HMDA pricing data. But the Justice Department did not wait for referrals. When the Fed's report came out in the fall of 2005, the Justice Department, on its own initiative, initiated a number of investigations based upon this HMDA data. And, although I cannot discuss the details of ongoing investigations, I can report that we've completed and closed two mortgage lending pricing investigations and that others are ongoing and moving to a determination as to whether to file a lawsuit. We expect to initiate additional investigations in the coming months as well. These fair lending investigations require a substantial investment of time and resources. We generally obtain and analyze detailed additional information that is not available through HMDA, such as the borrower's credit score, loan-to- value ratio, and debt-to-income ratio. Analyzing this detailed loan data, as well as information about the lender's business policies and practices, enables us to assess whether those factors or possible discrimination may explain the pricing differences identified in HMDA data. The Division also works hard to coordinate fair lending enforcement with the other agencies here today. We have an interagency fair lending task force that we participate in, and we share the committee's goal of utilizing all available information, including HMDA pricing data, to identify and stop lending discrimination. We're working hard to achieve that goal, and we welcome the committee's support. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Ms. Becker can be found on page 66 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. Thank you, Ms. Becker, for your testimony. And we now recognize Ms. Kendrick, of the Office of Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF KIM KENDRICK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Ms. Kendrick. Thank you. Chairman Watt, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. I am Kim Kendrick, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. On behalf of Secretary Alfonso Jackson, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. In 2004, the Federal Reserve Board, for the first time, began collecting pricing information as a part of its collection of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. In September 2005, the Federal Reserve Board released its first report analyzing this data. This report allowed us to see the extent of the pricing disparities between whites and African-Americans and Hispanics. In addition, the report data showed that minority borrowers were much more likely to receive a high-cost loan than white borrowers. Along with the report, the Federal Reserve Board provided HUD, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of Justice with a list of independent lending institutions whose HMDA data showed significant pricing and denial disparities between African-Americans and Hispanics and whites. At your request, I am here today to discuss the fair lending enforcement activities HUD has undertaken since the release of this data. After receiving the Federal Reserve Board's list in September 2005, HUD assembled a task force of investigators, enconomists, and attorneys to review the list and to develop a methodology for selecting targets for enforcement. In addition to the data supplied by the Federal Reserve Board, we reviewed fair lending complaints, consumer complaints, and other HMDA data available in each of these lenders. Given the findings of the Federal Reserve Board, we chose to focus our review on lenders with significant disparities in the pricing of loans to minorities and white borrowers and select the lender that we thought most likely to show evidence of discrimination. So on April 14th, 2006, I authorized HUD's first Secretary- initiated investigation resulting from the HMDA data. Since that time, the Department has reviewed and analyzed the lender's policies, manuals, guidelines, defenses, and loan level data for multiple fiscal years. We have also hired an outside contractor with decades of experience to assist us in this complex analysis. In September 2006, the Federal Reserve Board released the 2005 HMDA data and, again, provided HUD with a list of independent lenders based on that data. HUD, again, carefully analyzed the HMDA data, along with the fair housing complaints information, and targeted two additional lenders for Secretary-initiated investigations, based on pricing disparities. HUD is still investigating all of these Secretary-initiated actions. Although I cannot reveal the targets of our open investigations, I can say that we are looking at medium-sized lenders whose loan applications range from sizes 2,500 to 150,000 per year. Also, I can tell you that two of three targets are FHA- lenders and that the data for each of these reveal significant pricing disparities. The Department is currently reviewing the 2006 data to identify additional lenders with pricing disparities based on race, national origin, or sex. In addition to these HMDA Secretary-initiated investigations, the Department and the State and local partners in the Fair Housing Assistance Program complete an average of 425 additional lending investigations each year. These are cases filed by individuals alleging that the lender refused to provide them with loans or provided them with different loan terms or conditions on prohibitive basis. HUD and our State and local partners investigate each of these cases as required by the Fair Housing Act. Generally, we reach a determination on the merits of about 55 percent of these cases, that alleged lending discrimination, and reach a conciliation in about 28 percent of such investigations. Home ownership is a cornerstone of the American dream. It takes most Americans many years to save up for a down payment and otherwise prepare ourselves for home ownership. HUD wants to be sure that race or national origin is never a barrier to obtaining a loan or becoming a homeowner. We will continue to investigate cases, continue to obtain meaningful relief for individuals, and to pursue systemic cases of discrimination, until we are confident that all lenders are providing all consumers with the loans that they deserve. Thank you for your time and your attention. [The prepared statement of Ms. Kendrick can be found on page 138 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. Thank you for your testimony. And I now recognize Ms. Parnes, from the Federal Trade Commission, for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF LYDIA B. PARNES, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Ms. Parnes. Thank you. Chairman Watt, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the subcommittee, I am Lydia Parnes, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Commission's efforts to combat unfair, deceptive, and other illegal practices in the mortgage lending industry, including its fair lending enforcement program. As part of its mandate to protect consumers, the Commission has wide-ranging responsibilities regarding consumer financial issues. The Commission enforces a number of laws, specifically governing lending practices, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The Commission also enforces Section 5 of the FTC Act, which broadly prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC enforces these laws with respect to non-bank financial companies, including non-bank mortgage companies, mortgage brokers, finance companies, and units of bank-holding companies. The Commission engages in law enforcement investigations as opposed to regular examinations of the entities under its jurisdiction. I'm pleased to appear on this panel with representatives from agencies with whom the Commission works closely in the fair lending area. Through both formal and informal collaboration, we share information on lending discrimination, and predatory lending enforcement, and policy issues. Most recently, the FTC joined with the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and State regulators in announcing a pilot project to focus on whether certain large subprime lenders are complying with key consumer protection laws, including ECOA. The Commission's Fair Lending Enforcement Program is a mainstay of the Agency's consumer protection mission. The Commission has brought over two dozen ECOA cases against large mortgage lenders, major non-mortgage creditors, and smaller finance companies, alleging violations of both the substantive and procedural requirements of the ECOA. With the explosion of subprime lending in the last decade, the Commission also has focused on deceptive representations by subprime lenders regarding the cost and other key terms of a mortgage loan. Illegal practices in the subprime mortgage market, particularly affect lower income and minority consumers. Since the late 1990's, the agency has brought 21 actions and returned over $320 million in redress to consumers, alleging deceptive or unfair practices against company in the lending industry with an emphasis on the subprime market. I would like to mention two notable examples of Commission cases against subprime lenders that targeted minority and low- income borrowers. In our lengthy litigation against Capital City Mortgage Corporation, a company that targeted African-American borrowers in the Washington, D.C. area, the Commission alleged that the defendants made deceptive claims at each stage of the loan process when making and servicing loans. This resulted in trumped-up fees and inflated monthly balances and pay-off amounts. Our complaint stated that these practices led to default and foreclosure in many instances. In Mortgages Para Hispanos, the alleged conduct also was egregious. A bilingual mortgage lender misled Hispanic consumers about key loan terms during the sales pitch, conducting it almost entirely in Spanish, and then provided closing documents containing less favorable terms in English. Currently, the Commission is engaged in several ongoing non-public fair lending investigations of mortgage lending companies. The Commission uses HMDA data as a tool to target companies for further investigation. Because HMDA data alone are insufficient to establish law violations, the Commission staff engages in resource intensive, statistical analyses of additional information obtained through extensive document review and other evidentiary sources. The Commission has a strong commitment to enforcing the fair lending laws and will pursue vigorously any violations revealed by its investigations. The Commission also has an extensive program to educate consumers about financial literacy and subprime borrowing, including most recently a publication on how to avoid foreclosure. The Commission will continue to take aggressive and concerted action to hold illegal practices in the marketplace, while mindful of the important benefits that increased access to credit bring consumers. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Ms. Parnes can be found on page 235 of the appendix.] Chairman Watt. Thank you, Ms. Parnes. Ms. Parnes. Parnes. Chairman Watt. I mispronounced your name, and I apologize for that. Ms. Parnes. That's quite all right. Chairman Watt. I thank all of the witnesses for being here and for your testimony. In recognition of the fact that I'm going to be here until the end of the hearing, and some of my colleagues may have other scheduling conflicts, I'm going to defer my questions until the last person. So I'll now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts for questions. Mr. Lynch. Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for inviting this distinguished group. I want to thank all the panelists as well for helping this committee with its work. I have a couple of questions. I'll ask Ms. Braunstein first, and then Ms. Parnes second. We heard in the earlier panel, a distinguished group of, I would say, consumer advocates, describe trends that they see that are somewhat troublesome. And I know that the Federal Reserve is the primary analyst for HMDA data as set forth in the Federal Reserve Bulletin. What, in fact, do you see? Is the data, let me say, the interpretation of the data that we heard from the consumer advocates earlier today are consistent with what you see? Ms. Braunstein. I really can't comment on the nature of their studies because I--you know, we would have to do an independent review. Mr. Lynch. Okay. How about just a straight question. What do you see? Ms. Braunstein. What we see is pretty much explained in the bulletin article. We find that the data is extremely useful as a screening tool. It gives us great insight as to where there needs to be more investigation into specific institutions. But, also, the data--we believe that the data, in and of itself, does not determine whether or not there is a fair lending violation, that you need to have more factors involved, and-- Mr. Lynch. Okay. That was my next question. Ms. Braunstein. Yes. Mr. Lynch. Do you think, as they suggested earlier today, that the fact--that HMDA should be expanded to include other factors? And what would those factors be if you would support an expansion? Ms. Braunstein. When we expand--we did expand HMDA data when we added the pricing data a few years back, and when we did that, we looked at other factors and found, for a variety of reasons, that they should not be added at that time. We're constantly looking at our regulations and reviewing them, and I think, in order to expand the data, you have to look at certain things. You have to look at the benefits of the increased information, and you also have to look at the costs involved on the reporting institution because they're not insignificant, and the benefits need to justify the cost. Also, I think it's important to note that no matter how many data fields we were to add to HMDA, the HMDA data will never be determinative of discrimination in and of itself. There are things we look at in an institution in terms of how they manage their programs, and the kinds of due diligence they use. They could never be captured with data and are quite necessary in order to make findings of discrimination. So that's, you know, how we look at it at this point in time. Mr. Lynch. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Parnes, I noticed on page 13 of your testimony it says that 65 to 70 percent of mortgages are going out through mortgage brokers who don't necessarily provide HMDA data. First of all, can you describe the Fair Lending Enforcement Programs that you have at the FTC for these non-bank mortgage companies? And do you believe that brokers should also be required to report HMDA data? Ms. Parnes. Certainly. The Commission's program, as I mentioned, it's a broad program. Of course, we look at both--we enforce both the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and, as I mentioned, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. When we're enforcing the ECOA, we get the HMDA data. We review the data that we receive from the Fed. We use that data to select targets for further investigation. We do have several non-public investigations that are pending right now. We use our full investigatory powers during those investigations. We obtain detailed information from our targets concerning their practices, their underwriting criteria, and we engage in a very rigorous statistical analysis, looking at all of their loan files to determine whether the disparities that helped us target these institutions kind of hold true once you consider all of these other factors. Mr. Lynch. What's the share of resources you dedicate to that versus the industry, you know, in terms of looking at compliance? Ms. Parnes. Well, we've actually--about a year-and-a-half ago, 2 years ago, we considerably expanded the resources that we're devoting generally to this area. We had a reorganization in the Bureau of Consumer Protection. We created a division that focuses exclusively on consumer financial issues. Right now, we have a task force of about 10 attorneys, economists, investigators, and so forth, working exclusively on the HMDA data cases. And we have other attorneys and economists working more generally in the lending area. Mr. Lynch. Okay. And just the last part of the question was do you support-- Chairman Watt. The gentleman's time is expired, but go ahead. Mr. Lynch. It was already asked. I asked so many questions, you probably forgot this last line, about whether or not the broker should be required to report HMDA data as well? Ms. Parnes. Well, it's one of the things that we are looking at in this process, and we plan on making a series of recommendations to our colleagues about whether reporting should be expanding. Mr. Lynch. Fair enough. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman Watt. Thank you. And I recognize my distinguished ranking member for 5 minutes. Mr. Miller. Ms. Becker, you indicated in your testimony that DoJ has completed two fair lending investigations. And I know you can't get into the details, but how did the Department utilize the HMDA information in these cases to your benefit? Ms. Becker. The HMDA pricing information has been particularly valuable to the Department of Justice because it identifies specific lenders. A lot of times we will read articles in the newspapers about industry trends or about what's happening in a particular region, but without identifying specific lenders, it's difficult for us to be able to go in and investigate these cases. So that has been extremely helpful to us. What we have done is look at the HMDA pricing data as a starting point, and then we will contact the lender to get additional information. That information may include several non-HMDA factors to see whether or not the disparities may have been caused by legitimate reasons. They've been mentioned here today, but I'll just mention them again. Credit score. It could be loan-to-value ratio or debt-to-income ratio. We have in-house economists and statisticians who will run a variety of different analyses. And sometimes the lenders will provide additional data that will require us to re-analyze the data that we currently have. And then, after that, we will make a determination whether statistically significant disparities are explainable for legitimate business reasons, or if there are no legitimate business reasons, then there is an inference that it may be discrimination. Based on the totality of all of that evidence, we will then make a determination of whether or not there's sufficient evidence to believe that there is a pattern or practice of discrimination. Not an individual instance but a pattern of practice of discrimination going on in the institution. And where that's insufficient, then we close the case. Mr. Miller. Okay. Ms. Parnes, I know HMDA is only one component of the FTC's lending enforcement. Is that correct, as you stated earlier? Ms. Parnes. Yes. Yes, it is. Mr. Miller. There's a broader range of activities that you pursue to combat illegal lending practices. Can you define what those might be? Ms. Parnes. Well, as I mentioned, we look at lenders in the subprime market, generally. And it's an area that we think is an important one for the FTC to remain active. Mr. Miller. When you talked about subprime market, I have a question. Would there be a legitimate reason why a specific lender might open a subprime branch in a certain area and not in another? Ms. Parnes. I don't know that lenders actually offer, you know, only subprime loans in specific branches. That's not necessarily the experience that we found. But, of course, we don't regulate--you know, our regulation doesn't extend to banks at all, the non-bank institutions. Mr. Miller. Okay. Ms. Kendrick, you indicated that the Department uses its subpoena powers to obtain additional loan information, to determine whether the differences in pricing are due to race, or can be explained by other factors. Is this additional information crucial to your determination? Ms. Kendrick. Yes. And I understand why you sat me between these two fine women, because we basically do the same thing. The data we take a look at, we take a look at it initially from the HMDA data, but we have to take a look at the other information, the loan-- Mr. Miller. A broader range of information, such as? Ms. Kendrick. Broader range of information because that's going to help us determine, because some of the factors, pricing disparity is just not enough to determine discrimination. Mr. Miller. What would that broader range of information be that you would look at? Ms. Kendrick. In addition to-- Mr. Miller. HMDA. Ms. Kendrick. --we take a look at the loan-to-value ratio, the income. We take a look at the location of the property. We take a look at other factors, such as the credit background and credit scores of the individual, and so that all helps us determine whether or not discrimination is going on. And we take a look--we do a kind of pair testing--kind of looking at people who are similarly situated to see if they are treated similarly. Mr. Miller. Do you think HMDA is a reasonable indicator that you can use to determine whether you want to pursue additional investigations or not? Ms. Kendrick. Yes. It's been an excellent tool for us. Mr. Miller. Okay. And, Ms. Parnes, how does the FTC protect minority consumers from deception and other legal practices? Do you have any tools that are used beyond that? Ms. Parnes. Well, what we do--I mean, we do this, certainly as I mentioned, in the subprime market, we have--in the subprime lending market where we've brought a lot of cases and returned over $320 million back to consumers. But we have a program that focuses on Hispanic consumers as well. We found a number of years ago that Hispanic consumers were subjected to fraud at a greater rate than non-Hispanic white consumers. And, because of the language barrier, we've made efforts to translate all of our consumer education material into Spanish, and to make special efforts in terms of law enforcement and outreach to the Hispanic community. Mr. Miller. Now, there are opportunities for individuals to shop for better loans. Is there anything you can see that we could do to help improve consumer shopping? Ms. Parnes. Well, the Commission issued about a month ago, 2 months ago, a report on mortgage disclosure, and it was a report of our economics, and it recommended consideration of better disclosures in mortgage documents, and I certainly think that would be an area well worth paying attention to. I think mortgage disclosure documents are very confusing for consumers, and clearing that up would be a great step. Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. Chairman Watt. I thank the ranking member. And I recognize the gentlewoman from New York for 5 minutes. Ms. McCarthy. Thank you. Listening to everybody's testimony, and I'm sitting here because I have eight regulators in front of me, and obviously we have seen an increase in problems over the last couple years that are actually hitting ahead kind of now, as far as discrimination. Were there any warning signs out there that this was all coming to a head? Do you guys talk to each other? Do you share information on what you even just read in the paper? I mean, we read the papers, the Wall Street Journal, and you look to see that--we could see that things were boiling up. That was several months ago, and I know some have mentioned that a month ago they put a new thing in place. But this has been going on for a number of years now. And I think it was last month we had another hearing here with Ms. Blair of the FDIC. She offered a brief outline of deceptive mortgage practices. She had a list. And I guess the question to all of you is, should we have one authority to really look into all of this, where we have eight regulators in front of us, and each one of you I'm sure do a good job. But in the collective area, it doesn't seem we have gotten better. If anything, it's embarrassing, and I think our government has kind of failed our consumers out there that are being discriminated against because those numbers have gone up. So I'm a little frustrated here on the testimony that I'm hearing today, and certainly the hearing--those that were here to listen to the testimony earlier. I don't know what else to say. Any answers from anybody? Ms. Kendrick. Well, I'll take it. From the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, this is an area we were looking at even last year, in the last session of Congress, when Secretary Jackson came before Congress and asked that we modernize the Federal Housing Administration program, because we recognized that some of these issues were, when they come to the forefront, and he thought that modernizing the Federal Housing Administration program would help stem, kind of, some of this tide, so that people could use a product that is safe and secure. Ms. McCarthy. Well, I understand that. And I'm not trying to put the blame here on anyone. I'm just wondering that, you know, this has been going on for a number of years. Do we in government react too slowly in trying to correct a problem that obviously has been going on for a number of years? I mean, these boutique mortgages probably started several years ago. We certainly knew, even a few years ago, that those mortgage brokers that are not licensed have been a big problem in different States. And, yet, we didn't react fast enough, and so we saw this problem bubbling up faster and faster until the point of where all the foreclosures started happening. And the first signs were about a year ago, because that's when we saw the market on housing start to go down. So I'm saying all the warnings were there. I mean, you know, the newspapers were picking it up. We're having a hearing in July, trying to figure out how we're going to make sure this doesn't happen again. And I think that's something that, you know, we all have to look at. So, I mean, with--no one answered whether do you guys work together? Do you share information together? Ms. Thompson. We do work together. The Federal banking agencies work together. We have the FFIEC, which is comprised of all the Federal banking agencies. A couple of years ago we started to look at the increase in delinquencies in the mortgage market and we worked together to come up with non-traditional mortgage guidance to cover the interest-only products and some of the mortgage products with negative amortization. We recently worked together to issue the subprime statement that covers some of the products that have payment shock. We have also been working together to try to combat the foreclosure issue. We issued a joint statement to all of the institutions that we supervise so that they would be encouraged to work with borrowers to restructure some of these bad loans. We do talk to one another. Ms. McCarthy. I guess that's the word. You ``encourage.'' When there's a prosecution and, basically, you fine that particular institution for wrongdoing. I think you had said $800,000 was a fine, if I heard that correctly. Is that enough bite to discourage other financial institutions from not doing wrong because they're making so much money? So, all right, so they throw out--say they pay a million dollars. How much have they actually made over doing bad practices? Ms. Thompson. When we find a violation, even if we don't have a pattern or practice, and refer that violation to the Justice Department, we require our institutions to take corrective actions immediately. And if that violation is substantive and involves harm to consumers, we require the institution to find all consumers that have been harmed by that particular violation, and then implement restitution. Ms. McCarthy. To each and every one that has been violated? Ms. Thompson. That's correct. Ms. McCarthy. And do most of those that have been violated respond? Ms. Thompson. Absolutely. There is huge reputational risk for the institution, so when we cite violations, they want to take immediate action to correct the problem. And that is notwithstanding whether or not we decide that there is a pattern or practice of fair lending violations. Ms. McCarthy. Are they large numbers? Ms. Thompson. Well, at the FDIC, since 2004, we have referred 115 findings of illegal discrimination under ECOA to the Justice Department. We have cited 170 institutions for substantive ECOA or FHA violations since 2004. And for non-substantive violations, we have cited over 2,000 violations for ECOA and the Fair Housing Act. There were HMDA reporting violations as well, and we cited over 1,300 of those. Ms. Yakimov. Could I add that the project that was mentioned earlier where the Federal Reserve, the OTS, looking at holding company subsidiaries, mortgage brokers to the FTC, and the State's authority, I think it's an important project, and it speaks to how we're working and communicating so that we're coming up with a common approach, areas where we're going to focus, including HMDA, ECOA, Truth in Lending, and we're going to share results. Obviously, if we find issues, we'll deal with those under our respective jurisdiction, but this sharing, this collaboration, I think really connects the dots in a way that is important to root out any potential discrimination or broader violations of consumer protection statutes. Ms. McCarthy. I know my time is up, but I guess food for thought is, why are we still having discrimination in the year 2007? I guess that's the question that we need to answer. Chairman Watt. Thank you. And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, members of the panel, for appearing today. The question that I'm grappling with now is, how do we prove illegal covert discrimination based on what we've heard? Obviously, confession would be a great way to do it. However, the mendacious mentality of persons who perpetrate this kind of behavior usually does not lend itself to a confession. Statistical information would be great, except that we always have someone who will conclude that statistical information is inconclusive, and perhaps you cannot even construct a means by which you can acquire the statistical information via the process that HMDA uses. And litigation, of course, is a means, but that can be quite costly. So the question becomes, how do we acquire this empirical data to prove that illegal, unlawful discrimination exists? Ms. Braunstein, I believe it is, how would you conclude that we can acquire the empirical information? Ms. Braunstein. Well, we do use statistical analysis, and we find it to be quite effective. The HMDA data, alone, is not sufficient, but through our examination authority, we have the ability to gather additional information from financial institutions. And when we use this additional information, we have found that we are able to actually root out-- Mr. Green. Let me ask this, if I may. You've heard talk of testing. I'm sure you're familiar with the process? True? Ms. Braunstein. Yes. Mr. Green. Yes. Is testing a useful tool in acquiring empirical data? Ms. Braunstein. I think testing could be a useful tool. Mr. Green. What about testing causes it to be less useful than some of the other methodologies? Ms. Braunstein. I think it depends on the financial institution and the situation. For one thing, if you're using testing in small institutions, oftentimes it's not as effective, and many of our institutions are quite small. Whereas, if you start sending in pairs of people, as they do in testing, it's going to be quite obvious that something's going on, because they don't get that kind of volume in institutions. Mr. Green. I understand. Ms. Braunstein. Yes. Mr. Green. Well, assuming for a moment that we can have covert testers to reveal covert discrimination, that's what we're going after, if we can get them in, and it's not known that they're testers, is this an efficacious means by which we can uncover unlawful discrimination? Ms. Braunstein. We would have to take a closer look at it and see how the program was structured. Mr. Green. Assuming that it is structured such that you have testers who are equally qualified and one receives positive response and the other a negative, that would not be helpful? Ms. Braunstein. It could be. Yes. Mr. Green. Would you think that testing would be another means by which we could acquire the empirical data necessary to prove that unlawful discrimination exists? Ms. Braunstein. As I say, it could be. Mr. Green. Could be. But you're not really sure? Ms. Braunstein. At this point, no. Mr. Green. I see. Is there anyone on the panel who thinks that testing is a lawful and useful means of proving that invidious and unlawful discrimination exists? If so, would you kindly raise your hand? Okay. One, two. If you don't raise your hand, I'll have a few questions for you. [Laughter] Mr. Green. Okay. It looks like we have everybody but the gentleman who didn't raise his hand. I can't see your name. All right, sir. You have some concern about testing? Mr. Marquis. Well, I don't have a concern about it. I think maybe it could be useful, but I guess you'd have to be careful in terms of filling out false applications, letting someone who is actually really filling out false applications, and then said, ``Oh, I was just a tester.'' I guess you'd have to understand ahead of time who those testers would be. Mr. Green. All right. Let's assume that-- Mr. Marquis. If they're not--in other words-- Mr. Green. Let's assume that we add that to the equation. We do that. Now can testing become the useful tool? Mr. Marquis. Maybe it could be. Yes. Mr. Green. Would you think that it would be appropriate to use testing in financial institutions to ascertain whether or not--well, before I go there. Quickly. Would testing act as a deterrent if we publish the fact that testing is taking place? Do you think it would be a deterrent? If you think so, would you kindly raise your hand? Do you think it would be a deterrent? Okay. If you did not raise your hand, then raise your hand now. Okay. Everybody thinks testing would be a deterrent. So, Mr. Chairman, if I'm over time, I will yield back at this point. Chairman Watt. The gentleman observes the red light. Mr. Green. Yes, sir. Chairman Watt. Which is an indication that the gentleman's time has expired. Although if he wishes an additional 30 seconds, he may have it. Mr. Green. I would welcome 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman. With reference to the testing, as you know, the Federal laws currently are an obstacle to this type of testing. Would you think that it would be appropriate for us to make an exception so that we can eliminate this kind of unlawful discrimination? I think that in 2007 we ought to be at a point in the history of our country where we want to end unlawful discrimination. We ought to have the will to do it. Would that help us if we, in Congress, worked on these laws so that we could test and find out who the culprits are? And I will yield back, and ask that, if you would, just raise your hand if you think it'll help. Anybody think it'll help us to do this? Congress? Okay. If you didn't raise your hand, then raise your hand now. Anybody? Yes. You don't think it would help, ma'am? Ms. Braunstein. No, I lost the question. I didn't hear the entire question. Mr. Green. Well, I understand. I will forego any additional questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been very generous. Chairman Watt. Thank you for your questions. I'll recognize myself for 5 minutes, but will generally say that I have so many questions, really, that the bulk of them will have to be covered in written form, which we will do in follow-up to the hearing. I do hear what the gentleman is saying. There is a Federal statute that makes if unlawful to knowingly and willfully falsify a credit application or applications of this kind, which is a deterrent to testing, and we may need to take a look at that. I am surprised to hear that HUD is engaged in paired testing. Ms. Kendrick, that's the first time I've heard that. Are you sure that HUD is engaged in paired testing somewhere? Ms. Kendrick. It's paired analysis of the data, by taking a look at equally qualified persons and pairing them together to make an assessment about whether or not-- Chairman Watt. Okay. So that's different than paired testing that was testified about earlier, when you send out testers-- Ms. Kendrick. Oh, no. This is paired analysis testing. Chairman Watt. Okay. I'm glad I clarified that because you said paired testing, and I didn't think HUD was engaging in that practice. Ms. Braunstein, the Fed has defined these parameters for reporting under HMDA. Would it require congressional action to expand the information collected-- Ms. Braunstein. No. We-- Chairman Watt. --or does the Fed have the authority to expand? Ms. Braunstein. We have the authority, as we did with the pricing data, to add additional fields. Chairman Watt. Within what parameters? Ms. Braunstein. I am not aware of parameters. I mean, obviously, as I mentioned before, we do cost benefit analysis of adding additional fields because there is, you know, cost involved. Chairman Watt. So if we wanted additional parameters added, Congress, after jaw-boning you all, as we've done in some other areas-- Ms. Braunstein. Well, certainly, I mean, Congress--HMDA was created by Congress-- Chairman Watt. I understand. We could do it ourselves or we could-- Ms. Braunstein. Right. Chairman Watt. --more aggressively encourage you to do it. The troubling thing is, I mean, the fields that you are-- the parameters over which you are testing get generally to subprime lending, high-cost lending. My concern is that these same patterns probably are out there in non-high-cost loans. Is there any way that you have to determine whether that is the case also? Ms. Braunstein. Yes. During our fair lending reviews of the institutions we supervise, we look at pricing across all loan products not just the high-cost mortgages. Chairman Watt. I understand that. I guess the question I'm asking is, can we be assured that this same pattern that exists, or appears to exist, of discriminatory pricing, in high-cost loans, doesn't also exist if we were running the numbers in all loans? Ms. Braunstein. We can only speak to the institutions that we supervise, not across the whole industry. Chairman Watt. But could you even give me that assurance for the institutions that you supervise? Ms. Braunstein. Yes, I think I could, because we do very rigorous-- Chairman Watt. You're saying I would see a-- Ms. Braunstein. --and if we had-- Chairman Watt. --different pattern in non-high-cost loans than I would see in high-cost loans? Ms. Braunstein. There is a difference between seeing a pattern in the HMDA data and finding actual cases of discrimination, of fair lending violations, as we know. We have the HMDA data which flagged a certain number of institutions for closer looks, but not every one of those institutions was actually violating fair lending laws when we looked further. So I would expect that it would be the same kind of thing with the non-high cost loans, as we may see institutions that wanted further attention. And if we found evidence of discrimination, we would take appropriate action. Chairman Watt. Let me put you all on the spot just a little bit, because over and over I've heard privately, off the record, that ``a problem'' in this area is that you all regulators make referrals to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice just simply kicks them back for you all to do something. The Department of Justice is really not aggressively--now I know your colleague from the Department of Justice is here, but we need to get to the bottom of this. We all know--I don't think there's anybody on this panel who doesn't know that there's some discrimination going on, whether you--we've accepted the fact that HMDA doesn't prove discrimination. I'm not suggesting that. But there's not a single person in the lending community, the borrowing community, or the regulator community, that doesn't know that there's still differentials based on race. And it doesn't stop when you get to the higher-income African-Americans. In fact, some suggestion is that it gets worse as you go up the income ladder. So I'm trying to figure out what we can do, effectively, to stop this. I mean, it is just--it is inexcusable for people with identical credit records, identical everything, except their races, and one gets a loan that's a quarter point higher or 10 basis points, or 15 basis points. Mr. LaCour-Little eliminated everything down to 10 or 15 basis points but still, even that, is unacceptable. So how do we get to the bottom of this? I guess that's where I'm trying--that's the frustration that everybody is feeling here. Anybody have any suggestions? And I'll make that my last question. I know the ranking member--but that's the bottom line of where we are here. Everybody knows that it's going on. Everybody says they're doing everything they can do to eliminate it and, yet, time after time after time, we come back here, and we know that it's still going on. Ms. Parnes. Mr. Chairman, if I could. Do not render a verdict yet on the Federal Government's response on this issue. I would just say that the pricing data has been available to all of us for about 2 years now. And while I certainly understand your perspective that 2 years is a long time, the investigations that we're conducting are truly incredibly resource intensive, and they're very thorough. And I think that when--you know, at the end of the day whatever conclusions we reach, I think that we will all be satisfied that either we have established that the underwriting criteria explain the disparities that the HMDA data are showing us, or we will be announcing cases based on ECOA violations. Chairman Watt. Well, I appreciate your response. And it may be true, and I will acknowledge that the frustration that you are hearing coming out of this individual is not a frustration of only 2 years or 4 years of collection of data, it is a frustration of 61 years, 330 days. You know, I'm tipping up on 62 years here next month. And we just have to get to a point where, you know, the Supreme Court apparently has already decided that we are there, that race is not a factor any more. Well, we have to prove it if that's the case. If the Supreme Court is going to say that we're never going to take race into account any more in doing anything, then our Nation has to live up to that expectation. So this is not, you know--to some extent, it's an expression of frustration that this is not happening based on this information but is more a reflection of frustration that comes with being on this earth and being an African-American for over 61 years now. So I'll just end with that. Let me do what I have to do procedurally here. The Chair will note that some members, including the Chair, may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. And we would ask that you respond expeditiously. I want to thank you on behalf of the ranking member and myself and the full subcommittee for appearing. And unless there is something good for the order, or whatever the expression is, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X July 25, 2007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.390 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.224 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.227 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.228 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.229 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.230 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.231 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.232 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.233 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.234 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.235 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.236 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.237 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.238 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.239 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.240 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.241 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.242 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.243 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.244 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.245 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.246 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.247 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.248 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.249 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.250 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.251 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.252 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.253 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.254 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.255 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.256 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.257 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.258 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.259 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.260 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.261 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.262 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.263 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.264 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.265 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.266 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.267 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.268 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.269 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.270 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.271 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.272 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.273 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.274 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.275 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.276 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.277 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.278 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.279 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.280 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.281 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.282 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.283 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.284 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.285 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.286 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.287 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.288 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.289 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.290 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.291 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.292 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.293 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.294 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.295 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.296 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.297 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.298 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.299 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.300 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.301 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.302 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.303 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.304 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.305 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.306 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.307 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.308 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.309 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.310 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.311 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.312 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.313 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.314 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.315 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.316 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.317 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.318 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.319 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.320 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.321 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.322 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.323 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.324 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.325 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.326 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.327 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.328 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.329 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.330 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.331 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.332 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.333 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.334 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.335 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.336 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.337 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.338 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.339 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.340 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.341 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.342 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.343 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.344 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.345 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.346 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.347 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.348 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.349 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.350 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.351 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.352 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.353 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.354 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.355 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.356 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.357 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.358 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.359 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.360 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.361 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.362 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.363 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.364 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.365 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.366 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.367 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.368 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.369 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.370 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.371 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.372 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.373 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.374 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.375 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.376 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.377 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.378 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.379 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.380 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.381 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.382 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.383 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.384 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.385 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.386 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.387 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.388 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.389 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.391 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.392 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8394.393