[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 82 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5430-H5467]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE REFORM ACT OF 2007

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas for 
yielding. I want to thank my colleague across the aisle for his 
informative discussion. I respect him immensely. I appreciate him 
laying out his arguments against my amendment.

[[Page H5431]]

  What I would say is that we both have the same intent, affordable 
housing for as many Americans as possible. That should be the intent 
with this legislation, and I think it does, in terms of the reforms 
implemented for the government-sponsored enterprises that we are 
talking about today. The concern that I have is that, in essence, we 
are going to be taxing the middle class, and those that are on, let's 
say, lower middle class, which the government-sponsored enterprises, 
Fannie and Freddie were provided to provide liquidity in the 
marketplace.
  We are going to be taxing those mortgages to pass it on to people 
who, you said, don't have money. So it's a transfer from that middle-
class group to some folks that are on the edges of society.
  My concern with that is that rather than us designing programs to 
bring them into the mortgage marketplace, so that they can provide for 
themselves, that this simply will supplement additional government 
programs and further lock people into receiving government money, 
rather than receiving a help out.
  So my concern is that we are going to be taxing those that can really 
afford to deal with additional taxes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Would the gentleman yield just for a 
clarification.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas controls the time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I am asking if he would yield for a moment to 
let me correct something, if he would.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas controls the time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I very much appreciate that. It is very 
important that I clear this up.
  First of all, there is no inclusion of taxes here. This money is 
coming from the shareholders. It's coming from the shareholders of 
these GSEs. That's exactly where it's coming from.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Reclaiming my time and yielding back to Mr. McHenry.
  Mr. McHENRY. That is what a tax is. You are taking it from one group 
and giving it to another group. What this is 1.2 basis points on a 
portfolio. If you are talking about taking it from the shareholders, go 
ahead and raise the capital gains tax, because I know it is part of the 
budget that was passed today.
  I know many of you all believe in that on your side of the aisle, 
some, probably, on my side of the aisle. But my point is, I don't think 
we should tax them. With this 1.2 basis points on a portfolio is, in 
fact, a tax.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from 
Texas controls the time and has to remain on his feet.
  Mr. McHENRY. What I would contend though is the 1.2 basis points on 
the portfolio is simply a tax on every mortgage that flows through 
Fannie and Freddie. If you are taxing the profits on Fannie and Freddie 
as originally designed, you can make the contention that you are taxing 
the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie.
  But, with this design of the current bill before us, if, in fact, you 
believe in affordable housing, and encouraging more people into the 
middle class and moving people up, then what we need to do is ensure 
that we are not decreasing the affordability.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am always reluctant to rise in opposition to my 
colleague from North Carolina, because he is my close colleague from 
North Carolina. He is right next door to my congressional district, 
well, one county removed, I guess. So it's burdensome when I have to 
rise in opposition to his amendments.
  But this one I feel strongly about. First of all, I have heard this 
argument several times today that this imposes some kind of tax on 
middle-class and low-income homeowners. I think, if you look into this, 
you will find that this money is either going into a trust fund, which 
we all support to increase homeownership and affordable housing in this 
country, or, as has been the case throughout Fannie and Freddie's 
existence, it is going to the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie.
  There is no passing along of savings, no enhancement of credit to 
additional home buyers. This is a choice between whether the 
shareholders get it or if we were going to finance affordable housing 
by the government, whether the taxpayers would be paying for it, which 
this trust fund really shields the taxpayers from having put up this 
money. That's my first argument.
  The second concern I have is that this trust fund would sunset in 5 
years, and we have, as a Congress, if we pass this bill and it survives 
through the whole process, we will have legislated this into existence.
  The effect of this amendment would be to allow the director of this 
new agency with all these enhanced powers that we have given to him, to 
unlegislate what we have legislated, which I think is an inappropriate 
delegation of our authority.
  Now, it may be that we make a bad decision to legislate it, but we 
recognize that by putting a 5-year sunset in the provision and allowing 
ourselves to come back and correct our own decision if we find that the 
decision was erroneous.
  It is not good from my vantage point, to say to a director of any 
Federal agency, we passed this as a policy matter, and we are going to 
give you the authority to reverse it.
  Now, if some independent body were making this determination, it were 
a study, as the gentleman indicated, we agreed to a study by the GAO 
and put it in the bill. That would be an appropriate mechanism for us 
to get feedback where we could undo this at the end of 5 years or renew 
it at the end of 5 years, but that's different than saying to the 
director, you can go if you determine that A, B or C exists, and you 
can unwind what the Congress of the United States told you is the law 
of the land.
  So if the gentleman were inclined to offer this as part of this 
study, which we approve, I think it might be an appropriate way to 
proceed, because it would help to inform us. The GAO would do the 
study, they would tell us what their results were, and if we agreed 
with them that it was a big enough mistake, then we could, even before 
the 5 years, we could go back and correct it. But I don't want any 
director of some agency to be passing legislation either directly or 
indirectly.
  For that reason, I think this is not a good amendment. I encourage my 
colleagues to defeat it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with my 
friend from North Carolina.
  I rise only on one specific factual point. The gentleman from North 
Carolina said this would levy 1.2 basis points on the mortgages. That's 
in lieu of a profit. The Treasury asked us to change it.
  The gentleman from North Carolina said 1.2 basis points. That's 
equivalent to a 1.2 percent tax. No, that's 100 times wrong. A basis 
point is one one-hundredth of 1 percent. So 1.2 basis points is not 1.2 
percent as the gentleman said, but .012 percent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Kanjorski

  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Kanjorski:
       Strike line 22 on page 290 and all that follows through 
     line 4 on page 293, and insert the following:

     SEC. 181. BOARDS OF ENTERPRISES.

       (a) Fannie Mae.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 308 of the 
     Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1723(b)) is amended in the first sentence by striking 
     ``eighteen persons,'' and inserting ``not less than 7 and not 
     more than 15 persons,''.
       (2) Transitional provision.--The amendments made by 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to any appointed position of 
     the board of directors of the Federal National Mortgage 
     Association until the expiration of the annual

[[Page H5432]]

     term for such position during which the effective date under 
     section 185 occurs.
       (b) Freddie Mac--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 303(a) of the 
     Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1452(a)(2) is amended in subparagraph (A) by striking 
     ``eighteen persons,'' and inserting ``not less than 7 and not 
     more than 15 persons,''.
       (2) Transitional provision.--The amendments made by 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to any appointed position of 
     the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
     Corporation until the expiration of the annual term for such 
     position during which the effective date under section 185 
     occurs.

  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, simply stated, my amendment would ensure 
a continued independent public voice in the corporate governance of 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  This amendment also has the support of the National Association of 
Home Builders and the National Association of Realtors. The bill before 
us would make a dramatic change in the board structures of the two 
government-sponsored enterprises, and this issue deserves a public 
debate. The charters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac presently require 
that the boards of both enterprises shall, at all times, have five 
members appointed by the President.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today would eliminate the 
requirement for presidential appointees on the boards of Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac. In my view, requiring presidential appointees to serve on 
the boards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is entirely appropriate, given 
the unique nature of their charters and their important public 
missions.
  Government-sponsored enterprises, by their very nature, are public, 
private entities, and they need to have a public voice at the highest 
levels of governance. The Presidential appointments, therefore, signal 
that each entity is not only accountable to its shareholders, but also 
to a broader national public policy interest. Additionally, the 
presidential appointment system gives citizens a needed voice in 
ensuring the viability of our Nation's housing finance system, and that 
the benefits of this system are widely distributed. Maintaining public 
representation on the GSE boards is therefore critical to ensuring 
continued public trust in these very important financial institutions.
  This amendment would accordingly restore the presidential board 
appointment assistance for the GSEs. It would also restore a change 
made in the bill that passed the House in the last Congress by a voice 
vote. This change provides flexibility in the size of the corporate 
boards that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac established.
  This commonsense amendment to retain an independent voice on the GSE 
boards also has the backing of those who know our housing markets best, 
like the National Association Home Builders and the National 
Association of Realtors.
  In a recent letter to me about this amendment, the home builders note 
that ``a diverse governing board of directors that is well balanced in 
knowledge and expertise in the full range of GSE-related issues and 
activities is critical.'' They also believe that the amendment ``will 
help ensure that the GSEs' board of directors are best equipped to make 
informed, sound judgments in fulfilling their duties, including 
monitoring risk management activities of the GSEs' executives.''
  In sum, this amendment is one that deserves the support of everyone 
who wants to preserve a public voice within these public, private 
entities and promote good corporate governance. It has the support, as 
I said before, of the homeowners and the realtors.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge its adoption.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman from Pennsylvania's 
amendment. I can tell you that we dealt with this issue in committee on 
a bipartisan basis, and we decided that we wanted to take away the 
political operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

                              {time}  1930

  We believe that you cannot serve two masters and do a good, faithful 
job to both masters.
  One of the reasons that Fannie and Freddie got in accounting problems 
in the first place is because of a complacent board of directors that 
was populated with political employees.
  We believe in a post-Enron era that it becomes very, very important 
that we take advantage of corporate governance standards that are 
second to none. Even those of us that have criticized certain portions 
of Sarbanes-Oxley like section 404 as being overzealous believe deeply 
that Sarbanes-Oxley had some good corporate governance and conflict of 
interest rules that has imposed. That is why we decided that the 
trustees should owe a duty to the shareholders and to good corporate 
governance, not to the political people that may have appointed them.
  And I think Mr. Kanjorski has an understandable sympathy for having 
some public-oriented representatives, but the truth of the matter is 
you end up with members of the board of trustees that are going to have 
to decide between whether they owe loyalty to the person that appointed 
them, or to good, tough corporate governance and to the shareholders 
that are seeking their best wisdom.
  I would ask that we strongly defer to the considered opinion on a 
bipartisan basis of the Financial Services Committee on this one, and 
that we reject the Kanjorski amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Roskam

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Roskam:
       Page 128, line 14, strike ``paragraph (2)'' and insert 
     ``paragraphs (2) and (4)''.
       Page 129, after line 22, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       (4) Limiting contributions to affordable housing fund when 
     the government has an on-budget (excluding social security) 
     deficit and an off-budget (including social security) 
     surplus.--
       (A) Limitation.--For any year referred to in paragraph (1) 
     that immediately follows a fiscal year in which the 
     Government has an actual on-budget deficit and an actual off-
     budget surplus, the amount of money required to be allocated 
     to the affordable housing fund shall not exceed the amount 
     allocated to such fund in the preceding year.
       (B) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph:
       (i) The term ``actual on-budget deficit'' means, with 
     respect to a fiscal year, that for the fiscal year the total 
     outlays of the Government, excluding outlays from Social 
     Security programs, exceed the total receipts of the 
     Government, excluding receipts from Social Security programs.
       (ii) The term ``actual off-budget surplus'' means, with 
     respect to a fiscal year, that for the fiscal year the 
     receipts from Social Security programs exceed the outlays 
     from Social Security programs.
       (iii) The term ``Social Security programs'' means the 
     Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the 
     Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund.

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take the conversation 
this evening in a little bit of a different direction. It simply would 
postpone the diversion of funds to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund 
that is created in this bill until such time as Congress stops raiding 
the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for unrelated government 
programs.
  This year, the majority proposed and passed a budget that assumes it 
will raid the entire Social Security surplus, an estimated $190 
billion, to spend on other government programs, and that amount will 
increase to $203 billion for the year 2008.
  During the course of many of our journeys to this office in this last 
election cycle, we stood up in senior centers and in conversations and 
in coffee and corner conversations, and we said, ``We will stand firmly 
with the seniors on behalf of Social Security.''
  The chairman of the Financial Services Committee has sort of quietly 
admonished the Republicans on this side of the aisle who were here in 
the year 2005 for voting on a past bill and so forth. But there are 54 
new Members of the House of Representatives, and we all took the oath 
of office. I took it right over there where Congressman

[[Page H5433]]

Feeney is sitting, took my oath; my wife was in the audience, my 
children were by my side, my mom and dad were here. Fifty-four of us 
all came in, 13 on our side, 41 on the other side, and we took that 
oath of office. We were not part of the conversation in the year 2005, 
but many of us campaigned on the integrity of the Social Security 
system.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the parliamentary rule is on 
referring to quotes and so forth, and I know that it is not what in our 
family is called cool, so I am not going to name names. But a quick 
Google search of the new Members of Congress who joined me in this 
class, the class of 110th, criticized opponents that they defeated for 
voting to rob the Social Security Trust Fund and spend it on other 
programs.
  ``Those were documented votes. Those are budget votes, and they used 
the Social Security Trust Fund to mask the overall Federal deficit.''
  Someone else said, ``We are going to make sure we have real 
substantive programs about how we make sure Social Security is 
secure.''
  Or, Mr. Chairman, how about this. Another new Member said in their 
campaign that they would ``fight for Social Security for seniors.''
  Or how about this language. That they would ``stop the raids on the 
Social Security Trust Fund that are used to help cover our Nation's 
huge Federal budget deficits.''
  You get the point.
  You know, life is choices. And I respect the chairman and his passion 
on this bill and the intellectual honesty with which he has approached 
this. When I saw the chairman, who was injured, I sort of thought that 
he might have tripped and fell over one of those Blue Dog signs that 
are littered all over the Cannon Building in my office. They are 
everywhere. Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of one of the Blue Dog signs 
that says, ``The Blue Dog Coalition. The national debt is $8.8 
trillion, and your share of the national debt is $29,000.''
  You know what? Those signs are getting a little bit faded. There is 
not quite so much interest in that issue right now on the part of the 
Blue Dogs, it seems to me.
  I think we have choices to make, and I would submit that the choice 
that we have to make is a choice of priorities. And voting ``yes'' on 
this amendment says our highest priority in this conversation that we 
are having is to ensure the integrity of the Social Security system. It 
simply says, it transcends this last hour or two of debate. It doesn't 
get into the profitability and loss, the shareholders, and so forth. It 
admits, okay, great idea. But put it on pause, and take the money that 
the chairman has found, take the money and put it into the Social 
Security Trust Fund. That is what this amendment says. It says put it 
on pause, and use it to fund our obligations.
  Look, we have got a lot of moving parts in terms of problems in this 
country. We have got the national debt, we have got veterans 
obligations, we have got pension obligations. We have got to lower gas 
prices. You name it. There is one thing after another that we need to 
do. And all this bill does is it says, great idea, terrific idea even; 
wrong time.
  So I think the majority owes a great debt of gratitude to the 
chairman of the committee, because he has come up with $3 billion that 
can be enacted in one rollcall this evening to make the Blue Dog 
Coalition promise come true.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the 
amendment.
  Sometimes I am more impressed with the gentleman's work product than 
others. He just made a misstatement of his own amendment, if I have the 
right amendment. He says, instead of putting it in the Affordable 
Housing Fund, put it into Social Security.
  Nothing in this amendment does that. This amendment says that if 
there is a deficit in the Federal budget, then you don't put the money 
from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the Affordable Housing Fund. It 
does not say you put it anywhere else. It is unrelated. It simply says 
that if you don't have enough money to meet the deficit, then you don't 
take money that would not otherwise go to the deficit.
  There is no connection between the money being spent from Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac. This one is scored at zero by CBO; so, not spending 
the Affordable Housing Fund would in no way reduce the deficit.
  I would yield to the gentleman if he would show me where in his 
amendment it says that, if we don't spend on affordable housing, we 
would put it into reducing the deficit. I am reading the amendment. 
There is nothing like that in here. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Here's the point.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No. I am yielding for the purpose of a 
question. Answer the question. The gentleman said, the choice is to 
either put it into affordable housing or put it into the deficit. It 
doesn't go into the deficit now. It is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
profit. Nothing in his amendment that I read would put it into the 
deficit.
  Would he please explain to me what his statement meant and how it is 
accurate, and I will yield for that purpose.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Page 2, paragraph I, the term ``actual on budget 
deficit'' means, with respect to the fiscal years, for fiscal year the 
total outlies of the government, excluding for Social Security program, 
exceeds the total receipts of----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I understand that. That is a definition 
of the deficit. Good for the gentleman. But it does not put any money 
into the deficit. The gentleman said that if we passed his amendment, 
we would be choosing to put the money, instead of into affordable 
housing, into helping Social Security. The amendment doesn't say that.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield if the gentleman will give 
me an answer to the question. Reading his amendment doesn't get to the 
question. How does your amendment transfer money into Social Security?
  Mr. ROSKAM. Maybe it is a two-step dance.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Will you yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield, it is a two-step dance. Is 
the gentleman asking me to dance?
  Mr. ROSKAM. The first step is to push the pause button, Mr. Chairman, 
and to recognize the current obligation--
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. The gentleman has 
now acknowledged that his statement was not accurate. The gentleman has 
now acknowledged that nothing in his amendment does anything about the 
deficit. He says it is a two-step dance. It is a Kabuki dance. It is a 
Dance of Seven Veils. It has got an unrepresentative argument here.
  Nothing in this puts the money into Social Security. There is nothing 
in here that would do that. What it says is, let's not put any money 
into affordable housing from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if there is a 
deficit.
  Frankly, the gentleman did not, it seems to me, clearly represent his 
amendment. He says it is a two-step dance. Is he proposing that we 
would then take the money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the 1.2 
basis points, not 1.2 percent, and put that into the Social Security 
Trust Fund? He has now acknowledged that nothing in his amendment would 
help Social Security. I guess we will learn later what is the second 
step of the dance.
  I am kind of older; I used to watch Arthur and Kathryn Murray teach 
dance, but I don't think even they could have taught us how this is 
going to spin into putting money into Social Security. So this 
amendment is a perfect definition of a non sequitur.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROSKAM. Maybe it is a two-step dance.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. I want to suggest the second step of the dance, from my 
perspective, is the money goes into the trust fund; housing is built; 
that generates economic activity and reduces the deficit. So the second 
step to this dance is a deficit reduction using the trust fund, not 
under the gentleman's amendment though.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is a far more plausible explanation 
than we have got.
  Does the gentleman want me to yield?
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman.

[[Page H5434]]

  In the same way, Mr. Chairman, you have demonstrated it to the 
committee, and you have been a leader in this dance, basically, by 
saying, ``Trust me in how we are going to fund this.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. That is absolutely 
untrue. I have never asked people to trust me. If he is talking about 
spending affordable housing later, what I have said is it will be spent 
in accordance with a bill to be passed by the Congress. That is not 
trusting me.
  And I have never said that one thing was going to accomplish the 
other. We have said we would set some money aside and later decide how 
to spend it. It doesn't do that here. It leaves the money with Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac. This isn't public money. It is a non sequitur. I 
repeat.
  It says we have a deficit in Social Security. That is too bad. Let's 
keep fighting the war in Iraq for hundreds of billions of dollars, 
let's keep doing all these other things, but let's not take money from 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would not otherwise contribute a penny 
to Social Security and spend it on affordable housing.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't want to speak to the dancing capabilities of 
any of my colleagues, whether it be a Kabuki dance or an Arthur Murray 
class or however else they want to dance.
  But I would like to yield to my colleague from Illinois.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important within this context to realize 
who has the gavel and who has the majority.
  Mr. Chairman, you have the majority. You have the ability to direct 
vast sums of money. And what I am suggesting is that in your earlier 
conversation regarding those that were a part of the 2005 vote that you 
sort of felt like was somehow binding into perpetuity, 54 of us, Mr. 
Chairman, were not part of that conversation, and 54 of us didn't 
really find it informative.
  There are 54 of us that came in this Congress totally new, fresh. We 
are the Etch-A-Sketch that is clean; 41 on your side of the aisle and 
13 of us.
  And so what I am suggesting is in the course of the campaigns that 
brought us here, many, many of us, and I Googled and searched several 
of yours and I didn't want to string them out by naming names and so 
forth. But many of your new freshmen said they were champions of Social 
Security. Well, you know what? They have got an opportunity to vote in 
favor of this bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROSKAM. Let me make my point, and I will reciprocate. But, like 
you do, you tend to finish your point.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. Chairman, we have to make priorities.
  You know, I come from the O'Hare Airport area. O'Hare is in my 
district. And you know, the biggest challenge in O'Hare and why 
everybody hates flying through it is because there are so many planes 
in the air. This puts another plane in the air when nationally, you 
know what, we've got so many things circling, we've got one obligation 
after another that we're not doing well.
  I commend the chairman. Look, you found $3 billion. The Democrats 
should give you a legislative, well, I was going to say something that 
was a little over top. They should congratulate you for finding that 
type of, those type of resources. And what I'm suggesting, Mr. 
Chairman, is that we put this on pause. I'm not getting involved in the 
debate earlier about whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. Say, for 
the sake of argument, it's fabulous. Say, for the sake of argument, 
western civilization won't process forward without it. I still say that 
there are higher priorities. And I named any number of them.
  And what you have done, Mr. Chairman, in your advocacy and the way 
that you have asked us to, I would characterize it as trust you on how 
this is going to be articulated and distributed in the future based on 
legislation that you will have a profound influence on. And I would 
also say that we've got the ability, it's a two-step process.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. May I inquire how much 
time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. At this point, I'd like to yield to the chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee for a question which is, I know the C-SPAN 
audience, Mr. Chairman, is very interested in my colleague's injury, 
and I know he circulated a Dear Colleague, but if you could explain 
your injury.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I decline to take up the time of the 
House at this late date.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  I will yield a word to my distinguished chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed in the 
gentleman from Illinois, having yielded to him, refused the same 
courtesy. It's my time, the gentleman from Georgia's time.
  I never asked anyone to trust me. He repeats that. It is simply 
inaccurate.
  I've said that I thought we should set some money aside for low 
income housing, a specific purpose, low income housing, and then in a 
later bill, not me personally, but the Congress, decide how best to 
disburse it. That is hardly saying trust me and I'm disappointed. The 
gentleman generally it seems to me is fairer than that.
  Secondly, he says higher priority. Again, this is fantasyland. 
Nothing in his amendment does a penny for Social Security. And he says 
temporarily suspend. Hit the pause button until the deficit is over.
  Let's be very straightforward. That means kill it forever. There's no 
pause here. No one is assuming that the deficit is going to be ended 
within the next 7 or 8 years, so the argument that the gentleman makes 
that it is more important to do Social Security trust fund than the 
housing fund is irrelevant because nothing, nothing in the gentleman's 
amendment puts a penny into the Social Security. It's one more way to 
kill the affordable housing fund reflecting an ideological opposition 
to the existence of the Federal Government helping build affordable 
housing.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I'd like to get into this 
dance just a little bit myself, because here we've got this little 
program that we're trying to offer to help the very, very poor. To show 
you how desperate the opposition is on the other side, they want to 
segue this program as a saviour for Social Security, when they spent 
the last 2 years trying to kill Social Security with private accounts.
  And then to try to use, when you mentioned the Blue Dog Coalition, I 
want you to know I'm a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, and I take 
offense to that particular point. Nobody has been working harder to 
bring down the deficit that you all created.
  Let the record speak for itself. How can you even think to take this 
little poor program here that we're trying to help, would get low 
income housing, and then claim it to try to use it to try to offset the 
deficit, when, in fact, we had over a $3 trillion deficit, and under 
your control of this Congress for the past 4 years, since 2001, you and 
this President sitting in the White House has borrowed more money from 
foreign governments and foreign nations, yes indeed, you weren't here, 
your party, than all of the previous 42 Presidents put together, in 
other words, since 1789.


                  Announcement By the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is reminded to address his remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is that there is 
very serious hypocrisy here that must be pointed out so the American 
people can make plain and understand the debate that is before us. This 
issue has nothing to do with tax increases, nothing to do with raiding 
Social Security savings and nothing to do with anything dealing with 
the debt. And my whole point is that the reason it's so hypocritical is 
the opposition on this side has done so much to destroy Social 
Security, to raise the debt and not respond. And then to pour this on 
the backs of this little program that we have targeted to poor people 
is about as hypocritical as you can get.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  What we've said on both sides of the aisle tonight, one thing we 
ought to be able to agree on is that last year we took $185 billion 
from the Social Security surplus, including everything that

[[Page H5435]]

we've paid in and all the interest earned last year, and we spent it.
  This year, Republicans, Democrats, we passed a budget earlier today 
that takes $190 billion, every bit of it, every bit of the FICA taxes 
paid in by all of us, citizens, young and old, we spent it. We spent 
the interest owed from previous years on the surplus. We spent every 
dime of it. Next year we're going to do $200 billion.
  And we can play the blame game. But I don't think the American people 
are interested in how much the majority is at fault, how much the 
minority is at fault. I think what the American people want is they 
want it to stop. It's, you can call it borrowing, that's a nice word. 
You can call it raiding. You can call it taking. But the long and short 
of it is we're taking money every day that the American people, the 
people we represent, are paying into Social Security, and they're 
expecting, upon their retirement, to start drawing that money out. And 
we all know it's not going to be there unless we change our behavior. 
Not you, not us, we.
  In 2017, 10 years from now, 10 years from now, we're going to start 
having to reduce our benefits on Social Security.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I will yield.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. Will he explain to 
me what in the world that has to do with an amendment that does not 
provide a penny for Social Security?
  Mr. BACHUS. Let me explain what it has to do. And I think it's a good 
point the tape. You said, well this doesn't come to that. Let me tell 
you, if there is validity in taking $3 billion, there's $3 billion over 
there that we can take from the GSEs and we can do it without affecting 
their stability, and let's just presuppose for the sake of argument 
that we can do it without increasing the cost to middle and lower 
income home owners. Let's just suppose we can do all that, or 
shareholders. Let's suppose we can take it from the shareholders, take 
it from the profits and it won't cost us anything. If we can do it, if 
we can do it, why don't we put it in Social Security? Why don't we 
start a new program?
  No matter how much need there is, and the gentleman from Georgia 
continues to talk about the need. And I, listen, I agree with you. 
There is a need for affordable housing for low income Americans. I'm 
with you. There are 90 programs right now. A lot of them don't work, 
and for that reason, there is a need.
  And so we're passing another $3 billion over 5 years. I understand 
that. I understand there's a need. But you know, before we start 
addressing that need, let's keep our promises to the American people.
  Isn't Social Security a sacred promise? How many of us, if we would 
raise our hands, how many of us would say no? And it is a sacred 
promise, why don't we start tonight with this amendment and keep that 
promise to the American people?
  We're going to, you know, the FHA bill was in committee. We made an 
amendment. Okay. If we can take some of the surplus fees, the chairman, 
others felt like it ought to go on to housing programs.
  We said, let's start putting it all in Social Security. Let's start 
tonight. We said 2 weeks ago, let's start 2 weeks ago and let's start 
putting it in to the Social Security until we reach a situation where 
we're not taking everything out. And once we get to, and this is what 
this amendment says. It says once we get to the situation where we're 
not borrowing, then this money can go into this new housing program. 
But until the day that this Congress gets to the point where we can 
honor our promise to seniors and not have to borrow their money from 
them, instead of letting it earn interest and a return, until that day 
to where we quit borrowing from the Social Security trust fund no new 
programs, no new programs.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I won't take 5 minutes. I just want to remind Members that we've just 
spent an awful lot of time arguing about something that has nothing to 
do with this bill, and that there are a number of other amendments. And 
I fear that at some point tonight, we will regret this detour on which 
we have engaged.
  It illustrates, and the gentleman who is in his first term here will 
appreciate why the rules of the House are constructed as they are. You 
don't have a provision to transfer this to the debt because if there 
were a provision in your amendment to transfer it to the debt or to 
Social Security, this amendment would be non germane to this bill. And 
without germaneness rules, you can go off and talk about, for as long 
as you want, as they do in the Senate sometimes, about anything that 
they want to talk about.
  But the amendment that you have offered is marginally germane because 
you didn't do what you say you wanted to do. And you've made the point 
that, Mr. Chairman, he's made the point that he wanted to make, I'm 
sure, to his constituents.
  So I would hope that we could get back to the amendments that are 
germane and relevant to this bill, and maybe finish this bill tonight. 
It would be wonderful.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Let me just say this very briefly, that I believe that the issue of 
the solvency of Social Security is significantly an important issue. 
And I appreciate your comments on germaneness. But I appreciate the 
opportunity for our constituents at home to be able to hear this debate 
and this discussion with regard to how we see it as important and doing 
everything humanly possible to make sure that it is solvent and there 
for our seniors in the future.
  I yield my time to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate my 
colleague's instruction on germaneness. I have drunk of that cup. I 
offered what I thought was a relevant but nongermane amendment and sort 
of learned the hard way the buzz saw of the parliamentarian on a 
previous bill and sort of learned my lesson. I thank the gentleman for 
that.
  Mr. WATT. Would the gentleman yield just long enough to let me 
clarify that I'm not arguing about whether this is important. I'm 
arguing about whether it is germane, and there is a difference. I 
acknowledge that it is important.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from New Jersey will 
continue to yield, we can have a wonderful conversation about 
germaneness. But getting back to the chairman's point earlier about 
what I characterize as a ``trust in me'' argument. No, you didn't use 
the ``words trust in me,'' but I think it is important that the body 
not be left confused about the implication at least that we took about 
a verbal interchange that the chairman had with the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) when she asked, and I am quoting from the 
committee transcript: ``I know we have discussed the fact that there 
might be other ways to do this, but it seems if it is the chairman's 
plan to reconsider the details of the housing fund in the future, why 
not just take the fund out of here and then have the hearings and then 
make the decision.''
  And at that point Mrs. Biggert continued: ``I cannot remember a time 
where we put something in and said maybe we will do this in this way 
but then we might do it another way and then we will go back and re-do 
it.''
  And then she yielded to the chairman, who then said: ``The reason I 
do not want to leave it out now is I am very strongly committed to it, 
perhaps more than some other members. It is, I think, a rational part 
of this bill. It is a part of, frankly, an agreement.
  ``Let me be very clear. I believe that there is a great deal of 
interest on the part of the administration and some others in having a 
greatly increased regulatory structure for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  ``Not everybody who wants an increased regulatory structure for 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is committed to that Affordable Housing 
Fund. If the Affordable Housing Fund was not established in this bill 
and was a stand-alone bill, it might get vetoed.
  ``I think it is less likely to cause vetoing of the whole bill. I 
like very much the idea of the Affordable Housing Fund. I do not 
believe it could stand on its own necessarily, and that is the reason 
for including it in this bill.''

[[Page H5436]]

  Now, I took from that, and I think it is a very reasonable inference, 
Mr. Chairman, the ``trust in me'' argument, and I think that that is a 
consistent argument.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, that, I must say, totally 
disappoints me. For the third time the gentleman has tried to put words 
in my mouth. The words ``trust in me,'' the gentleman read that, and 
the gentleman's distortion, systematic distortion, has gone beyond what 
I can deal with in a brief intervention. But I will say this: I 
continually said we should address that in separate legislation. If the 
gentleman doesn't know the difference between passing legislation which 
sets guidelines and saying ``trust me,'' then the gentleman understands 
less in this place than I had hoped he did.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield 
to Mr. Roskam.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I am always one to learn and I am always 
open to instruction, and I appreciate that very much. But the point is 
when a question is asked in committee and the ranking member of a 
subcommittee asks it and it is essentially not answered, I think the 
subtext is ``trust in me.'' And I think that the opportunity as we move 
forward is to say, look, we have got an opportunity to take a $3 
billion fund here that has been created that the chairman of the 
committee has found and to do the right thing with it.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to yield to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Frank.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois 
apparently misremembered something. He looked diligently to try to find 
what he said, and he couldn't find what he imputed to me. I never said 
``trust in me.'' I didn't imply it. His subtext notion makes as little 
sense as his argument that we are going to somehow help Social Security 
in an amendment that doesn't touch Social Security.
  What I said repeatedly was I want to reserve this now because I think 
this bill will not be vetoed and we will get the reservation, and for 
budgetary purposes, CBO scoring, it is a better way to do it, and we 
will then pass a separate piece of legislation. And his equation of my 
calling for a separate piece of legislation with my saying ``trust in 
me'' falls below the level that I had thought we would debate here.
  I would again repeat, the gentleman from Alabama eloquently said 
let's start now. Let's do this. I want to be very clear, Mr. Chairman. 
I have never stopped him. The gentleman from Alabama had a new-found 
passion to help Social Security. Where is his amendment doing that? 
Where is his legislation doing that? This notion of let's get to Social 
Security, the central point is: The gentleman from Illinois' amendment 
does not put one penny into Social Security. Passing it would not help 
it. It would kill this fund forever.
  What we have had is a variety of amendments. This is the fifth one 
tonight that finds a different way to kill affordable housing. The 
gentleman from Alabama was straightforward. He said he just wanted to 
kill it. So this has nothing to do with Social Security. It has to do 
with killing the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
  And I would just add this, and I thank the gentleman from Colorado 
for yielding, I find it somewhat ironic that Members who continue to 
support spending hundreds of billions of dollars on that terrible war 
in Iraq, which does America more harm than good, lecture me because we 
are going to spend half a billion dollars a year on Affordable Housing 
Fund out of nontax funds. Yes, let's do something about Social 
Security. Let's do something about the war in Iraq. Let's do something 
about other wasteful programs. But to take $500 million, I didn't see 
this concern for Social Security when we were doing the defense budget. 
I didn't see it when we did the authorization earlier today. I didn't 
see it when we were adding money.
  I must be very clear, Mr. Chairman, within the rules, I am 
unpersuaded that the real motive of Members here is to do anything 
about Social Security. It is clear if you look at this pattern, they 
don't like the notion of the Federal Government's helping to build 
affordable housing, even if we do it, as we have succeeded in finding a 
way to do it in this bill, in a way that has no impact on the taxpayer, 
no impact on Social Security, and no negative consequences on the other 
government programs.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the bottom line 
here and the reason that I believe my friend from Illinois' amendment 
is irrelevant and it isn't germane is we are dealing with a government-
sponsored entity that deals with affordable housing, and the purpose 
here is to provide affordable housing from a piece of the profits of 
the GSE that we are regulating tonight and we are trying to deal with. 
Over 5 years, this goes to $3 billion, which is less than half of the 
misstatement in earnings from one year from one of the entities.
  This amendment needs to be defeated. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
       Page 93, after line 9, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 134. CONSIDERATION OF LOCATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN 
                   ENTERPRISE UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES.

       (a) Fannie Mae.--Section 302(b) of the Federal National 
     Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1717(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7)(A) In establishing requirements with respect to 
     quality, type, class, and other purchase standards for 
     mortgages on one- to four-family residences, the corporation 
     shall--
       ``(i) consider the location efficiency and energy 
     efficiency of the residence;
       ``(ii) treat any savings resulting from location efficiency 
     or energy efficiency as an equivalent reduction in recurrent 
     monthly expenses of the mortgagor; and
       ``(iii) increase any limit on the amount of debt under the 
     mortgage allowable for the mortgagor that is based on 
     mortgagor income to account for the present value of location 
     efficiency savings and for the present value of energy 
     efficiency savings.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(i) The term `location efficiency' means, with respect to 
     a mortgage for a residence, the difference between--
       ``(I) the average monthly transportation expenses predicted 
     for the family of the mortgagor residing in the residence 
     subject to the mortgage; and
       ``(II) the average monthly transportation expenses, for 
     families of the same size and income as the family of the 
     mortgagor, residing in the lower quintile of homes in the 
     same metropolitan area or in the nation as a whole.

     Location efficiency shall be determined on a neighborhood-
     scale basis by the use of statistically valid methods.
       ``(ii) The term `present value of location efficiency 
     savings' means, with respect to a mortgage, the monthly value 
     of location efficiency savings multiplied by the number of 
     months in the term of the mortgage.
       ``(iii) The term `energy efficiency' means, with respect to 
     a residence, the difference between the average monthly 
     energy consumption predicted for the residence and the 
     average monthly energy consumption for a similar home that 
     minimally complies with State and local laws, codes, and 
     regulations regarding housing quality and safety.
       ``(iv) The term `present value of energy efficiency 
     savings' means, with respect to a mortgage, the monthly value 
     of energy efficiency savings multiplied by the number of 
     months in the term of the mortgage.
       ``(v) The term `recurrent monthly expenses' includes, with 
     respect to a mortgage, the monthly amount of principal and 
     interest due under the mortgage and the monthly amount paid 
     for taxes and insurance for the residence subject to the 
     mortgage, as calculated in accordance with standard practices 
     in the financial services industry for calculating the 
     qualifying ratio for a mortgagor.''.
       (b) Freddie Mac.--Section 305(a) of the Federal Home Loan 
     Mortgage Corporation

[[Page H5437]]

     Act (12 U.S.C. 1454(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(6)(A) In establishing requirements with respect to 
     quality, type, class, and other purchase standards for 
     mortgages on one- to four-family residences, the Corporation 
     shall--
       ``(i) consider the location efficiency and energy 
     efficiency of the residence;
       ``(ii) treat any savings resulting from location efficiency 
     or energy efficiency as an equivalent reduction in recurrent 
     monthly expenses of the mortgagor; and
       ``(iii) increase any limit on the amount of debt under the 
     mortgage allowable for the mortgagor that is based on 
     mortgagor income to account for the present value of location 
     efficiency savings and for the present value of energy 
     efficiency savings.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(i) The term `location efficiency' means, with respect to 
     a mortgage for a residence, the difference between--
       ``(I) the average monthly transportation expenses predicted 
     for the family of the mortgagor residing in the residence 
     subject to the mortgage; and
       ``(II) the average monthly transportation expenses, for 
     families of the same size and income as the family of the 
     mortgagor, residing in the lower quintile of homes in the 
     same metropolitan area or in the nation as a whole.

     Location efficiency shall be determined on a neighborhood-
     scale basis by the use of statistically valid methods.
       ``(ii) The term `present value of location efficiency 
     savings' means, with respect to a mortgage, the monthly value 
     of location efficiency savings multiplied by the number of 
     months in the term of the mortgage.
       ``(iii) The term `energy efficiency' means, with respect to 
     a residence, the difference between the average monthly 
     energy consumption predicted for the residence and the 
     average monthly energy consumption for a similar home that 
     minimally complies with State and local laws, codes, and 
     regulations regarding housing quality and safety.
       ``(iv) The term `present value of energy efficiency 
     savings' means, with respect to a mortgage, the monthly value 
     of energy efficiency savings multiplied by the number of 
     months in the term of the mortgage.
       ``(v) The term `recurrent monthly expenses' includes, with 
     respect to a mortgage, the monthly amount of principal and 
     interest due under the mortgage and the monthly amount paid 
     for taxes and insurance for the residence subject to the 
     mortgage, as calculated in accordance with standard practices 
     in the financial services industry for calculating the 
     qualifying ratio for a mortgagor.''.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the effort that has gone 
into this evening's debate. It has been lively and at times amusing.
  I rise to offer an amendment to extend the effort that is intended 
here to extend home ownership to a greater number of families.
  The problem that I seek to focus on is that by having a uniform 
threshold for the loan limits understates the purchasing power of 
people in often high-cost, low-impact areas, people who live, for 
example, in urban areas, in central cities, who spend far less on 
energy and transportation than the typical person but often is faced 
with much higher home costs and they get caught in a double whammy. 
They are actually better credit risks because they have more disposable 
income, but they are running up against loan limits that discriminate 
against them.
  The average American family spent over $5,100 in gasoline, home 
heating, and electricity last year. Families routinely list 
transportation cost as their second largest household expenditure on 
average. Sometimes it is the greatest.
  Research shows that when these families live locally near where they 
work, shop, and socialize close to public transportation, they actually 
have more disposable income.
  My amendment would instruct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to credit 
mortgage applications for the savings that a transportation-friendly 
location and energy-efficient home generate, making it easier for these 
homeowners to purchase these homes. By recognizing the added purchasing 
power home buyers generate from both transportation and energy savings, 
lenders can quantify these savings and place them in the ``shelter'' 
category of expenses. This would allow home buyers, based on his or her 
enhanced buying power, to either qualify for a mortgage or qualify for 
a larger mortgage.
  This would have a particular benefit for lower income and first-time 
home buyers in locations that they tend to congregate that are more 
efficient. It will strengthen the communities that we wish to celebrate 
that are less impactful on the environment, requiring this energy. It 
would encourage families to reduce vehicle and energy use. This will 
translate into benefits for the larger community in terms of 
congestion, cleaner air, and reduced dependence on foreign oil.
  Now, this is not an unknown concept. I know there are some that have 
some concerns about it. Fannie Mae has been a partner in pilot programs 
offering what are termed location and energy efficient mortgages in the 
past. It has been limited to just a few cities, but these programs have 
demonstrated that they make a difference on the lives of the families 
that have been able to benefit from them.
  There was a pilot project in Illinois, in Chicago, for the first 
time, the first initiative, with the location, energy efficient 
mortgage, and it provided a $53,000 benefit for the people involved in 
terms of the home that they could qualify for.
  I would respectfully suggest that this amendment would extend the 
effort that the committee has to promote affordable housing. It would 
eliminate the discrimination against people in these energy and 
transportation efficient areas, and it would provide more justice to 
people in terms of what we are trying to provide in this system.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are ready to put this into a 
nationwide operation at this point. It has a great deal to commend it, 
and the gentleman is right to talk about pilot projects.
  In the Committee on Financial Services we have created a task force, 
headed by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), to look at all 
housing programs to promote energy efficiency. This is something that 
we should have looked at a while ago. We have been late. There are some 
various programs. There are some in public housing. We tried to put 
some into the FHA. The chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, my 
colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), is interested in doing this, 
along with the gentleman from California in HOPE VI.
  What I think would be best would be if we could defer this now and 
give it some study. There are some implications for how you carry it. 
There are some fairly specific calculations. It is one thing when you 
do it in a pilot project; it is another for Fannie and Freddie to do 
this nationally. And, of course, they don't do it directly. They do it 
through their various lenders.
  So while I think in concept this is something we should be moving 
towards, I would hope we could do some further work on it. It is our 
expectation to bring out an overall housing energy promotion bill 
sometime this fall, and this would be an ideal candidate for inclusion 
in that.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have great respect for the chairman, and I do appreciate what he is 
saying, that there are some issues involved in going from a pilot 
project to a national effort.
  I look forward to working with your task force under the chairmanship 
of my friend from Colorado. I understand what the gentleman is saying, 
and I would be happy to withdraw my amendment at the appropriate time 
and work with the committee in that fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2015


         Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Moran of Virginia). The Clerk will designate 
the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       Page 61, after line 4, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 116. PORTFOLIO GUIDELINES.

       Subtitle B of title XIII of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4611 et seq.), as amended 
     by section 115, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 1369F. PORTFOLIO GUIDELINES.

       ``(a) Affordable Housing Requirement.--In order for the 
     enterprises to meet their

[[Page H5438]]

     mission of providing for and promoting affordable housing, 
     the Director shall require the enterprises to only hold, in 
     their retained portfolios, mortgages and mortgage-backed 
     securities that exclusively support affordable housing, and 
     particularly mortgages extended to households having incomes 
     below the median income for the area in which the property 
     subject to the mortgage is located.
       ``(b) Mortgage-Related Assets Limitation.--The enterprises 
     may purchase and retain mortgage-related assets only to the 
     extent that the Director determines such actions are 
     necessary for the enterprise to maintain a liquid secondary 
     mortgage market in a manner that cannot be achieved through 
     the activities described in subsection (a) and are consistent 
     with the public interest.''.

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to 
refocus the GSEs on what is their congressionally mandated 
responsibility, and that is, providing for and promoting affordable 
housing.
  The amendment would direct the new regulator to require the 
enterprises to only hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities that 
exclusively support affordable housing. That is, those mortgages that 
are extended to households falling below the area's median income in 
their retained portfolios.
  Mr. Chairman, the GSEs were created by Congress to do a couple of 
things. First of all, to create liquidity in the secondary market, and, 
very importantly here, to provide affordable housing for low and 
moderate families. Now, to effect this worthy goal, Congress granted 
these enterprises a number of advantages over private firms, including 
exemptions from State and local taxation, and also the ability to 
borrow at lower rates. In fact, Mr. Chairman, Fannie and Freddie used 
these advantages to borrow at interest rates barely above the Treasury 
rate. They then buy mortgages from originators and do one of two 
things; either they package these securities into MBSs, that's 
mortgage-backed securities, and securitize them, or they retain the 
purchased mortgages on their own portfolio.
  Interesting, the combined GSE portfolios have increased from $130 
billion in the early 1990s, today it is over $1.5 trillion. The current 
practice of the GSEs buying derivatives to hedge against the interest 
rate risks created by these huge portfolios creates an enormous risk 
for us. And there should be some commensurate level of return on that 
risk to the taxpayer in the form of lower housing prices for low and 
moderate homeowners.
  Federal Reserve studies, however, and those conducted by other 
organizations, have concluded, and this is important, that consumers 
receive no direct benefit from the GSE's expansive portfolio holding. 
Although GSEs as business enterprises should return a profit to their 
investors, they really can't lose sight of the purpose for which they 
were created and the additional people to whom they answer, given their 
special status. They are not simply another business entity.
  Currently, GSE shareholders receive all of the benefits for the 
portfolios and none of the risk. In contrast, low and moderate income 
families bear all the risk and receive few of the benefits. By buying 
mortgages from banks that are part of the CRA requirement or holding 
more low income mortgages on their portfolios that might be difficult 
to securitize, this amendment will help the low and middle income 
American buyer buy their home and give low and middle income homeowners 
the benefits comparable to the risk.
  Let me just end with this quote. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, 
``Tying portfolios to a purpose that provides measurable benefits to 
the public would help ensure that society in general, and not just the 
shareholders, receive a meaningful return in exchange for accepting the 
risk inherent in the portfolios. Moreover, defining the scope and 
purpose of the portfolios in this way would reduce the potential for 
unbridled growth in those portfolios, while avoiding the imposition of 
arbitrary caps.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense, good government amendment that 
will provide the taxpayers, particularly low and middle income 
taxpayers, more benefits for the risks they bear by helping Fannie and 
Freddie refocus their job, which is affordable housing.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
commonsense amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), I don't know what his 
intention is, but this is probably the most terrible of all of the 
amendments to come before us tonight. This amendment not just guts the 
affordable housing program, this amendment guts Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac as a viable enterprise. And it would have significant adverse 
effects on the entire U.S. housing financial system.
  Now, here's what the amendment does that I understand. It would 
require that the new GSE regulator restrict Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac's portfolio holdings to only mortgage and mortgage-backed 
securities that exclusively support affordable housing. That is 
devastating. Particularly mortgages that are extended to households who 
are having incomes below the median income.
  Mr. Chairman, that's like taking an orange and squeezing all of the 
juice out of it and then passing it off to somebody to get orange juice 
out of it. You are squeezing out of this operation the ability for it 
to have a very healthy, market-driven portfolio by restricting it to 
the lower elements of our economy, where there is no juice.
  The portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play an important role 
in stabilizing the supply and reducing the cost of mortgage credit 
totally within the whole housing financial industry. So enter this 
effort, just to go after, I have never seen anything like it.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Not just yet.
  This is just, again, a program designed to help very, very poor 
people. And you are willing to bring down the whole housing finance 
system just to get at it. Because this amendment would require a 
drastic reduction in the enterprise's portfolio holdings and subject 
them to micromanagement by the regulator. And the amendment would 
require a drastic reduction in the GSE's portfolios, which, in effect, 
reduces the access to competitive financing options from community 
banks and their home buying customers. This is a far-reaching, 
devastating amendment and must be rejected.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to compliment the gentleman from New Jersey on 
his intended goal and merely point out the defects that exist in the 
current system.
  I want to make clear, I am a strong advocate of affordable housing 
and have gone to some trouble to examine the current portfolio of both 
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
  The one thing I think is consistent and hopefully will not be 
objected to is to observe that poor people generally don't have money. 
And so when you go to a closing of a house, regardless of the price, 
that's not an issue, you are going to try to get as much of that 
appraised value financed as possible, maybe come up with the closing 
costs. In a lot of cases, people are actually financing the closing 
costs too.
  So it would make sense, if you looked at an analysis of the GSE's 
portfolio mortgage holdings and determined the loan-to-value ratio, 
meaning, if it was a $100,000 house and you were borrowing at least 
$95,000, or up, 96, 97, 98, 99, maybe 101 because you needed help with 
the closing costs, that there ought to be a disproportionate amount of 
those loans in their portfolio as compared to, say, a commercial bank.
  When you look at Fannie and Freddie's portfolio holdings, you find 
that Freddie has 1.5 percent of their mortgages in a 95 percent plus 
range. You find Fannie Mae slightly better at 2.8 95 percent plus. So 
then you back off and say, my goodness, if only 1 or 2 percent is in 
those very high-leveraged loans, where are they making their money? And 
where you find the bulk of their loans is in two wage earners per 
household who are buying a second, third home because they have 60 to 
70 LTV, meaning they are putting down a bunch of money. So even if you 
are a person buying a modest home of $100,000, that means that you are 
putting down $30,000 or $40,000 at time of closing. That is not my 
definition of ``poor person.''
  If we really want to get focused, and this is a sincere observation 
about these corporations, they are driven to make a profit my their 
shareholders.

[[Page H5439]]

Nothing wrong with that. But they have been given special privilege by 
this Congress to accomplish a particular mission, and that is to help 
low-income first-time home buyers. That is why I am not as affronted by 
the chairman's concept as some may be. This is a specific requirement 
to spend $500 million on affordable housing.
  But to suggest that the gentleman is trying to somehow constrain the 
target of helping low-income people because they do such a wonderful 
job now, I have to suggest to you that that is really off the mark. 
They do a very poor job of helping first-time home buyers and low-
income individuals get access to homeownership. They are in the 
business to make money. They do it quite well. They are the only 
corporation of their scale that returns double digit rates of return 
year after year, whether there is a housing crisis or a finance crisis, 
it's the facts.
  I would love to work with the other side in focusing these huge 
corporations into the mission that Congress has described for them to 
perform.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. As many Members have said when they have 
come to this microphone in the past, that when you come to the floor, 
we can all have our own opinion on these matters, but we can't have all 
our own facts. To use the gentleman from Georgia and also Florida, too, 
I think said when it comes to the expression of squeezing all the juice 
out, that's maybe an appropriate expression, but then the question is 
where did that juice go to and what should it be used for?
  Well, my suggestion is that the juice should not necessarily always 
be used for the benefit of the stockholders, but the juice should be 
basically used for, what was the intent here, to provide for affordable 
housing for low and moderate income. And as the gentleman from 
Louisiana just indicated, as we've heard from all the testimony in the 
committees, the GSEs have not been doing the job that we wanted them to 
do. And one of the reasons I believe that we now see a bill before us 
to put on this new housing fund is in part because they have not been 
doing their job. Had they been doing their job as Congress directed 
them to some time ago, we may not have come to this position today 
where we have to be debating the issue of the housing fund, which is a 
separate issue.
  The point, though, as far as where the juice goes to and what the 
real facts are, we also heard testimony of Chairman Bernanke when he 
came to the floor, and there are also GAO studies that have looked at 
this as well, and what do they say? Where does the juice really go to 
when the portfolios expand to this level? And they include not just the 
low and moderate income, but the higher ones, since the low moderate 
income is so small. Where does the juice go to now? The juice goes to 
the stockholders. That is not what I am interested in making sure 
happens. I am interested in making sure that the juice ends up with 
affordable housing.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I move to strike the last word.
  I will yield briefly to my friend from Georgia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Let me explain carefully what the juice is of 
what we're squeezing out.
  Your amendment, by limiting the portfolio, does an important thing to 
bring the juice out. It threatens the viability of Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac by bringing the juice out by what I mean is by limiting 
their portfolios to less liquid, lower yielding assets, which 
eliminates their ability to cross subsidize affordable housing products 
using the earnings of their more diverse----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am going to take back my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield to the gentleman at the end.
  First, let me say to the gentleman from Louisiana, I agree with him 
in many ways. Yes, they haven't done enough. I do find a great 
inconsistency, not on the part of the gentleman from Louisiana, who has 
been completely consistent on this issue for years, but first, we were 
being told that we should not interfere with the profitability of 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because we would be driving up the cost for 
middle-income homeowners. We heard that in several of the arguments in 
trying to get rid of the Affordable Housing Fund.
  Now we have a much more serious attack on the ability of Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac to help middle-income homeowners. This says no more 
middle-income homeowners, only people below the median. We were told 
before that if we took $500 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's 
profits each year, we would inevitably be driving up the cost for 
middle-income borrowers. This would reduce Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's 
profits by 7, 8, 10 times that amount. They get most of their profit 
from things held in the portfolio.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield now?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that argument. But your 
argument before, if I heard you correctly, when we had a little 
dialogue before, was that it is your intent with the overall housing 
fund and where the money would come from is not from the homeowners. 
Your intention, if I understood correctly, was from the stockholders, 
from the investors.

                              {time}  2030

  My bill would do the exact same thing and say that it would not be 
coming from the homeowner or the investor as far as any burden on them.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, taking back my time, the 
gentleman has completely misstated for about the fourth time my 
arguments.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I only stated it once. How can it be four 
times?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. I yielded to 
the gentleman.
  I have said that I do not think it is my intent or anybody else's 
intent that will override the economics of the situation. I do not 
think we can legislate that it comes either out of this or out of that. 
The money is fungible. My view is that in the competitive situation in 
which they find themselves, much of this will come out of shareholders' 
profits. Some may come out of the banks and others they deal with.
  The point I am making is this: The gentleman and others on the 
Republican side argue, they were arguing before about a mortgage tax 
increase. They kept saying we are going to raise the cost of mortgages, 
not by anything we did directly. Their argument was that when you 
reduce the profitability of these entities, they will be driven to 
raise their prices and that will cost other people more.
  I believe they are far more constrained in their ability to raise 
prices. I don't think they are holding prices down now out of love. I 
think they are getting them up as high as they can now in the 
competitive situation.
  But if you believe that reducing their profits will cause them to 
increase their prices and thus hurt other people, in this amendment 
that has a much greater impact of that kind than the housing fund, 
because this restriction on the portfolio will cause a far greater 
reduction in the profit than 1.2 basis points. And it again emphasizes 
to me that what we have are people who don't like the Affordable 
Housing Fund, because they have had various contradictory ways of 
trying to get rid of it. Now, the gentleman from Louisiana is correct, 
they haven't done enough to help low income people.
  One of the things we do in this bill is to greatly increase the 
goals. We impose goals on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which also reduce 
their profitability. We tell them to do more of this kind of thing and 
we increase the enforcement mechanism for doing it. So we do try to 
increase the goals in the enforcement mechanism and we create the 
Affordable Housing Fund.
  I would say this: Maybe they shouldn't have created these hybrids in 
the first place. They are part profit making and part with the public 
enterprise. It is hard to run them that way, I understand that. That is 
why many of us decided that we will try to get them in the direction of 
helping low income people, but given the pull of profit, some of what 
we should do is to take a piece of the profit and put it directly into 
affordable housing.

[[Page H5440]]

  That is why we have a hybrid solution dealing with a hybrid. That is 
why I hope the amendment is defeated.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  To the point of the chairman, I am a little bit confused. He said 
that I have repeated his position four times differently. I have only 
been on the microphone three times now. But I am also confused on his 
position as to whether or not there really is an MTI, a mortgage tax 
increase, because initially he said it is going to be on the homeowners 
and it is not going to be on the stockholders. Now he says that money 
is fungible so it really can come from either place.
  So, at the end of the day, I guess my original assertion was that 
there is an MTI, there is a mortgage tax increase, because they can 
come from the homeowners.
  From the gentleman from Georgia, when he says there is a cross-
subsidization from the larger portfolio, I would like to see the 
evidence of that. The evidence that we heard in committee on that point 
was from Chairman Bernanke and from the studies was there was not that 
cross-subsidization, and that in fact all the benefit comes not to the 
homeowners, the benefit comes to who? It comes to the shareholders.
  In fact, under Chairman Bernanke's testimony, it would be better if 
the portfolios would be limited to this. Why? Because then they would 
do better than what the gentleman from Louisiana said, there is a 
fractional amount of work they are doing as far as helping the low 
income homeowners, and instead they would be holding those in their 
portfolios, those mortgages, as he said ``difficult to securitize.'' 
That would help out. That is giving real juice to the low and moderate 
income homeowner.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that under the 5-
minute rule, the Members recognized may not yield specific amounts of 
time to be enforced by the Chair, but rather must reclaim their time as 
they see fit.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I tried to listen 
carefully to my friend from Georgia, his comments. I am not going to 
follow with the juice analogy and I don't care to put words in his 
mouth, but what I think I heard was he described the gentleman from New 
Jersey's amendment as perhaps the worst one that had been offered this 
evening, that would essentially gut the ability of Fannie and Freddie 
to achieve their affordable housing mission, or to achieve the mission 
that Congress has set up for them, and the gentleman is certainly 
entitled to his own opinion.
  But when it comes to the use of the portfolio holdings of Fannie and 
Freddie, which we know, number one, according to the last two, the 
present and the past Chairmen of the Federal Reserve, creates huge 
systemic risk to our economy, which ultimately can bring down housing 
opportunities for all.
  But if I could quote from a speech from Chairman Greenspan, who said, 
``The Federal Reserve Board has been unable to find any credible 
purpose for the huge balance sheets built by Fannie and Freddie other 
than the creation of profit through the exploitation of the market-
granted subsidy.''
  To paraphrase, ``Their purchase of their own or each other's 
mortgage-backed securities with their market-subsidized debt do not 
contribute usefully to the mortgage market liquidity, to the 
enhancement of capital markets in the United States, or to the lowering 
of mortgage rates for the homeowners.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much.
  Let's get this right now. Anybody with any just basic common sense of 
how our investment system works in this country knows that if this 
amendment were effected here, if you were to put this amendment on any 
other enterprise, to dictate to that enterprise that your portfolio 
must exist at the lower yielding end of returns, you know good and well 
that that is not going to be helpful to that enterprise.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am sure the 
gentleman from Georgia can get plenty of time from his side. All I am 
saying is the gentleman from Georgia is entitled to his own opinion, 
former Chairman Greenspan seems to have a different opinion of the use 
of the portfolio holdings in the housing mission. So in this particular 
case, I prefer to take the word of Chairman Greenspan and of Chairman 
Bernanke as opposed to my colleague from Georgia's expertise on the 
matter.
  These portfolios have nothing, nothing to do with their mission and 
have everything, everything to do with systemic risk. And if we are 
going to leave them in place, they ought to at least be dedicated, 
somehow dedicated, to low income housing purposes, which ostensibly is 
what the purposes of Fannie and Freddie were in the first place.
  Again, these are not operating, the GSEs are not operating in a 
competitive marketplace. They are operating in a government-sanctioned 
duopoly to where they have 80 percent of the market. There is not 
effective competition, there is not a check here, and we should approve 
the gentleman's amendment from New Jersey.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the chairman so that he can straighten 
out some of that misinformation on the other side.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, 
and I will yield to my friend from New Jersey after I have propounded a 
question.
  My position consistently today has been that it is not possible with 
absolute specificity to say an enterprise is paying for this out of 
this pot or that pot or the other pot. I do believe most of this will 
come from the shareholders.
  But people on the other side argue no, reducing the profitability by 
$500 million a year for both enterprises, levying 1.2 basis points on 
the portfolio, was going to raise the mortgage rates for the middle 
class. For people who believe that, I want them to explain to me how 
reducing the portfolio so substantially would not cost even more to the 
middle class?
  Again, Members said taking $500 million in profit, 1.2 basis points 
on the portfolio, would raise the rates on the middle class. I assume 
it doesn't do it specifically. It does it by reducing the profitability 
and inducing them to raise prices.
  Since it would reduce profitability by many multiples of the housing 
fund, why would it not have a much greater effect?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Well, it is a good question, but it was a 
question that was essentially raised during the committee and answered 
by Chairman Bernanke at the time.
  If Chairman Bernanke said, yes, there was with regard to the 
portfolios held by the GSEs a cross-subsidization of the market and 
therefore a benefit to the low and moderate income mortgages that they 
have, then the chairman's argument would be a correct one. But Chairman 
Bernanke did not say that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Excuse me, I am taking back my time to 
apologize for apparently not being clear in my question. I wasn't 
talking about cross-subsidization. Here is the point. I would have 
thought it was clearer, and I apologize for my inarticulateness.
  The argument was that by taking $500 million from profits, 1.2 basis 
points on the portfolio, we would be reducing profitability and 
inducing the enterprises to raise prices and therefore that would be a 
mortgage tax.
  The gentleman's amendment would reduce the profitability by far more 
than $500 million a year. It would be a far greater levy on them than 
1.2 basis points. Now, the mechanism by which they claim that the fund 
is a mortgage tax is that as you reduce their profitability, they are 
driven to raise prices and that will cost more.
  Now, it has nothing to do with cross-subsidy. Why does an amendment 
which would substantially reduce the profitability not have an even 
greater effect in terms of the middle class, who would not be 
benefiting from the portfolio, in raising what they have to pay?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind Members that the Member

[[Page H5441]]

who has the time decides whether to yield.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just yielded. I said I yield.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind the gentleman that it is 
the gentlewoman from California who has the time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize. I would ask the gentlelady 
to yield.
  Ms. WATERS. I am not likely to want to yield to him. I want you to 
finish this up.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Please yield.
  Ms. WATERS. If you insist.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do. I hope the Chair is happy.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair is trying to maintain order.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize. The gentlelady has yielded.
  Ms. WATERS. Reluctantly.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey has been yielded 
to by the gentlewoman from California.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. The gentleman, first of all, misstates the 
actual language of the underlying bill when he says that the housing 
fund is a tax on profits of the GSEs. It is not a tax simply on the 
profits of the GSEs. It is a tax of the overall activity.
  Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman.
  That is not what I said. I said reducing the profitability. I would 
ask the gentlewoman not to yield any further. We are not going to get 
an answer. I apologize for starting the whole thing.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to my good friend from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Just one final point, and I do believe 
that the gentleman was saying that it was a tax on the profits of the 
GSEs as opposed to that. But be that as it may, remember, to the point 
the gentleman from Georgia made, the GSEs, even with this amendment, 
would still be allowed to securitize those larger loans.
  This doesn't preclude them from doing that. It simply says that they 
should not be holding them in their portfolios, whereas the gentleman 
from Texas reiterated the point of Chairman Bernanke, that raises the 
overall risk to the overall functioning of the GSEs.
  Finally, since they are able to continue to issue those large loans 
and therefore securitize those loans, the overall market of the GSEs is 
not hurt in one sense, and the profitability at the end of the day, as 
far as the money going to the low and moderate incomes, is not 
impacted.
  Low and moderate income families are benefited by this bill. 
Taxpayers are benefited by this bill inasmuch as we reduce the risk of 
the GSEs on the one hand and we address and make sure that the GSEs 
return to their basic function of providing liquidity to the 
marketplace and providing access for low and moderate income housing in 
this country.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I commend the 
gentleman for his amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I followed this debate for several hours now, both here 
on the House floor and in my office, and what I sense is some people 
having a lot of fun at the expense of the least among us.
  In my State tonight, 75,000 people will go to sleep in a FEMA trailer 
that the United States Department of Health has ruled is a health 
hazard because they have carcinogens in them. They have formaldehyde in 
them. But it beats the heck out of sleeping in a Chevy Astro Van. It 
beats the heck out of sleeping on their mother-in-law's couch, if their 
mother-in-law has a couch.

                              {time}  2045

  In the State of Louisiana, there are 49,000 families who will go to 
sleep in a FEMA trailer. Down around Bayou La Batre, Alabama, another 
thousand; in Texas, another thousand. This isn't a joke. This is trying 
to help the least among us. That is why you see Mr. Baker trying to 
help this bill, and that is why you see me trying to help this bill. It 
is not a joke.
  We talk about we ought to be doing better things with this money. 
What is better than helping people who 2 years ago who were middle 
class, who had homeowners insurance, who got screwed by the insurance 
company and woke up to find out they were poor because they lost 
everything in one night and their insurance company didn't pay.
  No, I won't yield. You've had hours.
  And they can't get any housing built because the workers can't move 
is because there is no place for the workers to live to build the 
houses. And yes, it is still going on, for those of you who wonder.
  I am a U.S. Congressman. I am living in my third place since the 
storm. You all know what we make. We make lots of money. It's not that 
I can't afford one, there is none to get.
  I am a Congressman. If that is happening to me at my salary, what do 
you think is happening to a schoolteacher or a retired chief petty 
officer or a policeman or a fireman. I thought that was what we were 
about, was helping people.
  All of a sudden you are concerned about borrowing and where this 
money should go. It didn't bother you when you borrowed money from the 
communist Chinese. It didn't bother you for the past 12 years when you 
took money out of the Social Security trust fund. It bothers you now 
when we want to help the average Joes? Well, that bothers me.
  The chairman is exactly right. The same folks who say we should have 
no accountability of where the billions of dollars go in Iraq, all of a 
sudden, demand that this money that might help somebody who used to be 
an average Joe who now finds himself in a horrible situation, my God, 
you don't want to do that.
  Cut the games out. This is serious. This is about housing, a basic 
need. A basic need for our fellow Americans, not Iraqis. Our fellow 
Americans.
  I have sat here and watched this game go on for hours, and I have had 
enough. I think the people of America, if they are following this 
debate, they've had enough.
  It is time to move this bill. If you don't think it is a good idea to 
take the profits from this organization and ask that they be directed 
towards the housing needs of our fellow Americans, vote against the 
bill. But I happen to think that is a pretty good idea because I know 
guys who used to live in 6,000 square foot houses who are going to 
spend tonight in a FEMA trailer. Not because they want to, because they 
got screwed by their insurance company. They are still going to work. 
They can't find somebody to build a house.
  When you lose 60,000 houses overnight, it puts a heck of a strain on 
the system. And when the workers who want to come there and build those 
houses have no place to live, it makes it even worse. We are trying to 
address that. These are real needs for real people.
  You've made whatever political points you want to make to your 
constituency, but now it is time to move on and help our fellow 
Americans.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey to 
respond, I would say that, as has been pointed out earlier, this 
Congress has already provided some $3 billion in housing relief, and I 
have an amendment coming up that would put the first year's funding 
into Hurricane Katrina relief for housing.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. People keep talking about $3 billion for 
Katrina. There was no housing construction fund in the hurricane bill. 
If that is meant to be construction, it is simply not the case. We put 
vouchers into the hurricane bill, but there was not $3 billion in any 
housing construction in the Katrina bill.
  Mr. FEENEY. Reclaiming my time, my amendment up next, will help 
veterans in the long run, and in the short run will go to Hurricane 
Katrina relief.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Florida and the 
gentleman from Mississippi, although I cringe when Members on the

[[Page H5442]]

other side of the aisle characterize what our motivation is and our 
interest in these things.
  I wonder whether the gentleman from Mississippi heard the gentleman 
from Louisiana speak about the dismal job that the GSEs have done so 
far with regard to what I believe both of us agree should be their 
intention which is to provide for low and moderate-income housing, such 
as the gentleman from Mississippi was talking about. A dismal job.
  Part of the reason they do that dismal job, their explanation is, 
these loans, some of these loans are difficult to securitize. If you 
can't securitize the loans, they are not going to take them. That is 
their record. The numbers were given before that they hold in their 
portfolio. A very small percentage of these type of loans, which is the 
type of loans that the gentleman from Mississippi was talking about 
holding.
  All this amendment does is this. It says GSEs, you are supposed to be 
doing everything the gentleman from Mississippi says we should be 
doing, and that is providing for housing for low and moderate-income 
individuals. You are not doing a good job right now. We are going to 
focus your attention on it. If you are having a problem securitizing 
these lower loans, fine, don't securitize them, but hold them in your 
portfolio and make that the crux of your business. Your business should 
not be, as it has been in the past, simply making larger profits than 
normal, the raises and salaries given to the top executives. Your 
business is helping the people in Mississippi and Louisiana.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas:
       Page 130, strike lines 6 through 11 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(i) The allocation percentage for the Louisiana Housing 
     Finance Agency shall be 45 percent.
       ``(ii) The allocation percentage for the Mississippi 
     Development Authority shall be 18.333 percent.
       ``(iii) The allocation percentage for the Alabama Housing 
     Finance Authority shall be 18.333 percent.
       ``(iv) The allocation for the Texas Department of Housing 
     and Community Affairs shall be 18.333 percent.''.
       Page 149, lines 16 and 17, strike ``and the Mississippi 
     Development Authority'' and insert the following: ``, the 
     Mississippi Development Authority, the Alabama Housing 
     Finance Authority, and the Texas Department of Housing and 
     Community Affairs''.

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support the affordable housing 
trust fund. Why, because I believe at some point on the infinite 
continuum that we know as time, I will have to account for my time. And 
at that point when I have to explain what I did for the least, the 
last, and the lost, I will be able to say I supported clothing the 
naked, I supported feeding the hungry, and I supported shelter for the 
homeless.
  At a time when we are spending $353 million a day on the war, what 
did you do, Al? I stood before the House and I requested that we 
support an affordable housing trust fund.
  In a country where every day we have millionaires, in fact one of 
every 110 persons in this country is a millionaire. The question 
becomes what did you do when you had a chance to help the least, the 
last and the lost.
  So today, I stand here to say I will try to help the least in 
Alabama. In Alabama, where we need an additional $146 million to $164 
million to help Alabama recover from Katrina and Rita. In Texas, where 
we need an additional $1.5 billion, I support an affordable housing 
trust fund to get the job done.
  So, Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple one. My amendment would 
not only recognize that Louisiana and Mississippi have been harmed. My 
amendment also recognizes that Katrina and Rita have done damage in 
Texas and Alabama. And my amendment would also allow funds to go to 
these two States as well. Forty-five percent of the funds would go to 
Louisiana, and the remaining funds would be divided equally among 
Mississippi, Alabama and Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There has literally been no Member of the House who has been more 
dedicated to helping those who are in trouble than the gentleman from 
Texas. He represents a community that is a model community: Houston.
  We don't always show neighborliness in reaching out to others. The 
city of Houston, its mayor, its congressional delegation, its citizens, 
its police department, has known an extraordinary degree of compassion 
for fellow human beings in trouble. There are few examples in this 
country's history of one community reaching out as generously as the 
people of Houston have to the people who were forced to evacuate the 
gulf, particularly Louisiana.
  The gentlewoman from California and I listened to the gentleman from 
Texas, and we put some language into the bill that we did last time on 
the hurricane.
  On this one, at this point I would ask the gentleman to withdraw his 
amendment. We appreciate what has gone on. The destruction was greater 
in Mississippi and Louisiana. There are still unmet needs in Texas. We 
appreciate that. We have done something, and I acknowledge we have not 
done enough.
  I promise the gentleman, we will continue to work with him to that 
end, but we have commitments in terms of the physical reconstruction to 
go to these two States.
  There will be further years in this bill. Texas continues, 
particularly Houston, to have a big claim on us, and we will continue 
to try to work with the gentleman to try to resolve it, but we hope not 
to do it in a kind of zero-sum situation.
  Mr. BAKER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Baker).
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy. I will be very 
brief. I know your time is limited.
  I just wish to express to you on behalf of the Louisiana delegation, 
our appreciation to you, your constituents, the city of Houston, and 
Texas, for your outstanding generosity and assistance. We hope to 
continue those feelings by having you leave our money alone.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. I also 
thank the ranking member, Maxine Waters, for her efforts. I thank my 
chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all you have done to help the least, the 
last and the lost. I assure you, I look forward to working with you as 
we continue on this journey.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman's amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word just to acknowledge the graciousness of the gentleman from Texas.
  We will continue to work with him. Houston is entitled to more help 
and it will get it. The only thing, I want to be partially modest. He 
said I have the least, the last and the lost. I have tried hard tonight 
to help the least and the last. But in my debates with the other side, 
I haven't been able to make much of an impression on the lost.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Bachus of Alabama.
  Amendment No. 29 by Mr. Hensarling of Texas.
  Amendment No. 14 by Mr. McHenry of North Carolina.
  Amendment No. 15 by Mr. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 27 by Mr. Roskam of Illinois.

[[Page H5443]]

  Amendment No. 17 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The subsequent votes, do I understand 
correctly, will be 2-minute votes, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. After the first vote, 
subsequent votes will be 2-minute votes.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Bachus

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Bachus) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148, 
noes 269, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 378]

                               AYES--148

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                               NOES--269

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baird
     Bordallo
     Burgess
     Clay
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Harman
     Hastert
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Lewis (KY)
     Maloney (NY)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Peterson (PA)
     Radanovich
     Shays

                              {time}  2125

  Messrs. ISRAEL, FERGUSON, ALEXANDER, DAVIS of Kentucky, YOUNG of 
Alaska, McCRERY, TIAHRT, WELLER of Illinois, LATHAM, FRELINGHUYSEN, 
YOUNG of Florida and Mrs. EMERSON changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER and Mr. HALL of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 253, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 379]

                               AYES--164

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert

[[Page H5444]]


     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--253

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baird
     Bordallo
     Burgess
     Clay
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Harman
     Hastert
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Lewis (KY)
     Maloney (NY)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Peterson (PA)
     Radanovich
     Shays


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 
minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2129

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. McHenry

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. McHenry) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 240, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 380]

                               AYES--176

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--240

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

[[Page H5445]]



                             NOT VOTING--21

     Baird
     Bordallo
     Burgess
     Clay
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Harman
     Hastert
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Maloney (NY)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Peterson (PA)
     Radanovich
     Shays


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 1 
minute remains in this vote.

                              {time}  2133

  Mr. GERLACH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Kanjorski

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154, 
noes 263, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 381]

                               AYES--154

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Akin
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frelinghuysen
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Rothman
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shimkus
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wu

                               NOES--263

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Keller
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Sali
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Watson
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baird
     Bordallo
     Burgess
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hobson
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Lewis (KY)
     Maloney (NY)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Peterson (PA)
     Radanovich
     Shays


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 1 
minute remains in this vote.

                              {time}  2138

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia and Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Roskam

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Roskam) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 245, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 382]

                               AYES--173

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)

[[Page H5446]]


     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--245

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Baird
     Bordallo
     Burgess
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Harman
     Hastert
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Lewis (KY)
     Maloney (NY)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Peterson (PA)
     Radanovich
     Shays


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 1 
minute remains in this vote.

                              {time}  2142

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


         Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Garrett) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 92, 
noes 322, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 383]

                                AYES--92

     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bono
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Graves
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--322

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H5447]]



                             NOT VOTING--23

     Baird
     Bordallo
     Burgess
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Harman
     Hastert
     Herger
     Hunter
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Lewis (KY)
     Maloney (NY)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Olver
     Peterson (PA)
     Radanovich
     Shays

                              {time}  2146

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I want to inform my 
colleagues that we expect no further votes tonight. We expect to 
proceed to completion of this bill tonight. All votes, further votes 
that are called for will be rolled and will be voted upon on Tuesday. 
But as long as the Members want to go tonight, we're going to go. We're 
going to finish this bill tonight.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I wish the gentleman would have said that 
last sentence a little less assertively.
  Mr. BLUNT. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I'd be glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. BLUNT. While the gentleman has the floor, could you give us an 
idea of what else to expect next week?
  Mr. HOYER. Well, we're coming back Monday. There will be votes at 
6:30. There'll be suspensions. On Monday the House will meet at 10:30 
a.m. for morning-hour business and noon for legislative business. We'll 
consider several bills under suspension of the rule as is usual. Notice 
of those bills will be given by the end of the week.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning hour business, 
10 a.m. for legislative business. We'll consider additional bills under 
suspension of the rules. A complete list, as I said, will be announced 
by the close of business tomorrow. On Wednesday and Thursday the House 
will meet at 10 a.m. We expect to consider H.R. 1100, the Carl Sandburg 
Home National Historic Site Boundary Provision, and H.R. 2316, Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act, and the conference report on the 
supplemental appropriations to fund Iraq, Katrina, veterans health and 
other matters.
  Mr. BLUNT. If the gentleman would further yield. Our Members, I 
think, in agreement with the gentleman's view on this, said we'd prefer 
to stay until this supplemental is done. And is that your inclination 
at this time?
  Mr. HOYER. It is our intention to pass the supplemental before we 
break for the Memorial Day Break, yes.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Feeney

  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Feeney:
       Line 16 on page 127, strike the dash and all that follows 
     through line 10 on page 128 and insert the following: ``to 
     provide housing assistance, in 2007, for areas affected by 
     Hurricane Katrina or Rita of 2005 and, after 2007, to provide 
     housing assistance for supported rental housing for disabled 
     homeless veterans.''.
       Page 130, lines 23 and 24, strike ``establish a formula to 
     allocate'' and insert the following: ``provide for the 
     allocation''.
       Page 131, line, 1 insert ``of'' before ``the''.
       Strike line 4 on page 131 and all that follows through line 
     2 on page 132 and insert the following:

     ``The funding shall be distributed to public entities and 
     allocated based on the formula used for the Continuum of Care 
     competition of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development.''
       Page 136, lines 7 through 9, strike ``For each year that a 
     grantee receives affordable housing fund grant amounts, the 
     grantee'' and insert ``Each grantee for 2007 that receives 
     affordable housing fund grant amounts''.
       Page 138, line 1, strike ``the'' and insert ``any''.
       Page 138, line 5, before the period insert ``, if 
     applicable''.
       Page 138, line 7, after ``grantee'' insert ``for 2007''.
       Page 140, after line 6 insert the following:

     ``Affordable housing fund grant amounts of a grantee for any 
     year after 2007 shall be eligible for use, or for commitment 
     for use, only for rental housing voucher assistance in 
     accordance with paragraph (19) of section 8(o) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(19).''.
       Page 140, line 22, strike ``or''.
       Page 140, line 25, after the semicolon insert ``or''.
       Page 140, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(E) administer voucher assistance described in the matter 
     in subsection (g) after and below paragraph (3);''.
       Page 142, line 3, strike ``each year'' and insert ``2007''.
       Page 142, line 10, strike ``each year'' and insert 
     ``2007''.
       Page 147, line 20, before ``the manner'' insert ``for each 
     grantee in 2007,''.
       Page 151, line 15, before ``requirements'' insert ``with 
     respect to affordable housing fund grant amounts for 2007,''.
       Page 153, strike lines 1 through 3 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(F) for the grantees for 2007, requirements and standards 
     for establishment, by the grantees, of per-''.

  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, picking up where we left off, we've had a 
considerable amount of debate about the affordable housing fund 
concerns that many of us in the minority party have about this fund. 
And I'm not going to put words in the chairman's mouth, as some people 
did. I promise not to do that to Chairman Frank.
  But there has been an ongoing debate from about 5 o'clock on about 
whether or not the affordable housing fund amounts to a tax. The truth 
of the matter is, government only gets money one of three ways. It 
either prints money, and there's nothing in this bill that tells the 
Treasury Department or the Mint to print any money. It borrows money, 
as in Treasury bonds, and nothing in this bill suggests that anybody's 
going to be repaid the $3 billion that the GAO says this will cost over 
the next 5 years. Clearly, the only other way government gets money is 
a tax. Whether we are taxing the shareholders, whether we are taxing 
ultimately the consumers of low income, middle income mortgages, or a 
combination of both, this is a tax.
  Now, the question is what to do with this tax money. A lot of us have 
concerns about the fact that we're going to dump this $3 billion into a 
fund that has not been created, does not have a specific mission, does 
not have guidelines and does not have any controlling organization or 
entity. It may turn out to be a wonderful way to spend $3 billion. But 
we are very concerned with what we see.
  I have fashioned a compromise here because some of the amendments on 
the minority side get rid of the fund or don't fund the fund. I 
actually fully fund the fund with the Feeney amendment. And we fund it 
to deal with housing issues for people that are needy. We've heard a 
lot of talk about lack of compassion for the needy.
  What my amendment does is to take the first year's $500 million plus 
and send it to the victims of Katrina. We heard passionately from the 
gentleman from Mississippi, from my friend from Louisiana about the 
needs in the aftermath of Katrina. We keep that funding in place in 
year one.
  But beyond that, in the balance of the years, what we do is to fund 
necessary housing for disabled American veterans. We use a system to 
make sure that disabled American veterans who are homeless have access 
to an opportunity to have a home and a place to live through rental 
assistance.
  I spoke to Secretary Nicholson today of the VA. He tells me that we 
estimate there are 195,000 homeless veterans. Many of those veterans 
are disabled, either mental disabilities that come from their battle 
scars, their battle wounds or physical disabilities. What better way to 
honor the commitment that the majority has made. We're going to deal 
with the truly needy in America. But also rest assured that we're going 
to be dealing with people that have earned the right to get housing 
assistance, than to suggest that after we take care of Katrina 
hurricane victims in year one, that we are going to take care of those 
veterans that are disabled, that are needy and that need a roof over 
their head.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend this as a compromise between the majority's 
compassion for the needy and the minority's concern that the trust fund 
that has not been established and has no guidelines may go wayward with 
this $3 billion.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, the author of the amendment clearly indicates he would 
like to kill the housing fund altogether. He voted to do that in 
several

[[Page H5448]]

ways. We had several votes to do that. We're going to have about 10 
votes on the same issue on this bill. I don't know, there's seven 
different ways to kill your lover. We have about 11 different ways to 
try to kill the affordable housing fund. Some of them contradict each 
other because they are joined only by the common opposition to the 
Federal Government constructing affordable housing. This bill continues 
that, this amendment, because the key change it makes is to strike the 
provision that says it will be used for the construction of affordable 
rental housing and says only vouchers. Now, the vouchers are useful as 
part of a balanced program. But the vouchers now have been, under the 
Republicans policy, annual vouchers. We haven't been able to change 
that yet. Maybe we will.
  Mr. FEENEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.
  Mr. FEENEY. Will the gentleman show me in my amendment where we refer 
to the voucher program? I would express to him our intent clearly is 
not to participate in the voucher. This is a new program.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will be glad to read to the gentleman 
his amendment, or at least the one that I have. Is this No. 16?
  Mr. FEENEY. It's a modification. With the permission of the chairman 
and unanimous consent, we have a modification.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. When did we get unanimous consent to 
modify? I don't remember hearing that request. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to make clear the amendment has 
not yet been modified.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I will then take back my time. The 
gentleman chides me apparently for telling the truth. I have the 
amendment as printed. I am reading the amendment. He says where in it 
is the voucher program? Here on page 2 on lines 2, 3 and 4. And it's 
not very arcane. Let me read it. Affordable housing fund grant amounts 
of a grantee for any year after 2007 shall be eligible for use or for 
commitment for use only for rental housing voucher assistance in 
accordance with paragraph 19.
  Now, I apologize to the gentleman for reading his amendment. I had 
previously to apologize to the gentleman from Illinois for reading his 
amendment. The gentleman corrected me incorrectly. I would like to go 
on and correct his incorrect correction before I again yield. The 
gentleman's purpose may be confusing to people, but I just want to be 
clear.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do not yield for the purposes of a 
parliamentary inquiry. Parliamentary inquiries are only done after the 
holder of the floor yields. And the fact is that I do want to make it 
clear I am reading the gentleman's amendment. It says only for 
vouchers, and that's why I said that. Now I will be glad to yield to 
him.
  Mr. FEENEY. Well, thank you. And when the gentleman had yielded 
previously, I had made a motion for unanimous consent to use the 
modified amendment which does not refer to the voucher program. And so 
I had made that motion and had not got a ruling.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I object.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has made a motion 
requiring unanimous consent.
  Objection is heard.
  Mr. FEENEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.
  Mr. FEENEY. Now we're back on the voucher program that the chairman 
has a problem with. But I still suggest that the voucher program is 
better than putting it back.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. I've yielded to the 
gentleman for varying explanations of his varying amendments. But I 
want to talk about the one we have. First of all, I do not give consent 
because we had a pre-filing deadline precisely so that we can study 
these things. They are somewhat complicated. I think having them come 
right off the top of people's heads, particularly at 10 o'clock at 
night, after we've debated the same issue about seven times, it's not a 
good idea to come up with something brand new.
  Here's the amendment. It says only vouchers, and it says it in 
several places, that it's for vouchers. And here's the problem with 
vouchers. He says it's still better than constructing housing. No, it 
is not, because a voucher program helps you compete for existing rental 
housing. But an annual voucher program, which is referenced in this 
bill, in this amendment, does not give you the ability to build new 
housing.
  In parts of this country there is a housing shortage, that's a 
problem. In the gulf it's a problem because the housing was destroyed. 
So when you only do vouchers and do not help build affordable housing, 
you run into that problem.
  Now, under our proposal, communities would have the ability to make 
choices. But what the gentleman says is in parts of the country where 
there is already a shortage of physical affordable housing, all his 
amendment would do would be to drive up the price by increasing the 
demand for it without in any way adding to the supply.
  Now the gentleman's apparently acknowledged the flaws in the 
amendment by trying to modify it after he had previously submitted it. 
I don't believe this kind of last minute changes ought to be made at 
this point. And so we are left with the flawed amendment.
  I understand the gentleman's desire to kind of disown it. But the 
fact is, it is what it is. And a voucher-only program does not add to 
affordable housing supply and that's what we need.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to get into the detail here that you 
have. We have an opportunity to utilize a fund that will help our 
disabled veterans and get many of them off the street.
  I would yield to the gentleman and ask him is that not yet a worthy 
cause.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, it is. And here's the point. And if 
the gentleman would yield to me. I do not think, and it says, disabled 
homeless veterans. I would agree between now and when we get to 
conference to give a first preference to disabled homeless veterans. I 
have two problems with this amendment. First of all, it is not clear 
that there are that many disabled homeless veterans to absorb 800 
million a year. If there are you could deal with it.
  But secondly, I do not think in many parts of the country, including 
my own, that if you only did vouchers you would be doing enough for 
them. I'd like to build some housing, some with supportive services. 
But I will give the gentleman my commitment that in the final bill we 
should be giving a very high preference to disabled homeless veterans.
  Mr. BUYER. Thank you very much. I reclaim my time. That's the 
commitment that I came to the floor here today knowing that yes, you 
wanted to create this trust fund and understanding whether or not there 
are any guidelines, your commitment to me to work with me and others 
who have an interest, that you'll give preference to homeless veterans, 
I take you at your word, Mr. Chairman, and I'll work with you.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. And the localities will have the ability 
to do it by voucher or by construction, including, as the gentleman 
well understands from his work, maybe places that have supportive 
housing as part of it. That would be an eligible use.
  Mr. BUYER. I rise here today to work with you as we go here and into 
conference.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


            Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H5449]]


       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       Page 144, after line 19, insert the following:
       ``(8) Acceptable identification requirement for occupancy 
     or assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any assistance provided with any 
     affordable housing grant amounts may not be made available 
     to, or on behalf of, any individual or household unless the 
     individual provides, or, in the case of a household, all 
     adult members of the household provide, personal 
     identification in one of the following forms:
       ``(i) Social security card with photo identification card 
     or real id act identification.--

       ``(I) A social security card accompanied by a photo 
     identification card issued by the Federal Government or a 
     State Government; or
       ``(II) A driver's license or identification card issued by 
     a State in the case of a State that is in compliance with 
     title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (title II of division B 
     of Public Law 109-13; 49 U.S.C. 30301 note).

       ``(ii) Passport.--A passport issued by the United States or 
     a foreign government.
       ``(iii) USCIS photo identification card.--A photo 
     identification card issued by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security (acting through the Director of the United States 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services).
       ``(B) Regulations.--The Director shall, by regulation, 
     require that each grantee and recipient take such actions as 
     the Director considers necessary to ensure compliance with 
     the requirements of subparagraph (A).''.

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the conversation 
that just went on and the gentleman from Florida's amendment and his 
desire to modify his amendment because I think it brings out the point 
clearly that this is, in fact, a closed rule and should be recognized 
as such by our colleagues and by the American people.
  This amendment I am offering, along with Representatives Capito and 
Campbell and Pearce, and I want to thank them for their leadership on 
this issue and urge my colleagues to look at this amendment carefully. 
This amendment would prevent illegal immigrants from owning or renting 
housing built by funds from the Affordable Housing Fund by requiring 
the adult occupants of that housing to establish their legal residency 
through the use of secure forms of identification.
  Across the country, whether it is Denver, where in 2006 there was an 
estimated 20,000 illegal immigrants holding FHA-insured loans, or L.A., 
where banks have begun offering them credit cards, clear reform and 
oversight is necessary.
  In some of these cases, like the FHA loans, the documents submitted 
with their applications to GSE are later proved to be false, resident 
alien numbers that have never been issued, Social Security numbers that 
belong to other people, and W-2 forms that are fabricated.
  In the case of financial institutions, minimal documents are required 
by their regulators to establish a new customer's identity to open 
accounts, and then after a few short months pass, banks are giving 
these illegal immigrants credit cards.
  So the current loopholes in Federal law are an invitation to illegal 
immigration, and we shouldn't reward those coming here illegally with 
the privilege of the services afforded to American citizens. This would 
clearly result in back-door amnesty.
  Our amendment would require the Director of the Federal Housing 
Finance Agency to ensure that any assistance provided from the 
Affordable Housing Fund should be for adults who are legal residents in 
the United States. Occupants of this housing may either use a foreign 
service or U.S. passport; a Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, 
photo ID card; or a Social Security card in conjunction with a State or 
Federal ID. These forms of identification are considered to be the most 
secure types of identification because they are harder to forge or to 
duplicate. They are all issued by a government agency which has more 
checks and balances against illegal immigrants, criminals, or 
terrorists from obtaining these documents.
  The current regulations to establish a customer's identity do a 
disservice to the American people. And I am confident that greater 
clarification in this area will help stem the tide of illegal aliens, 
which has been promoted due to a lack of clarity on this issue. The 
Federal Government should not be operated under obscure parameters that 
do not serve our Nation. We can strengthen these regulations to help 
protect America.
  The CBO estimates that over the period from 2008 to 2011 that the 
housing fund created by this bill will generate roughly $3 billion. 
This is not an insignificant amount of money, and that will be 
available to build new housing as a result of this legislation.
  To the best of our ability, we must eliminate the ability of someone 
here illegally to use new taxes from hardworking Americans to ``buy a 
home.'' That is not leadership and it is the wrong incentive.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject back-door amnesty for illegal 
immigrants and to support this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, to my distinguished friend from Georgia, whom we served 
in the legislature together there in Georgia, whom I respect greatly, 
but I have got to disagree with this amendment, with all due respect.
  First of all, we already have this in an accepted amendment by Mr. 
Boozman that requires that recipients of housing assistance under the 
bill's Affordable Housing Fund be able to demonstrate with sufficient 
evidence that they are lawfully present in the United States. That is 
sufficient. It is already in there.
  But let me just point out the real problems and the complexities with 
this REAL ID. First of all, the REAL ID Act would have States implement 
new standards, new technology, and new procedures for processing and 
approving driver's license applications by May of 2008. On March 1 the 
Department of Homeland Security issued 162 pages of proposed REAL ID 
regulations acknowledging this one undeniable fact, that compliance by 
May 2008 would be in their statement an ``impossible task.'' So we 
could not even do it. By the time the comment period closed last week, 
the Department of Homeland Security had received over 12,000 comments 
opposing what the gentleman from Georgia is talking about. The proposed 
cost for the states, by DHS's own estimation, would be $23.1 million 
that would be added if the gentleman from Georgia's idea would be 
incorporated. Only $40 million has been appropriated so far, an amount 
that wouldn't even begin to cover the costs in one State alone, which 
would be, let's say, Maine, where the estimate for compliance there is 
$180 million.
  The astronomical cost of this mandate is not our only concern with 
the gentleman from Georgia's amendment. REAL ID requires that States 
would have to link their DMF databases with every other State in the 
Union, raising major concerns about privacy issues and security risks 
of a nationwide interoperable system.
  The amendment by the gentleman from Georgia may be well intended, but 
it would throw our entire system on top of its head and would not even 
begin to even deal with this issue that is already being dealt with in 
a more appropriate way by Mr. Boozman's amendment, which has been 
accepted. We have got to ensure that all of our identity documents are 
secure, but REAL ID will not work in its current form. We need to bring 
together DHS, DOT, States, and experts in privacy, civil liberties, 
constitutional rights to establish national standards that will protect 
both our national security and the privacy of American citizens. This 
amendment would not deal with that, so we must urge everyone to oppose 
it.
  Finally, my point is that immigration is, indeed, a big issue. It is 
a complex issue, and we are going to deal with that. But, again, you 
have tried it with the veterans. You have tried it with the debt. You 
tried it with restricting portfolios. You have even tried to tie it to 
Social Security and the veterans. And now you are trying to tie this 
immigration fight onto this simple program to try to bring some 
affordable housing to the most needy people that need it in our country 
and especially those that have been devastated from the hurricanes down 
in Louisiana and in Mississippi.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment. Vote ``no'' on the 
gentleman from Georgia's amendment.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I thank both gentlemen from Georgia for their work, either plus or 
against this amendment.
  I offer to support the amendment tonight, have helped cosponsor it. I 
appreciate the work that the gentleman from Georgia has done.

[[Page H5450]]

  Mr. Chairman, our amendment simply requires secure forms of 
identification. It can be any form. It can be a foreign passport, a 
U.S. passport. It can be a Citizenship and Immigration Services photo 
ID card, a Social Security card with some State or Federal ID.
  These secure forms of identification are relatively easy for legal 
residents and citizens to accomplish and to acquire. They are 
relatively difficult for illegals to acquire. So I think that the 
gentleman's amendment is very appropriate.
  We are finding that more and more services that should go to legal 
American citizens are being soaked up by those who come here illegally. 
In the Second District of New Mexico, we are on the southern border of 
the United States bordering Mexico, and I will tell you that our 
hospitals are overwhelmed. Good tax-paying citizens come to me and ask 
why is it that one's daughter whose husband and she make $30,000 or 
$40,000 a year just paid $5,000 to have a baby and the girl in the bed 
next to her got it for free?
  We are finding that this is the case over and over. And so requiring 
this fund to establish some sort of legality, some sort of legal 
residency or citizenship is not an onerous burden, and in fact it is 
one that most Americans would expect that we would accomplish.
  I will tell you that the underlying bill, in establishing one of the 
trust funds, is a very problematic situation. We heard the left declare 
when they came into power in this Congress that they would spend the 
profits of companies like Exxon, and now we are seeing them actually 
reach down and pluck those profits away, put them into a fund, and with 
no discretion, no declaration of how those funds are to be spent. I 
don't think that is what Americans want.
  And just so we understand the real process, this same technique of 
establishing funds that simply appear in the authorization bills is 
also accomplished in H.R. 6 and the Hardrock Mining bill. Those 
attempts to reach out and take money from corporations to spend it 
because the left declared that to be their intent when they came to 
power in this House of Representatives.
  So my friends, I would suggest that making a requirement for U.S. 
citizenship is not too much.
  I would say also we have received a lecture tonight about hypocrisy, 
we on the Republican side. I would comment that just earlier today we 
have heard promises from the other side that they were not going to 
have secret votes to increase the debt limit, and yet even today almost 
$1 trillion in debt limit was increased without a vote, without the 
transparency that we were promised. We were promised under the new 
majority earmark reform, and within the last couple of weeks we have 
seen a little $23 million earmark slid into the bottom of a bill with 
no ability to even comment about it.
  We were told that we are going to protect the American soldiers, and 
yet we see funding mechanisms that take money from the operational 
troops and placed only for training.
  So my friends, when we are told to trust us, that we will create this 
fund and we will write the specifications later, I say in New Mexico we 
have a saying ``trust your neighbor but brand your cows.''
  This bill with the Affordable Housing Fund is no cow. It is mostly 
bull. But we had still better brand it and watch for what we are doing.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I also want to strike a few misconceptions. First, the gentleman 
quite inaccurately said that the money here is authorized with no 
direction about how it is spent. The only money that will be spent if 
the bill becomes law, unless there is further action by the Congress of 
the United States, is the money that will go to Mississippi and 
Alabama, and the bill is quite clear that that will go to the States of 
Mississippi and Alabama. No further expenditures will be authorized 
until a second bill goes forward describing how they will be done. So 
the bill does describe how they will be done for Mississippi and 
Alabama. And, yes, there will be a second bill that will, we believe, 
describe how this money will be spent.
  Secondly, he said we are reaching down to corporations like Exxon and 
taking their money. Well, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are very different 
than other corporations. They are federally chartered and have very 
specific Federal advantages. So, no, there is not an analogy between 
directing them and, in fact, other corporations, as was recognized, for 
instance, by Secretary Jackson of HUD as he began to criticize them for 
not doing enough in their affordable housing goals.

                              {time}  2215

  But the more important issue I have to say, Mr. Chairman, is I am 
somewhat puzzled by the, I don't know if it's a clash of egos or what, 
the inability of people on the other side to coordinate.
  There were four separate amendments that seek to do exactly the same 
thing. Yes, we agree; people who are in the country illegally should 
not be the beneficiaries of this program. In fact, we accepted the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) who says 
that very clearly. It does say that you can't be here unless you are 
here legally, and says that the director shall issue requirements 
calling for sufficient evidence to show that. Now, one difference 
between that amendment and this one is this one gets people back into 
the controversy over the REAL ID Act. That was controversial when 
passed. A number of States, governors and legislatures have expressed 
disagreement.
  Now, we already have accepted into the bill the amendment of the 
gentleman from Arkansas to deal with the question of keeping out people 
who are here illegally. Three other amendments, I guess people all want 
to get credit for the same thing, but one of the things they do is to 
get into the REAL ID Act.
  So Members should understand that in voting for this amendment, you 
will be going beyond simply keeping people out of this program who are 
here illegally; we've already accepted an amendment directing that that 
be done. Instead, you will be getting the privilege of getting back 
into the controversy of the REAL ID Act. If you come from a State where 
that's not popular, then you get a chance to vote for it unnecessarily, 
since we already have the restriction.
  Mr. Chairman, I will now yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would point out that the REAL ID Act is not the only source of 
documents, that people who are here illegally should have some sort of 
U.S.--
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will take back my time to 
say yes, that's true. That is why the gentleman from Arkansas' 
amendment, which was adopted, sets forward the requirements.
  This does mention the REAL ID Act. It is an affirmation of the REAL 
ID Act. It doesn't say it's the only way. But Members should 
understand, in adding this to what we have already accepted from the 
gentleman from Arkansas, what Members will be doing will be getting a 
chance to, once again, tell their State they may have a problem. Yes, 
we like the REAL ID Act and you've got to stick with the REAL ID Act. I 
don't understand why Members would want to reintroduce that controversy 
when we already have accepted an amendment that says there shall not be 
anybody in here who is not here legally. And it says, ``Regulations, as 
the director shall issue, setting forth requirements for sufficient 
evidence that they are lawfully present in the United States.''
  So we have an amendment that has been accepted that will be part of 
the bill if it becomes law that says you must, according to the 
director, be able to show, the gentleman said there are various ways to 
do it. Now, this bill gets more specific and it gives some examples, 
including, they said, the REAL ID Act. And I don't think all the 
Members are eager once again to take a position about the REAL ID Act 
in the face of a lot of opposition from governors and legislatures when 
exactly the same purpose has been identified here.
  You know, people used a cliche before, everybody's entitled to his 
own opinion, but everybody's not entitled to his own facts. But I guess 
on the Republican side, the rule is everybody is entitled to his own 
amendment on a popular issue, because we have four identically on this. 
We had 11 on the fund. We have six on something else.

[[Page H5451]]

  Now, far be it from me to try to get them to coordinate, but we're 
going to be here for a couple more hours mostly debating amendments 
that were offered by people on the same subject of a previous 
amendment, some of which were offered because somebody didn't get the 
credit for it. So maybe this isn't the REAL ID Act, it's the ``Real-
Credit-For-Me Act.'' And we already have in the bill, as I said, an 
amendment that accomplishes this purpose.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Certainly the distinguished chairman would want to make sure that 
anybody that got any of the funds from this housing fund would want to 
make sure that they are United States citizens. We would never want to 
deprive a United States citizen the ability to get homeownership at the 
expense of someone who is here in this country illegally.
  And someone was talking about this as being an immigration bill. 
Immigration is about a legal process. We are talking about someone who 
has committed an illegal process.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns that have been voiced from 
the other side, but in fact, they are not legitimate concerns. We've 
heard a lot about the REAL ID Act. We're not debating the REAL ID Act. 
What we are debating is the requirement of specific pieces of 
identification in order to be eligible for these loans.
  As the gentleman from New Mexico stated over and over, the Social 
Security card with photo identification works, a driver's license 
works, a passport works, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
works. So we are not debating the REAL ID Act.
  We've heard from a couple of gentlemen on the other side of the aisle 
that this has already been adopted in the amendment that was accepted 
by the gentleman from Arkansas. And although we appreciate the 
magnanimous nature of the chairman, in fact, this is a significantly 
different amendment because it provides specificity to the documents 
that would be required.
  If the chairman truly believes that the director or a regulatory body 
makes certain that individuals are here legally, then I would suggest 
that the gentleman look at the issue of the ability to gain access to 
credit from illegals in many areas across this Nation with banks that 
are indeed regulated. And they are regulated with the same kind of 
language that says that you ought not provide credit to individuals who 
are here illegally.
  So I would urge my colleagues to appreciate and understand that 
greater clarification, greater specificity in the documents that ought 
to be required should be accepted. I think it's a commonsense 
amendment. I appreciate my colleagues for supporting it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman from Texas yield to 
me?
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I do agree that it should only be--
the gentleman didn't mean citizens, because it means citizens or lawful 
immigrants. Yes, I agree. That is why I supported the amendment from 
the gentleman from Arkansas.
  I would say the other language that the gentleman from Georgia was 
talking about does not have this direction. It directs the director to 
require sufficient evidence that they are lawfully present in the 
United States. Yes, I do think some flexibility is there.
  And while the gentleman from Georgia wants to back away from the REAL 
ID Act, if you vote for his amendment, you are once again reaffirming 
the REAL ID Act and saying only drivers licenses from those States are 
good, and it specifically gives very great prominence to the REAL ID 
Act, as opposed to telling the director, with some flexibility as 
things change, to accomplish the same goal.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Reclaiming my time, I yield to my good friend from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We are not trying to engage the REAL ID Act at all, what we are 
trying to engage is a situation that exists right here in Arlington 
County, Virginia, the immigration status of applicants for local 
housing subsidies is not checked. Illegal immigrants are allowed to 
receive taxpayer-funded rent assistance. That is the thing that we are 
trying to address.
  Also, the chairman says that somehow these firms are not the same as 
other firms that get profits. The truth is that they were commissioned 
as government-sponsored enterprises, but then the government 
sponsorship was pulled away. They are simply for-profit businesses. The 
government does not anymore, and if the gentleman from Texas will 
yield, are you saying that the government still backs up, with full 
faith and credit of the United States Government, to the transactions 
of these----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No. I did not say that, never have. But I 
have said that there are a number of links, and everybody except the 
gentleman from New Mexico, apparently agrees that government-sponsored, 
enterprises, we do many things to them that we wouldn't do to a purely 
private corporation. They have a line of credit, they have a 
supervisory board. There is no OFEHO for private corporations. So, no; 
we treat them very differently, because they continue to be linked to 
the government, than other corporations in a variety of ways, including 
giving them housing goals, having OFEHO set up, giving them a line of 
credit and doing other things. They are subject to many more 
restrictions than a purely private corporation.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Reclaiming my time, I yield again to the gentleman 
from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. I would point out that one similarity, that we are 
willing to treat them similar with for-profit businesses is reach down 
and extract profits away from them in the way that we're going to do 
under the Hard Rock Mining Act, and the way we are going to do under 
H.R. 6. And then these three assistances, and I suspect more instances 
than this, we are actually fulfilling a promise of the left to take the 
profits of large companies and spend it. And that to me is an 
abomination in this free enterprise society.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Weiner). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Sessions:
       Page 100, after line 17, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 136. COST INCREASE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR MORTGAGES 
                   OF REGULATED ENTITIES.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part 2 of subtitle A of title 
     XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 
     U.S.C. 4541 et seq.), as amended by the preceding provisions 
     of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 1330. COST INCREASE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR 
                   MORTGAGES OF REGULATED ENTITIES.

       ``(a) Limitation.--The Director shall by regulation 
     establish standards, and shall enforce compliance with such 
     standards, that--
       ``(1) prohibit the enterprises from the purchase, service, 
     holding, selling, lending on the security of, or otherwise 
     dealing with any mortgage on a one- to four-family residence 
     that does not meet the requirements under subsection (b); and
       ``(2) prohibit the Federal home loan banks from providing 
     any advances to a member for use in financing, and from 
     accepting as collateral for any advance to a member, any 
     mortgage on a one- to four-family residence that does not 
     meet the requirements under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Disclosure Requirements.--The requirements under this 
     subsection with respect to a mortgage are that, before or at 
     settlement on the mortgage, the mortgagor

[[Page H5452]]

     is provided a written disclosure in such form as the Director 
     shall require, clearly stating the dollar amount by which the 
     requirements on the enterprises to make allocations under 
     section 1337(b) to the affordable housing fund established 
     under section 1337(a), if borne by mortgagors on a pro rata 
     basis, could have increased the amount to be paid under the 
     mortgage by the mortgagor over the entire term of the 
     mortgage (in comparison with such amount paid absent such 
     requirements), as determined in accordance with the 
     determination of the Director pursuant to section 1337(o) for 
     the applicable year.''.
       (b) Fannie Mae.--Section 304 of the Federal National 
     Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1719) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Prohibition Regarding Disclosure Requirement.--
     Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize the 
     corporation to purchase, service, hold, sell, lend on the 
     security of, or otherwise deal with any mortgage that the 
     corporation is prohibited from so dealing with under the 
     standards issued under section 1330 of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1992 by the Director of the 
     Federal Housing Finance Agency.''.
       (c) Freddie Mac.--Section 305 of the Federal Home Loan 
     Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1454) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Prohibition Regarding Disclosure Requirements.--
     Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize the 
     Corporation to purchase, service, hold, sell, lend on the 
     security of, or otherwise deal with any mortgage that the 
     Corporation is prohibited from so dealing with under the 
     standards issued under section 1330 of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1992 by the Director of the 
     Federal Housing Finance Agency.''.
       (d) Federal Home Loan Banks.--Section 10(a) of the Federal 
     Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1430(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) Prohibition regarding disclosure requirements.--
     Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize a Federal 
     Home Loan Bank to provide any advance to a member for use in 
     financing, or accept as collateral for an advance under this 
     section, any mortgage that a Bank is prohibited from so 
     accepting under the standards issued under section 1330 of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 by the 
     Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.''.
       Page 144, after line 19, insert the following:
       ``(8) Use of amounts for costs of required mortgage 
     disclosures.--Of the amount allocated pursuant to subsection 
     (b) in each year to the affordable housing fund, the Director 
     shall set aside the amount necessary to cover any costs to 
     lenders, mortgagees, and other entities of making disclosures 
     required under section 1330, and shall use such amounts to 
     reimburse lenders, mortgagees, and other entities for such 
     costs. The Director shall by regulation provide for lenders, 
     mortgagees, and other entities to apply for such 
     reimbursements and to identify such costs.''.
       Page 153, after line 14, insert the following:
       ``(o) Determination of Cost Increases.--For each year 
     referred to in section 1337(b)(1), the Director shall make a 
     determination, taking into account the results of the study 
     conducted pursuant to section 139(d) of the Federal Housing 
     Finance Reform Act of 2007, if available, and the amount of 
     allocations made under section subsection (b) of this section 
     to the affordable housing fund established under subsection 
     (a), of the amount by which the requirements on the 
     enterprises to make such allocations have increased the 
     amount to be paid by mortgagors under mortgages for one- to 
     four-family residences over the entire terms of such 
     mortgages in comparison with such amount to be paid absent 
     such requirements, expressed as an increased cost per $1,000 
     financed under a mortgage. The Director shall make such 
     determination for each such year publicly available and shall 
     provide for dissemination of such determination to lenders, 
     mortgagees, and other entities incurring costs of making 
     disclosures required under section 1330.''.
       Page 153, line 15, strike ``(o)'' and insert ``(p)''.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will provide useful 
information to middle-class home buyers about the real cost of the $2.5 
billion stealth tax included in this legislation, and how it will 
affect these consumers' wallets.
  The amendment requires that the director of the Federal Housing 
Finance Agency will determine how much the new tax created by this 
housing fund will increase total costs for home buyers whose mortgages 
are purchased by housing GSEs.
  This information would then be disclosed to the home buyer at or 
before closing for these mortgages to qualify for future GSE purchase. 
To ensure that it does not create a costly regulatory burden for 
mortgage originators, the amendment also provides that additional costs 
created by this new disclosure requirement would be paid for by the 
Housing Fund.
  I believe that if we are going to pass a new stealth $2.5 billion tax 
on the middle class to pay for affordable housing, then Congress 
should, at the very least, be up front about the true cost of this fund 
with those who are being asked to foot the bill.
  My amendment simply provides for transparencies for consumers about 
the true cost of this new government mandate. I would encourage all my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, a consistent fact about the free market is that new 
taxes to build big government programs are always passed on to the 
consumer. The Housing Fund created by this legislation raids the 
portfolios of the GSEs for funding. And the GSEs in turn, you guessed 
it, have to pass the increased costs associated with compliance with 
this new Federal mandate along to the middle-class home buyers in the 
conforming loan bracket.
  I think it is bad public policy to tie the fate of families that need 
housing support to the success or failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac's portfolios, as this Housing Fund does. I think that it is bad 
policy to discourage middle-class home buyers from achieving their 
American Dream of homeownership by creating a new $2.5 billion stealth 
tax.
  But I think it is absolutely awful public policy to pass this stealth 
tax and not let consumers know how their pockets are being picked to 
fund this new big government program brought to us as the courtesy of 
the Democrat majority in Congress.
  I encourage all my Members to support this amendment to provide 
transparency and funding for the Housing Fund.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I have been reading the amendment. And the first part of the 
amendment really does exactly what the bill does, it tells the director 
to set up some guidelines, and that is what the director is authorized 
to do under this bill. So that's not troublesome.
  But then you get to page 2 of the amendment, and then you have the 
requirement that there be a settlement procedure which is duplicative 
of the settlement procedure that already exists under law. You have the 
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act already in place. There is going to be a 
separate set of disclosures now related to this. And then the gentleman 
has the nerve to say that we are creating a bureaucracy and adding 
costs to the closing process.

                              {time}  2230

  I, for the life of me, can't understand why this would be a good 
idea.
  The first part of the amendment is fine, because that is what the 
bill is all about. But it is already in the bill. Why would you have 
two disclosures, two sets of disclosures? We have had hearing after 
hearing after hearing about how to simplify the disclosure process at 
closings. Mr. McHenry from my own State offered an amendment to the 
bill in committee that tried to put forth a one-page disclosure 
statement, and here we are now with you all telling us we ought to have 
a second set of disclosures at a closing under this trust fund. It is 
inconsistent, and it is obvious what this is about, is to throw every 
stumbling block in the way that you can to discourage the trust fund.
  We had an amendment earlier that was defeated in the last series of 
votes. Mr. Bachus offered the amendment, the ranking member of the full 
committee, that would have stripped the trust fund out of the bill. You 
lost that amendment. You lost that amendment. To go every other 
conceivable way to try to do identically what the overwhelming majority 
of this House has already said it is not willing to do seems to me to 
be counterproductive.
  Let me just address one other issue. Mr. Price from Georgia raised 
this earlier. We have to at some point say, look, we have had more open 
rules out of committee under Chairman Frank's chairmanship this year 
than all of the last 8 years in this House, and at some point the 
notion that we can continue to bring bills to the floor under open 
rules when we have 15 different amendments that essentially say the 
same thing over and over again, and then

[[Page H5453]]

have one of your Members get up and say, well, because one of your 
Members was not allowed to amend his faulty amendment it is not an open 
rule, it is insulting to the Chair of this committee and it is 
insulting to this institution.
  So this is yet another example to do what was failed to be done in 
the ranking member's amendment, and I ask my colleagues to defeat it 
once again.


                  announcement by the acting chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all Members to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
do thank the gentleman from North Carolina. So that he is aware, this 
is unlike any of the other amendments.
  This is very straightforward. It offers an opportunity for consumers 
to see straight up exactly what those costs are that are being passed 
to them. There is no duplication. There is nothing about this amendment 
or about the reporting process that would be duplicative. It would be 
straightforward, and it would be full transparency.
  As I recall it, just a few weeks ago the new Democrat majority was 
intensely interested in making sure that every single person who was a 
shareholder would have transparency and understanding about the 
compensation of executives, in the best interests of shareholders.
  Now, here we are talking about middle class home buyers who are 
attempting to understand, to know what costs they are to pay for, 
whether there is a FedEx package, if there is a notary charge. We are 
trying to make sure that this money, which would add up to be about 
$2.5 billion over a short period of time that would be passed to them, 
they would simply have a statement of exactly what that charge was for.
  I think this is good government. I think it is transparency. I do not 
find any way that it is duplicative. I do not find where there is 
necessarily additional work. It would be paid for by the fund. The fund 
that we are saying tonight we are supportive of would simply need to 
make sure that it becomes transparent to those people who will be 
paying the money.
  I think if you checked out of any restaurant, if you checked out of 
any store, that you would want to know what you paid for. There would 
be a line item for it. That is what we are asking for. This is really 
not very confusing. It makes the bill a little bit better.
  It provides transparency. In my opinion, that is still what Congress, 
both sides, Republicans and Democrats, should strive for, if middle 
class taxpayers are having to pay for it. I think it makes sense.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about this amendment very, very briefly, 
but just prior to getting to that, I wanted to make a very, very 
important point about the previous amendment, because I think it is 
very, very important for the record to reflect, for there was denial 
about the REAL ID Act and its implications on the gentleman from 
Georgia's amendment.
  It is very important that I read the language in the bill, in the 
amendment, that the gentleman from Georgia had previous to this.
  It says on page 2, starting at line 3, that a driver's license or 
identification card issued by a State, a State that is in compliance 
with title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005, title II of division B of 
Public Law 109-13; 49 USC 30301 note.
  That is the language that is in the bill. The REAL ID is in the bill. 
Now, it is there. This is the amendment. This is what we are voting 
for. The REAL ID is in the language.
  Now I want to spend the remainder of my time on the gentleman from 
Texas' amendment. Let us talk about your amendment, the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Sessions.
  That disclosure that you are requiring, you must admit first of all 
it is a highly speculative cost. Number two, it does not provide a 
benefit to consumers. It will add another disclosure to an already 
cumbersome settlement process, further confusing the homeowners and the 
home buyers. Again, these are basically poor people who we are trying 
to help who have been victims of a hurricane. We are also going to, in 
the process after that first year, apply it to States so that they can 
apply their own criterion.
  But, Mr. Sessions, where your amendment really causes a problem is in 
the broader community of the housing financial market. For example, 
your amendment would also make it difficult for a Federal Home Loan 
Bank, for example, to make advances or loans to a community bank member 
based on a blanket lien on the bank's overall mortgage portfolio, thus 
raising mortgage costs. These community banks depend on these advances 
to provide home buyers with competitive credit.
  So, again, in each of the previous amendments, I cannot understand 
for the life of me why the Republicans want to so overreach to 
basically undermine the entire housing financial market just to get at 
this one small effort to help low income people get relief and get some 
assistance in becoming homeowners, in the rental capacity as well as 
the construction of new homes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my good friend and 
colleague from Georgia about the previous amendment. I wasn't 
interested in revisiting it, but I was compelled to do so because of 
the obfuscation that I believe occurred.
  The amendment, my amendment, states on line 9, page 1, that the 
personal identification shall be one of the following forms. ``One of 
the following forms.''
  The first item is Social Security card. The second item is in fact a 
driver's license with a State complying with REAL ID. And then there is 
an ``or'' between the two. An ``or'' means one of them. Not all of 
them. Not always in compliance with REAL ID.
  Then it goes on to have the two small ii's on page 2, line 9, where 
it says a passport.
  Then there is even a third way that you can do it. Line 12, page 2, 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Documentation.
  Lo and behold, it is just one of those, Mr. Chairman. It is not all 
of them.
  So I would suggest that my good friend from Georgia be complete in 
his characterization of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to my good friend from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  In reply to the gentleman from Georgia, this amendment does not 
require originators to provide this disclosure to home buyers. It 
simply says that the disclosure must be given if the originator wants 
the mortgage to qualify for the purchase by the GSEs.
  This is not the first time that Congress has asked that mortgage 
originators provide blanket disclosures to home buyers, regardless of 
whether or not the disclosure applies to their specific mortgage. The 
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act mandated disclosure 
to consumers about the mere likelihood that a mortgage's servicing 
rights would be transferred without regard to whether any specific 
mortgage servicing rights would actually be transferred. The gentleman, 
Mr. Frank, was an original cosponsor of the bill in the 101st Congress, 
and voted in favor of it on August 1, 1990.
  Mr. Chairman, I will insert into the Record an example of the 
precedent for this nonspecific mandated mortgage disclosure requirement 
supported by our chairman, Chairman Frank.

                       RESPA Servicing Disclosure

       Lender: Indiana Members Credit Union, 4790 East 96th 
     Street, Ste. 120, Indianapolis, IN 46240, Notice to first 
     lien mortgage loan applicants: the right to collect your 
     mortgage loan payments may be transferred. Federal law gives 
     you certain related rights. If your loan is made, save this 
     statement with your loan documents. Sign the acknowledgment 
     at the end of this statement only if you understand its 
     contents.
       Because you are applying for a mortgage loan covered by the 
     Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)(12 U.S.C. 
     Section 2601 et seq.) you have certain rights under the 
     Federal law. This statement tells you about those rights. It 
     also tells you what the chances are that the servicing for 
     this loan may be transferred to a different loan servicer. 
     ``Servicing'' refers to collecting your principal, interest 
     and escrow account payments, if any. If your loan servicer 
     changes, there are certain procedures that

[[Page H5454]]

     must be followed. This statement generally explains those 
     procedures.


                  transfer practices and requirements

       If the servicing of your loan is assigned, sold, or 
     transferred to a new servicer, you must be given written 
     notice of that transfer. The present loan servicer must send 
     you notice in writing of the assignment, sale or transfer of 
     the servicing not less than 15 days before the effective date 
     of the transfer. The new loans servicer must also send you 
     notice within 15 days after the effective date of the 
     transfer. The present servicer and the new servicer may 
     combine this information in one notice, so long as the notice 
     is sent to you 15 days before the effective date of transfer. 
     The 15-day period is not applicable if a notice of 
     prospective transfer is provided to you at settlement. The 
     law allows a delay in the time (not more than 30 days after a 
     transfer) for servicers to notify you, upon the occurrence of 
     certain business emergencies. Notices must contain certain 
     information. They must contain the effective date of the 
     transfer of the servicing of your loan to the new servicer, 
     and the name, address, and toll-free or collect call 
     telephone number of the new servicer, and toll-free or 
     collect call telephone numbers of a person or department for 
     both your present servicer and your new servicer to answer 
     your questions. During the 60-day period following the 
     effective date of the transfer of the loan servicing, a loan 
     payment received by your old servicer before its due date may 
     not be treated by the new loan servicer as late, and a late 
     fee may not be imposed on you.


                          complaint resolution

       Section 6 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. Section 2605) gives you 
     certain consumer rights, whether or not your loan servicing 
     is transferred. If you send a ``qualified written request'' 
     to your servicer, your servicer must provide you with a 
     written acknowledgment with 20 Business Days of receipt of 
     your request. A ``qualified written request'' is a written 
     correspondence, other than notice on a payment coupon or 
     other payment medium supplied by the servicer which includes 
     your name and account number, and the information regarding 
     your request. Not later than 60 Business Days after receiving 
     your request, your servicer must make any appropriate 
     corrections to your account, or must provide you with a 
     written clarification regarding any dispute. During this 60 
     Business Day period, your servicer may not provide 
     information to a consumer-reporting agency concerning any 
     overdue payment related to such period or qualified written 
     request. A Business Day is any day in which the offices of 
     the business entity are open to the public for carrying on 
     substantially all of its business functions.


                           damages and costs

       Section 6 of RESPA also provides for damages and costs for 
     individuals or classes of individuals in circumstances where 
     servicers are shown to have violated the requirements of that 
     Section.


                      servicing transfer estimates

       1. The following is the best estimate of what will happen 
     to the servicing of your mortgage loan:
       We may assign, sell or transfer the servicing of your loan 
     while the loan is outstanding. We are able to service your 
     loan and we will not have not decided whether to service your 
     loan. or
       We do not service mortgage loans, and we have not serviced 
     mortgage loans in the past three years.
       We presently intend to assign, sell or transfer the 
     servicing of your mortgage loan. You will be informed about 
     your servicer.
       We assign, sell or transfer the servicing of some of our 
     loans while the loan is outstanding depending on the type of 
     loan and other factors. For the program you have applied for, 
     we expect to:
       Sell all of the mortgage servicing retain all the mortgage 
     servicing assign, sell or transfer __% of the mortgage 
     servicing.
       2. For all the first lien mortgage loans that we make in 
     the 12-month period after your mortgage loan is funded, we 
     estimate that the percentage of mortgage loans for which we 
     will transfer servicing is between: to 25% (or None) 26 to 
     50% 0 51 to 75% 0 76 to 100% (or ALL)
       This estimate does not include assignments, sales or 
     transfers to affiliates or subsidiaries. This is only our 
     best estimate and it is not binding. Business conditions or 
     other circumstances may affect our future transferring.
       3. We have previously assigned, sold or transferred the 
     servicing of first lien mortgage loans. or
       This is our record of transferring the servicing of the 
     first lien mortgage loans we have made in the past:
       Year percentage of loans transferred (Rounded to the 
     nearest quartile--0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%).
       2003: 50%;
       2004: 50%; and
       2005: 25%.
       This information does not include assignments, sales or 
     transfers to affiliates or subsidiaries.

                                Date:___

       Present Servicer or Lender: Indiana Members Credit Union.


               acknowledgment of mortgage loan applicant

       I/We have read this disclosure form and understand its 
     contents, as evidenced by my/our signature(s) below.
       I/We understand that this acknowledgment is a required part 
     of the mortgage loan application.
     _____ Applicant _____ Date
     _____ Applicant _____ Date

  Mr. Chairman, it is clear to me that what we are talking about here 
is that our friends on the other side simply don't want people to know 
who is footing or paying the bill. It is so important to get this money 
to poor people that middle class taxpayers can't be told the truth. It 
is that simple.
  It is not duplicative. It is not anything that requires a great 
calculation. There would simply be one line that says for every $1,000 
of your loan, it is estimated that you are paying X amount. It would be 
aggregate totals. It would be something that could be calculated very 
quickly. It is not by a loan, a particular loan; it is by an aggregate 
total. It could be done. It would be disclosure. It would be the right 
thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I think if anybody is confused by this, they simply do 
not want consumers to know the truth about who is making laws, who is 
making people pay extra money, where the money comes from and how much 
money they would be expected to pay themselves. I find that blatantly 
anti-American not to be open about who is doing what and how much the 
cost might be.

                              {time}  2245

  Americans are entitled to know these sorts of things as consumers. As 
consumers, they are entitled to know. That is what this amendment is 
about. If you don't want to be for it, I encourage you to vote ``no.'' 
But people who are for full disclosure and who want to let the middle 
class know what they are paying for, who are equally entitled to the 
American dream, are entitled to know under this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for his amendment and 
appreciate his leadership on this issue, and I appreciate his 
leadership in defending the hardworking American taxpayer.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move of to strike the 
last word.
  I have heard the pejorative ``anti-American'' used in some ludicrous 
contexts, and I think I have seen now the champion application of that 
inappropriately.
  If you are not for a complicated amendment, adding some language to a 
disclosure that is somewhat controversial, you are anti-American. I 
hope the debate bounces up from here.
  I would then also say to the gentleman from Georgia, my colleague 
from Georgia quite correctly pointed out that his amendment would call 
on people to reaffirm the value of the REAL ID Act. And it is true that 
the REAL ID Act is only one of four things, but some Americans don't 
have passports. In fact, the majority of American citizens don't have 
passports.
  A Social Security card with a photo ID issued by the Federal 
Government, some people don't have that.
  And a certificate from the Department of Homeland Security 
Immigration, if you are a regular American citizen, you don't have 
that. So of the things people would have of those four, that would be 
the most common. We don't prescribe it in the amendment adopted by the 
gentleman from Arkansas. We leave it up to the director because things 
may change. Things may evolve. There may be new documents. Prescribing 
this now for 4 and 5 years from now seems to be an error. But it is 
true, the gentleman from Georgia does give Members a chance to vote 
once again in favor of the REAL ID Act, as a major, not as an 
exclusive, but a major premise here.
  As to the gentleman from Texas' amendment, I note that he makes a 
point of saying that the cost of the disclosure will be paid for by the 
housing fund. He also believes that the housing fund comes at the cost 
of the mortgage borrowers. I don't understand why with this great 
flourish he says, hey, we'll make the housing fund pay for this because 
by his reasoning, that is an additional amount for the mortgage 
borrowers.
  If the existence of the housing fund costs them money, adding to the 
housing fund simply would add to their costs.
  My objection to it is this. It is a complicated, additional 
calculation of a sum that is de minimus. Even if all of

[[Page H5455]]

the cost of the housing fund went to individual mortgages, we are 
talking about a very small, 1.2 basis points of the portfolio. In fact, 
I believe most of it won't come from the mortgage holder, it will come 
from the shareholders. It is a complicated calculation. People will 
differ about how to make it.
  So this notion that if it is going to be a real calculation, and if 
it is just plucked out of the air it is some pro rata thing and it 
doesn't mean anything, but to impose additional bureaucracy for a cost 
that is de minimus is a mistake.
  That is why my friend from North Carolina said this is part of the 
``we don't like the housing trust fund.''
  And by the way, when the gentleman said a housing trust fund created 
by the Democrats, we were being given too much credit; 43 Republicans 
joined us in voting against the amendment of the gentleman from Alabama 
to kill the housing trust fund. So it wasn't just Democrats; 43 
Republicans is a pretty significant chunk. It was somewhat bipartisan.
  But the point is only if you believe the housing trust fund is going 
to be some significant cost does it make sense to go through all of 
this trouble to add this line.
  We who believe it is will be de minimus in terms of how it affects 
each mortgagor, think it will probably cost them more to do this 
calculation and charge them for it than they would otherwise have to 
pay.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman wants to argue 
that shareholders should pay for this. Yet just a couple of weeks ago 
we were arguing on this floor about who should pay to know about 
executive compensation. We definitely understood it shouldn't be 
shareholders there. But tonight it is okay.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, 
first of all, to say that is the most baffling thing I have ever had 
said. It is going to take me a while to figure out what it could 
possibly mean, if anything.
  But secondly, with regard to executive compensation, of course the 
shareholders would bear the cost if there was one. Our point there was 
since the SEC has mandated the disclosure and mandated the disclosure 
be printed in the proxy, there will be no cost to voting on it.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You know, we are once again arguing what, first, is a ``de minimus'' 
amount of money. Then it turns out to be a lot of money. And now we 
understand it is really not that much money at all that these consumers 
are having to pay.
  But somebody has to pay the $2.5 billion, and that is a new tax. And 
it is in this legislation. This money is just not going to come out of 
anywhere. We do expect if there is going to be money that is going to 
be owed by somebody, that they ought to know where it comes from. It 
just doesn't come from home buyers. It will come from Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac shareholders. And excluding them from the decision-making 
process seems like a significant backward step for shareholder rights. 
But just a few weeks ago the chairman brought legislation to the floor 
that would mandate a new, nonbinding shareholder vote on executive 
compensation.
  I think that shareholders and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, if they 
are, in fact, the ones to foot the bill for this new fund, at least 
deserve a little bit of participation. They ought to understand it and 
know.
  I ask the chairman in the name of shareholder rights and shareholder 
participation to include the language during any conference 
negotiations, and to make sure he does the same thing thereto.
  The bottom line is that shareholders or middle class home buyers all 
deserve a right to know how much they are being charged. It is a simple 
request. The gentleman almost got it right. I think it is an American 
thing that consumers ought to know what they are paying for, and it is 
unAmerican not to know what you are paying for.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


             Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Brady of Texas

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 34 offered by Mr. Brady of Texas:
       Page 130, line 8, strike ``75 percent'' and insert ``70 
     percent''.
       Page 130, line 11, strike ``25 percent'' and insert ``20 
     percent''.
       Page 130, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``(iii) The allocation percentage for the Texas Department 
     of Housing and Community Affairs shall be 10 percent.''.
       Page 130, line 19, after ``in connection with'' insert the 
     following: ``(i) in the case of the grantees specified in 
     clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A),''.
       Page 130, line 20, before the period insert ``, and (ii) in 
     the case of the grantee specified in clause (iii) of 
     subparagraph (A), Hurricane Rita of 2005''.
       Page 149, line 16, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
       Page 149, line 17, before the semicolon insert the 
     following: ``, and the Texas Department of Housing and 
     Community Affairs''.

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of debate tonight 
about the need for the affordable housing fund. This amendment relates 
to what I hope will be the fairness of the affordable housing fund. 
Right now in the first year the allocation for the affordable housing 
fund is restricted to Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, but only in 
Louisiana and Mississippi.
  This is Hurricane Rita, the fourth largest hurricane in the gulf 
coast history. It was actually larger than Hurricane Katrina. On the 
Texas side, the area that I represent, as you can see here, we had 
70,000 homes damaged or destroyed. That is 70,000 homes damaged or 
destroyed by Hurricane Rita.
  Today, 18 months after that hurricane, what no one in America knows 
is that 10 percent of those who fled Hurricane Rita have yet to return 
to southeast Texas. Ten percent have not come home because they have no 
home in southeast Texas.
  What this amendment does is provides a fair treatment for Texas 
communities devastated by Hurricane Rita. It takes the principle, same 
hurricane, same devastation, we should have same treat.
  Under this amendment, Louisiana and Mississippi would still receive 
the bulk of the allocation at 70 percent and 20 percent, and Texas 
would be eligible for 10 percent. My preference would be to not take a 
dime from Louisiana and Mississippi. I understand how devastated those 
communities are. But I have seen the devastation in our southeast Texas 
communities. Our roofs are torn off and our homes are destroyed. Our 
people can't come back to their communities because there is no 
housing. And these counties are predominantly Democratic, poor, with 
heavy African American populations. Ironically, these were the same 
counties across the Louisiana line who were the very first to open 
their homes and shelters and churches to those fleeing Hurricane 
Katrina. Yet today, they can't rebuild their own homes, they can't 
return to their own communities because this is often called ``the 
forgotten hurricane.''
  What I am hopeful is that the current allocation is an oversight. And 
the fact of the matter is that the national media moved over so quickly 
over Hurricane Rita that not many people understand just how badly the 
communities were devastated.
  I am hopeful that the majority will agree with me that we don't 
divide a hurricane along State lines and don't provide different 
treatment for the same hurricane for the same communities. Where we 
don't have homeowners in Orange whose homes have been destroyed with no 
help, but their cousin down the road in Lake Charles gets the help they 
deserve. That is not what this government is about.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment. We ought not have two 
classes of citizens in America: Those who have help from hurricanes and

[[Page H5456]]

those who are left stranded. I think this Congress is better than that.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I appreciate the arguments that are being made. I thank the people of 
Texas and Georgia and of Tennessee and all over the country who have 
taken in our residents who have had to flee in the face of a 
devastating storm.
  Louisiana lost 225,000 housing units. The bulk were homeowner units, 
and the rest were rental properties. The city was 80 percent underwater 
and severely devastated.
  Louisiana suffered 75 percent of the gulf coast housing damage, and 
that is why the number is as it is. It wasn't pulled out of the air. 
They tried to apply some remedy here. Initially when the money was 
first allocated, Louisiana, although it suffered 75 percent of the 
housing damage, and overall, about 80 percent of the damage of the 
storm, it nonetheless got some number around 50 percent of the 
allocation.
  This is an effort to correct what was not done properly in the first 
place, and try to line it up with the damage in Louisiana.
  Mississippi had some number in the 20s with respect to their losses. 
So it is an attempt to line it up with the damage there.
  I can tell you we are looking to get, in the case of folks who are in 
the east part of Texas, we hope that we are making arrangements to get 
a whole lot of those folks back home and out of Texas. This is about 
rebuilding. It is not really about housing people.
  I heard some arguments early on about how many folks are still in 
Houston. There are about 30,000 people in Houston from my home area, 
and there are a number of people in San Antonio and Dallas, also. There 
are also people in Atlanta and Memphis, as I have said. We want to get 
all of these folks back home. We still have 225,000 of our citizens not 
back in town. It is a great tragedy that has occurred there.
  You might remember, a great part of what happened to us in Louisiana, 
at least, maybe less so in Mississippi, is not really because of the 
hurricane itself, it was because of the failure of the Federal levees 
that drowned our city. The design was poor. Construction was 
inadequate, and the maintenance was not good. As a consequence, the 
levees broke and it drowned our city.
  We believe there is not just a legal responsibility, but a moral 
responsibility to fix the problem because the Federal Government broke 
it and we think it ought to fix it.
  So we have a devastated area. Half of our city's tax base is back. 
Half our schools and hospitals are closed. Our housing isn't there, and 
our people need a lot of help. The money so far hasn't done it, and we 
want to get more to apply to the problem. That is all we are saying.
  That is why the committee has gone to great pains to try to make this 
allocation. I know there is pain in some other places, but we have to 
apply the limited resources we have to take care of the place that is 
the most devastated, and that is clearly in Louisiana and Mississippi.
  I would urge the House to reject this amendment. I do understand 
there is a need to help in other places, but I hope we find a way to do 
it in some other bill and some other time, but not here and not now and 
not in this particular place.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the arguments that my 
friend from Louisiana has made, but I think it is important to 
understand that you can't tell someone in one State, your home is 
destroyed, your roof has been torn off, a tree has gone through it; but 
you are in this State, so we will help you. The exact same hurricane 
and the exact same devastation, forget it, take a hike. You deserve no 
help from us.

                              {time}  2300

  I don't think any citizen in America who has seen their home 
destroyed ought to have to compete against someone else in another 
State to get Federal help. I mean, aren't we supposed to be treating 
our citizens equally?
  And when you have a hurricane that's devastated both sides of the 
State line, why are we dividing that hurricane along the State line? 
Mother Nature can't do it, and Congress shouldn't either.
  We should help those people, regardless. One hurricane, same 
treatment, same devastation. I think we have a moral responsibility to 
help people who no longer can return to their homes, whether it is in 
New Orleans or whether it is in Orange, Texas. We have the exact same 
moral responsibility to help, and I cannot see how we, as a government, 
can justify different treatments, treating one group as second-class 
citizens when they've done nothing but suffer devastating damage and 
open their own homes and hearts and churches to help others. It is 
wrong.
  Let's not divide this hurricane along State lines. Let's help these 
folks.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and I ask the 
gentleman so I make sure I understand your amendment here, but 
currently the allocation is 75 percent for Louisiana and 25 percent for 
Mississippi. And all the gentleman is asking here is that Texas get 10 
percent of this housing fund, 5 percent taken from Louisiana and 5 
percent from Mississippi. So you're requesting 10 percent for the 
people of Texas that suffered the same devastation and loss as the 
people in Louisiana and Mississippi; is that correct?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. It is a negligible change for our friends in 
Louisiana and Mississippi. It is a huge help for the people in 
southeast and east Texas who have no homes.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman, and I, like the gentleman, 
encourage this is a fair amendment. We have passed out a tremendous 
amount of resources for Mississippi and Louisiana.
  I've been to the gentleman from Louisiana's and to the gentleman from 
Mississippi's district. I have seen the recovery efforts down there, 
obviously a lot of devastation in those States, and a rebuilding 
program is going on. Quite honestly, I have to compliment the gentleman 
from Mississippi. They are doing a much better job of moving forward 
with their rebuilding program.
  But one of the things that we need to understand is these natural 
disasters affect all Americans, and that when we begin to ask this 
Congress to pass out resources to help people in America rebuild their 
lives, that we don't do it along State lines.
  And I agree with the gentleman, and I encourage everyone to support 
the gentleman's amendment. I think it is a very fair amendment.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Weiner). The gentleman will remove the 
visual aid while he is not under recognition.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Speaker, the events of the fall of 2005 were horrible to a large 
portion of the gulf coast. I understand the gentleman's concern. I 
would have appreciated if he'd have voted against the Bachus amendment, 
which would have struck all of this money, but you voted for it.
  But one thing I wanted to point out is the somewhat arbitrary nature 
of his amendment. There's no real good way to judge who lost a house. 
One of the things we can look at, though, is those who asked for the 
help which was offered by our President which was delivered by FEMA.
  They said if your house is uninhabitable or if it's gone, we'll make 
a trailer available for every four inhabitants. In Louisiana today, 
based on FEMA's numbers, there's still 49,000 FEMA trailers being 
occupied. In my home State, there are 24,500 FEMA trailers still being 
occupied. In the gentleman's State, there's 1,700 FEMA trailers being 
occupied.
  What I have a problem with is arbitrarily taking a substantial amount 
of money from a State like Mississippi, that had substantially, 
according to this, more people lose their homes and just giving it to 
Texas.
  Now, if the gentleman is now for the bill, that's wonderful. If the 
gentleman would ask the chairman to include the word ``Texas'' so that 
when this goes to conference hopefully with the other body, in the time 
between now and then we can find some fair way to adjudicate those 
claims, I think that would be wonderful.

[[Page H5457]]

  But what I object to is literally picking a number out of the sky in 
a State that's got less than 1/10th of the people living in those 
trailers tonight, as my State, and asking for half the money that my 
State is getting.
  I have been for this proposal. I have sat on this floor for this 
proposal. The gentleman has objected to this proposal.
  So, again, if the gentleman wants to make the request of the chairman 
that somehow the words Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi are 
included in there, and that between now and conference we find a fair 
way to distribute these funds, I'm with you. But to just pick a number 
out of the sky and say just because we're from Texas and we've got a 
huge delegation, we think we ought to get half as much money as 
Mississippi, even though 1/10th of the people that are in trailers in 
Mississippi are in trailers in Texas, I just can't buy that. That's not 
responsible.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, 
and I'm pleased to yield to my good friend from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia giving me 
a few minutes.
  I don't know anyone who would support a housing fund that turns its 
back on your citizens who were devastated by the fourth largest 
hurricane in gulf coast history. I also don't understand a Congress 
that has citizens compete against each other who have both lost their 
homes, who aren't just living in trailers.
  My people, maybe we have 1,700 living in trailers, but we have 
another 10 percent who don't live in trailers who can't even come back 
to the communities that they used to live in, can't even come back. 
They're not living in trailers. They've moved away. They can't come 
back because there is no housing.
  Their only fault apparently is that they were on the wrong side of 
the State line for the exact same hurricane, and it seems to me I would 
prefer not to pick a 70 percent, a 20 percent, a 10 percent figure. I 
wish there were a better way to do it.
  But I do know this. We ought not pit families against each other for 
competing for dollars that they all need and provide one on one State 
line all the help they can get and another, we just turn their back.
  I know how much this has harmed Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. 
There's no question about the need there. What I'm saying, there is an 
equal need for each family in southeast Texas who are poor, who are 
predominantly Democratic counties, heavily African American 
communities, the ones who rely and need this housing. I just think this 
body ought to look at all of them equally to provide that help if we 
can do it.
  Perhaps this body will turn its back on these people. Well, I will 
tell you what, when it came to Hurricane Katrina, they didn't turn 
their back on the evacuees from New Orleans. One little town of 500 
took in 500 evacuees on the very first night, doubled their whole 
population just to help. We had folks in Orange who stayed up for 72 
hours straight helping people from New Orleans on buses who had lost 
everything and lost families. These are the same people we're turning 
our backs on tonight.
  I don't know what the allocation is, Mr. Chairman, a fair one is. I 
honestly don't. I do know that we ought to provide equal help and equal 
hope to these communities devastated by the exact same hurricane.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman a question. 
Did the gentleman vote for the Bachus amendment that would have not 
provided any assistance to any of these people? Didn't the gentleman 
vote for that amendment?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I'd be glad to yield to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. If the question is did I vote for a housing fund 
that would turn its back on my communities, well, no, I did not vote 
for that housing fund.
  Mr. WATT. Will the gentleman yield once again?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Be pleased to.
  Mr. WATT. Is the gentleman saying that his community is just Texas? 
He's not worried about Mississippi or Louisiana, in the general 
context--
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I'd be glad to yield to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I don't know anyone in this body who 
intentionally turns their back on any communities. I do know that my 
district is Texas, but with redistricting I never know what State I may 
end up in.
  But as of this moment, I know my communities well and I think, just 
as Mr. Jefferson, just as Gene and others know their communities and 
how much heartache they've gone through, I feel strongly that this body 
ought to try to help equally communities devastated by the exact same 
hurricane.
  Our policy ought to be no second-class citizens in recovery and 
hurricane relief. Treat them equally for the same hurricane.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his 
amendment and urge my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  My problem with the answer the gentleman from Texas gave my friend 
from North Carolina is he voted for the amendment from the gentleman 
from Alabama to kill this fund before he knew whether his amendment 
would be accepted or not.
  The gentleman says he doesn't know anybody in this body who would 
turn his back on communities. He has a far more limited circle of 
acquaintances than I would have thought for someone who had been here 
this long.
  The fact, though, is that the amendment from the gentleman from 
Alabama would have, if it passed, killed the fund. The gentleman from 
Texas voted for it. Had he been successful in that vote, there would be 
no fund for him now to ask for.
  Now, I thought my friend from Mississippi who has been an eloquent 
and passionate defender of the interests of all the people in the gulf 
made a very good point. As I said to the gentleman from Houston, Mr. 
Green, yes, I think we should look at the needs of Texas. We did some 
in the hurricane bill in terms of vouchers.
  I'm prepared, if this bill gets to conference, to accommodate. We may 
have underestimated the physical destruction in parts of Texas. I don't 
think we should now pick a number, but no one had approached me. Mr. 
Green from Texas had approached me, and I said I would work with him. I 
would be glad to work on it.
  I do think when the gentleman says we couldn't expect him to vote for 
a housing fund that ignored his community, he voted to abolish that 
fund before he knew what would happen to his amendment. Maybe he just 
thought the die was cast, but I'm perfectly prepared to work on this.
  I hope the amendment is defeated. I don't expect the gentleman to 
withdraw it, and I would be glad to then look at the arguments about 
how much destruction there was in Texas, and I would undertake to find 
some way to try to help in Texas. Of course, the gentleman will 
probably vote against the whole bill, and if he succeeds, I won't be 
able to help him, but you can't help everybody all the time. All you 
can do is offer.
  So I hope that we do get a bill through, that it has the housing 
fund. I hope this amendment is defeated, but I do think that when we 
look at the concentrated destruction in the part of Texas, something 
not statewide, and the reason we did Mississippi and Louisiana was we 
felt the destruction there was more statewide, not the whole State, but 
it was fairly widely distributed. It would appear there was a more 
narrow geographic impact in Texas, and I would think that is worth 
looking at.
  And if the housing fund survives the four or five more Republican 
efforts to kill it, chop it, dice it and slice it, which are probably 
coming in their infinite list of amendments, and we do get it to 
conference, I will be glad to work with the gentleman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.

[[Page H5458]]

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Doolittle

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Doolittle:
       Page 128, line 6, strike ``and''.
       Page 128, line 10, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 128, after line 10, insert the following:
       ``(6) to increase the investment in public infrastructure 
     activities in counties determined to be economically 
     disadvantaged by virtue of receiving payments under the 
     Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 
     2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note).''.
       Page 140, line 3, strike ``and''.
       Page 140, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 140, after line 6, insert the following:
       ``(4) public infrastructure activities, including 
     activities to benefit the public safety, law enforcement, 
     public education, and public lands, carried out only in 
     counties which are determined to be economically 
     disadvantaged by virtue of receiving payments under the 
     Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 
     2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note).''.
       Page 140, line 22, strike ``or''.
       Page 140, line 25, after the semicolon insert ``or''.
       Page 140, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(E) in the case of an eligible activity under subsection 
     (g)(4), administer such activities in counties described in 
     such subsection, except that this subparagraph shall apply 
     only to government agencies;''.
       Page 144, after line 19, insert the following:
       ``(8) Required amount for certain public infrastructure 
     activities.--In the case of any grantee that is a State in 
     which are located counties determined to be economically 
     disadvantaged by virtue of receiving payments under the 
     Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 
     2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note), all of the affordable housing fund 
     grant amounts provided for each year other than 2007 to such 
     grantee shall be used for activities under paragraph (4) of 
     subsection (g).''.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, in 1908 in response to the mounting 
opposition to the creation of forest reserves in the West, Congress 
passed a bill which created a revenue sharing mechanism to offset for 
counties the effects of removing those lands from economic development.
  The 1908 act specified that 25 percent of all revenues generated from 
the national forests would be shared with the counties where those 
revenues were generated to support public roads and public schools. 
From 1986 to the present, these payments, because of the decline in 
timber sales, have decreased precipitously.
  Responding to this urgent need, in 2000, the Congress passed the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act to compensate 
for the loss in revenue for these counties, providing the necessary 
funds for schools, roads and public lands.
  This funding benefited 4,400 school districts in 615 counties 
throughout 37 States.
  In September of 2006, this authorization expired, and in December the 
last payments were made. While several attempts have been made to 
reauthorize this legislation, none has succeeded to this point, and as 
a result, our counties are left without the funds that they were 
promised and they depend upon to provide public infrastructure 
activities to maintain their roads and send their children to school.

                              {time}  2315

  The results have been devastating. In California's Fourth 
Congressional District, let me just talk about three instances. In 
Plumas County, where 70 percent of the land is owned by the Federal 
Government, layoff notices went to 55 teachers and its school 
districts, and the county is compensating for this by increasing class 
sizes, closing all school libraries, closing cafeterias and possibly 
even closing entire schools.
  In Sierra County, which is 75 percent opened by the Federal 
Government, the county is planning to lay off almost 40 percent of its 
entire education staff, and the superintendent spoke to me about the 
potential of shutting down one entire school district and being forced 
to bus children across State lines into the adjoining State of Nevada 
to receive a public education.
  Finally, in Modoc County, which is 75 percent owned by the Federal 
Government, they will layoff one-third of its entire roads department 
and over 12 percent of its teachers.
  These hardships are not unique and have spread to other States. You 
will hear in a minute from Mr. Walden of Oregon. Before the government 
makes any new promise for funding, it should make good on the 
obligation it already made to the 615 counties across the country which 
are now struggling to deal with a lack of funding for basic 
infrastructure needs.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I would like to yield to Mr. Walden.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will cede to Mr. Walden. If only the 
gentleman will yield to somebody.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to Mr. Walden.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I thank the chairman. I want to thank the 
gentleman from California for bringing this amendment. This is the 
newspaper from the largest county in my district. This is the April 7 
edition. All 15 branches of the library system in Jackson County closed 
the day before because the Congress did not keep its commitment dating 
back 100 years.
  Yesterday afternoon, after the local counties tried to pass 
resolutions to fund these services, make up for the lost Federal 
funding that has been there for 100 years, the county workers in 
virtually every county, I will pick on Josephine right here, got 
together to get their pink slips. The county workers, dedicated public 
servants, laid off their jobs; 28 juvenile justice employees in 
Josephine County, gone; 11 in the District Attorney's Office, gone; 
half the sheriff's office, gone. There will be no sheriff's patrols, 
period, end of discussion.
  You all are familiar with the case of the Kim family that was lost, 
devastatingly so in the Federal forest of Oregon last winter, and Mr. 
Kim died. This is the county. This is the county where these sheriffs' 
deputies and others tried to find and rescue them. Because the 
government isn't keeping its commitment, no sheriff's patrol, period; 
1642 square miles will have no sheriff's patrol. Sheriff Gilbertson is 
beside himself. He has to meet the State mandates to keep the jail 
open, but they are going to end up going from 140 beds to 30 beds.
  Senator Wyden and I were at the White House today passionately making 
our case to the President to help us on this. This Congress needs to 
help us on this. We are extraordinarily frustrated, as you can tell, by 
Mr. Doolittle and others, that even though I supported this housing 
trust fund, if we've got money we ought to take care of these 
commitments first so the Federal Government keeps its word, so we can 
reopen libraries so we can have search and rescue and sheriffs' 
deputies out on patrol, not only in my counties, but out in the west.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am going to insist on my 
point of order.
  I am moved, and I mean this, by the eloquence of these arguments for 
adequately funded public service. I hope all Members will listen to 
this.
  But unfortunately, this is beyond the scope of this bill, which is 
housing related. I, therefore, must insist on the point of order, not 
out of lack of sympathy for my two colleagues, but because if we open 
the floodgates, we would get swamped. So I do insist on the point of 
order. It is not germane.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman state the point of order.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, the point of order. This is beyond 
the scope of this bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point 
of order.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill makes numerous 
references to public infrastructure. We feel this, indeed, is public 
infrastructure, and that it deals with roads and schools. There are 
certainly needy

[[Page H5459]]

counties by virtue of being included in this Secure Rural Schools Act. 
That's why we thought the amendment would be germane.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if I might say in response, 
it is all within the context of housing. This is a very narrowly 
specifically defined housing bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman of Massachusetts make a point 
of order that the amendment is not germane?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without further discussion, the Chair is 
prepared to rule.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from California provides 
funding for various infrastructure projects, including law enforcement 
and public education.
  The bill is confined to housing and housing-related matters. Clause 7 
of rule XVI precludes amendments on a subject different from that under 
consideration.
  In the opinion of the Chair, the infrastructure projects addressed in 
the amendment represent a subject matter different from that under 
consideration. As such, the amendment is not germane.
  The point of order is sustained.


               Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       Strike line 23 on page 85 and all that follows through line 
     15 on page 86.
       Strike line 19 on page 87 and all that follows through line 
     10 on page 88.
       Strike line 12 on page 90 and all that follows through line 
     9 on page 93.

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is quite 
simple, and that is to keep the status quo with respect to the 
conforming loan limits. The underlying bill would raise it to 150 
percent in what are known as certain high-cost areas. I think there are 
several reasons, Mr. Chairman, why I think the underlying bill contains 
misguided policy.
  Number 1, when you look at why were the GSEs chartered in the first 
place, they receive a panoply of Federal benefits that we are all 
familiar with. But supposedly, they received these benefits from the 
Federal Government for a specific purpose, to support the purchases of 
mortgages made to low- and moderate-income families, mortgages on 
properties located in underserved areas, mortgages made to very low-
income families and low-income families in low-income areas.
  I do not believe that the charter was to help subsidize housing by 
the government for the wealthiest in our society. That's not why they 
were chartered. The Conforming Loan Limit right now, I believe, is 
already too high. To qualify for the $417,000 mortgage right now, a 
family would have to earn at least $130,000, more than twice the median 
family income in this country, not by the standards of the Nation, a 
low or moderate income.
  But in the House bill to increase the conforming loan limit by 50 
percent to $625,000 in any area where the average home price is over 
the limit, to qualify for that mortgage, a family's income on an 80/20 
LTV would have to be $180,000, almost three times the national median, 
and that ranks at roughly the top 5 percent of all family incomes in 
America.
  According to OFHEO, the regulator, of the GSEs, using data supplied 
by the National Association of Realtors in 2007, there were only seven 
areas that would be affected by this, and that would be comprised of 
areas in about eight or nine different States, which means that 40 to 
42 other States would gain nothing by this and arguably might lose 
something.
  The other argument that I would pose is that after all the behavior 
of the GSEs, all of the misrepresentations to the public, 
misrepresentations to investors, misrepresentations to Congress, 
billions and billions of dollars of accounting misstatements, earnings 
being manipulated so that executives could receive bonuses, what does 
Congress do? We reward them. We expand their market share. We give them 
an opportunity to make even greater profits.
  I mean, it leads one to believe that if Enron had been clever enough 
to change their name to the Enron Housing Corp. we might have done 
something to still keep them in business. We are expanding their market 
share.
  Another point to make is that, and I will grant that any time you 
have a Federal subsidy, certainly you can lower the price, but the 
arguments that somehow people can't get in a home without increasing 
the loan limits to 150 percent, I don't understand.
  The industry experts have estimated the rate on the spread on the 
rate to be about 20 basis points, and a current 30-year rate fixed 
mortgage, that amounts to about $80-a-month difference we are talking 
about. At least under one scenario, CRS, we are looking at about $28 a 
month. I am having a hard time believing that knowing how competitive 
the marketplace is, in almost all communities in the jumbo market area, 
that this is somehow preventing people from getting into a home.
  Now, some will speak to a disparity, and I agree. There is the 
disparity, but I don't think raising the conforming loan limits to 150 
percent in only a limited number of areas in the Nation is the solution 
to that particular challenge.
  So I have great reservations about expanding the conforming loan 
limits. But having said that, given the lateness of the hour, given the 
outcome of this particular amendment in committee, I do think these 
were important points to be made.
  But at this point, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  I thank Mr. Hensarling for withdrawing the amendment, but I think 
it's only fair to place on the Record the other side of the argument. 
To assume there's only seven areas that benefit from this is a wrong 
assumption.
  If you look at the current law, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Alaska and 
Hawaii all benefit from 150 percent of the amount conforming allows in 
the rest of this country. All we are saying in our high-cost area is 
saying aren't we as good as Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin 
Islands.
  I have been working on this thing for 3 years, I asked that this be 
put in the bill. I didn't say let's do it like Alaska, Guam, the Virgin 
Islands and Hawaii. Let's not make it statewide. Let's go specifically 
to a region. You could have a situation where Brea, in Orange County, 
could qualify for $625,000; yet Pomona, within 8 miles, might only need 
$400,000. But it's easy to extract something from a bill that has no 
impact on you at all.
  For example, the Dallas region that the gentleman represents, the 
median home price is $146,400. Yet, you can borrow $417,000 through a 
GSE, three times the amount of the median.
  Yet, in Maxine Waters' district, which is four times the median, 
which is no fault of any of ours, it just happens to be $565,000, she 
can only borrow $418,000. In my part of Orange County, it's $695,000. I 
can only borrow $418,600. So we are saying if it is fair for other 
parts of the country, why isn't it far for all of the country.
  Now had the gentleman had introduced an amendment that said, well, we 
think we should have fairness throughout the country, and let's limit 
it to the median as my amendment did, in this bill that got enacted in 
the bill so far, that says you can have it conforming, but it cannot 
exceed median. Well, the gentleman, I am sure, would have a very 
difficult time going home and telling his people that now they can only 
borrow $146,400 from Freddie and Fannie because that is the median we 
are willing to apply to the rest of our districts.
  Now the argument was made in the past that while the people in these 
high-cost areas make more money, the median income in Dallas, Texas is 
$65,500; the median income L.A. County is $61,300. They make $400,000 
or more a year in his district, that has a median income, median home 
price of $146,000. Yet in Maxine's and part of my area of L.A. county, 
people have to pay $565,000 for a median income home, and yet they make 
$4,000 less.

[[Page H5460]]

  So, yes, in many cases it's easy to present something to a body and 
make a very good statement that you are concerned about the quality of 
a GSE. But let me state, based on the requirements and the restrictions 
placed upon the GSEs, these loans are very safe.

                              {time}  2330


      Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California

  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of 
     California:
       Page 86, strike ``, except that'' in line 9 and all that 
     follows through ``corporation'' in lines 14 and 15.
       Page 88, strike ``, except that'' in line 4 and all that 
     follows through ``Corporation'' in line 10.
       Strike line 12 on page 90 and all that follows through line 
     9 on page 93.

  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an 
amendment to strike the requirement that high-cost area loans be 
securitized. And what we have done in this bill is we have said that, 
in these high-cost areas, to eliminate concerns by many, we are willing 
to say that the GSE must securitize those loans in high-cost areas; so, 
therefore, they cannot keep those loans. Those loans have to be 
transferred to the bond market. And there is no concern nor could there 
ever be any risk to the GSE, because those loans are not being kept by 
the GSE.
  Now, understand clearly that when a loan is made in Alaska, Hawaii, 
Guam and the Virgin Islands, they are not securitized, and it has not 
proven to be a risk or a problem so far at all. And if you look at the 
problems in the real estate market today, they are not in the 
conforming market at all; they are not even in the high-cost areas that 
complies with. They are in areas that are not available, such as the 
jumbo loan market in California and other areas.
  I am going to withdraw this amendment, but I am making a statement 
that it is not fair that we try to provide fairness throughout this 
country, and yet in doing that we are creating a situation that is less 
fair to those high-cost areas than it is to the rest of the Nation. It 
is only fair that borrowers in high-cost areas should be able to get a 
loan through a GSE, that that loan be kept by a GSE, thereby reducing 
the cost to the person getting the loan. And the statement that there 
is only a statement of $25, in a high-cost area this saves a buyer $175 
a month in payment or a loan through a GSE.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman, and he and I have 
been working together on a lot of this. I am glad he is going to 
withdraw it and we won't be proceeding further, but I would note that a 
number of recent developments in the mortgage field have made it clear 
that securitization is not the absolute unmixed blessing that people 
once thought it was. There are advantages to portfolio and there are 
some disadvantages. There are obviously advantages in terms of 
liquidity being created through securitization, but there are some 
problems. So I thank the gentleman for raising this issue, and it is 
one we will continue to work.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. And I think there is more reason to 
eliminate securitization than there ever was to place it there in the 
first place. But, irrespective of that, I withdraw my amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


            Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       Strike line 21 on page 128 and all that follows through 
     line 7 on page 129, and insert the following:
       ``(2) Requirements for contributions.--
       ``(A) Timing.--An enterprise shall not be required to make 
     an allocation for a year pursuant to paragraph (1) unless the 
     Director, pursuant to the study under paragraph (2) for such 
     year, makes a determination that such allocation by the 
     enterprise for the year--
       ``(i) will not contribute to the financial instability of 
     the enterprise or impair the safe and sound operation of the 
     enterprise;
       ``(ii) will not cause the enterprise to be classified as 
     undercapitalized;
       ``(iii) will not prevent the enterprise from successfully 
     completing a capital restoration plan under section 1369C; 
     and
       ``(iv) will not result in increased costs to borrowers 
     under residential mortgages.
       ``(B) Study.--The Director shall, for each year referred to 
     in paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) conduct a study to determine the effects on each 
     enterprise of making allocations in such year under such 
     paragraph; and
       ``(ii) submit to the Congress a report containing the 
     findings of such study and the determinations of the 
     Secretary regarding the issues set forth in clauses (i) 
     through (iv) of subparagraph (A).''.

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment which I 
believe enhances the oversight of the Director over the payments into 
the Affordable Housing Fund.
  The underlying legislation takes the responsible step of providing 
criteria that the Director of the new regulatory agency should use to 
suspend contributions to the Affordable Housing Fund created by this 
bill, and that is a responsible step. However, I and others are 
concerned that this language doesn't go far enough to ensure the GSE 
safety and soundness, which indeed is the intent of this important 
legislation that we are dealing with today.
  In the underlying legislation, if the Director finds that 
contributing to the Affordable Housing Fund would contribute to the 
instability of the GSE, would cause the GSE to become undercapitalized, 
or would prevent the GSE from successfully completing a capital 
restoration plan, then payments to the Housing Fund would be 
suspending.
  I have three specific concerns.
  First, nowhere in this language does this legislation provide an 
explicit requirement for the Director to actively seek out this 
information and to report on his or her findings.
  Second, the language in this section doesn't explicitly list the safe 
and sound operation of the GSE as one of the factors that the Director 
should consider.
  And, third, the Director does not consider the extent to which these 
payments into the Housing Trust Fund will result in an increase in 
costs to the borrowers under residential mortgages.
  This amendment very simply would require the Director to study the 
additional factors that I just mentioned, safety and soundness, and 
increased costs to the borrowers. Along with those factors already in 
the text of the underlying bill, and to certify to Congress that they 
won't be adversely affected before the GSE makes a payment into the 
Housing Fund, it is imperative that we make certain that all of the 
hard work that went into creating this new world-class regulator in the 
underlying legislation isn't undone because of the mandatory payments 
the GSE will have to make into the Affordable Housing Fund. And we can 
do that by requiring the Director to look at all of these safety and 
soundness issues that might be affected, and to provide a responsible 
signoff requirement before payments are made into the Housing Fund.
  I think this greatly improves the accountability and the success and 
the appropriateness of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is another version of the effort to kill the fund. 
It is very similar to amendments we have had before. I will ask Members 
to draw on their memories. I think at this point they would try to 
remember than stay up an extra 10 minutes listening to the debate very 
similar to what they have had before.
  It is subject to the frailty which the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt) pointed out before, since we have had a similar amendment 
before; namely, that it would give to the Director the right to cancel 
this. It doesn't ask just for information from

[[Page H5461]]

the Director for us to take into account when we do this after the 
sunset; it empowers the Director to end it.
  And it also says: Will not result in increased costs to borrowers on 
their residential mortgages.
  There may be a de minimis cost increase. The way this is worded, a 
director would have to find that there would be no cost increase at 
all, not 10 cents, not $1 a mortgage.
  I do not think it is intended mainly to deal with the soundness of 
the enterprise; I think it is dealing, once again, with an effort to 
try to kill the fund, which we have had five or six votes on already 
and a couple of more pending amendments.
  The other factors, other than it might raise the cost of the 
mortgage, are already in the text of the bill and they are already 
factors that the Director is required to study.
  So since we have talked about this before, I do not think at this 
hour anybody is going to bring any new knowledge.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Doolittle

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Doolittle:
       Page 100, after line 17, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 136. MORTGAGOR IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MORTGAGES 
                   OF REGULATED ENTITIES.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part 2 of subtitle A of title 
     XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 
     U.S.C. 4541 et seq.), as amended by the preceding provisions 
     of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 1330. MORTGAGOR IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 
                   MORTGAGES OF REGULATED ENTITIES.

       ``(a) Limitation.--The Director shall by regulation 
     establish standards, and shall enforce compliance with such 
     standards, that--
       ``(1) prohibit the enterprises from the purchase, service, 
     holding, selling, lending on the security of, or otherwise 
     dealing with any mortgage on a one- to four-family residence 
     that will be used as the principal residence of the mortgagor 
     that does not meet the requirements under subsection (b); and
       ``(2) prohibit the Federal home loan banks from providing 
     any advances to a member for use in financing, and from 
     accepting as collateral for any advance to a member, any 
     mortgage on a one- to four-family residence that will be used 
     as the principal residence of the mortgagor that does not 
     meet the requirements under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Identification Requirements.--The requirements under 
     this subsection with respect to a mortgage are that the 
     mortgagor have, at the time of settlement on the mortgage, a 
     Social Security account number.''.
       (b) Fannie Mae.--Section 304 of the Federal National 
     Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1719) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Prohibition Regarding Mortgagor Identification 
     Requirement.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to 
     authorize the corporation to purchase, service, hold, sell, 
     lend on the security of, or otherwise deal with any mortgage 
     that the corporation is prohibited from so dealing with under 
     the standards issued under section 1330 of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1992 by the Director of the 
     Federal Housing Finance Agency.''.
       (c) Freddie Mac.--Section 305 of the Federal Home Loan 
     Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1454) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Prohibition Regarding Mortgagor Identification 
     Requirements.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to 
     authorize the Corporation to purchase, service, hold, sell, 
     lend on the security of, or otherwise deal with any mortgage 
     that the Corporation is prohibited from so dealing with under 
     the standards issued under section 1330 of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1992 by the Director of the 
     Federal Housing Finance Agency.''.
       (d) Federal Home Loan Banks.--Section 10(a) of the Federal 
     Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1430(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) Prohibition regarding mortgagor identification 
     requirements.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to 
     authorize a Federal Home Loan Bank to provide any advance to 
     a member for use in financing, or accept as collateral for an 
     advance under this section, any mortgage that a Bank is 
     prohibited from so accepting under the standards issued under 
     section 1330 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1992 by the Director of the Federal Housing Finance 
     Agency.''.

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prevent the 
government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, from purchasing any mortgage 
from a lender where the person who received the mortgage did not use a 
valid Social Security number.
  In my State of California, it has been calculated that each legal 
resident in the State pays approximately $1,200 every year for illegal 
immigrants to use taxpayer-funded resources, including our highways, 
hospitals, and schools. Reducing the opportunities for illegal 
immigrants to purchase primary residences in the United States will be 
an important step toward decreasing the burden illegal immigrants 
impose upon our society.
  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac support the residential mortgage market by 
purchasing mortgages from lenders that, in turn, use the proceeds to 
make more loans available to home buyers. These organizations, 
chartered by Congress, should not be in the business of assisting 
illegal immigrants to purchase homes.
  The size of the GSE's portfolios represents a concentration of 
mortgage market risks, and this has been observed before, that led 
former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and others to urge 
Congress to consider ways to shrink the size of the GSE's asset 
portfolios.
  What better way to reduce the size of these portfolios than to 
prohibit mortgages for illegal immigrants. Not only will this change 
decrease the market risk, but it will also eliminate one more incentive 
that draws illegal immigrants to our country.
  When a person applies for a mortgage, he is asked whether the loan is 
for a primary residence, a secondary home, or an investment property. 
According to my amendment, only a person seeking to buy a primary 
residence would be required to have a Social Security number. 
Therefore, this amendment does not discourage foreign investment in the 
United States. Should a foreign investor wish to obtain a mortgage for 
a real estate investment, he would be able to do so. However, no person 
illegally in this country should be allowed to purchase a primary 
residence here.
  Since all people who are legally allowed to work in the United States 
are able to receive a work authorized Social Security number, this bill 
only targets those that are here illegally. Lending institutions should 
not be allowed to reward individuals violating U.S. law. Please vote 
``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  And I do want to congratulate the gentleman from California for a 
very nonduplicative amendment. It is an amendment that is different 
from all the other amendments, and I am glad to see it. I almost feel 
like it was Passover; we finally have an amendment that is different 
from all the other amendments.
  The question I have for the gentleman that was raised here, and he 
may have explained it as I was going over this. He did submit it in a 
timely fashion, so we should have checked it earlier. What about a 
foreign visitor who is in the country legally, say on a student visa. 
Would you be able to purchase a home on this?
  I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes. I did indicate that this only applies to a 
primary residence. A foreign investor could indicate that----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Not an investor, but someone who is here 
under a student visa that might not have a Social Security number, is 
not working, is here under a student visa and maybe can't work. Could 
that individual buy a home?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. You would have to be entitled to have a Social 
Security number, which, as I understand it, would be someone who is 
employed here.

[[Page H5462]]

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But we do have people here, for instance, 
who are here as students. There are wealthy people who come here to 
study. In fact, if you find someone paying full tuition in a college, 
she is probably from another country. And if that parent wanted to buy 
a home for that student, I don't believe they would have to get a 
Social Security number; I believe under a student visa you might not be 
able to work.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. A parent wouldn't need the Social Security number.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I understand that. But does every student 
here under student visa have to get a Social Security number? I am told 
in some cases under a student visa you can't work. If you are here as a 
student with wealthy parents, the parents want to buy you a home, you 
might not have a Social Security number and this would keep you from 
buying a home.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, if the parents want to buy you a home, it would 
be their investment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, excuse me. The gentleman first said 
it wasn't the parents. The parents live in another country. The student 
is here under a student visa, not working, for a 4-year course of 
study. Could the parents from another country buy that student a home 
under this bill if the student didn't have a Social Security number?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, the answer to that 
would be yes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How could they if the students don't have 
a Social Security number, how could you buy them a home?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, because the owner of the home is the parents.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No. The gentleman is obfuscating now. The 
parents live in another country. The parents give the student the money 
so that the student can buy the home. What about a student lawfully in 
the U.S., under a student visa, whose parents in another country want 
to finance the purchase of that home? The student doesn't have a Social 
Security number, maybe under the visa can't work. I think that is the 
case. The student wouldn't be able to buy a home.
  And I do agree that we should tighten up the rules on people here 
illegally, but as I read this I think it may sweep too far, impose too 
broad a mandate on Fannie and Freddie over things they can't control. 
And there may be other categories, but somebody here under a student 
visa whose family lives in another country, is prepared to finance the 
purchase of a home, it would appear to me that would make that 
impossible.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. It is true the student himself wouldn't be able to 
purchase the home. But the parents----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Again, the gentleman is simply 
misrepresenting the question. The parents live in another country. 
People in Saudi Arabia don't have to have Social Security numbers. So 
the parents are in another country; the student is here without a 
Social Security number. How does the student buy the home?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thought I made clear, the bill allows 
for foreign investment in the country. The student, under the 
provisions of this amendment, himself would not be able to buy the home 
if he were a student not able to work, therefore not having a Social 
Security.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman's interpretation in foreign 
investment is the parents buy the home for the student. Well, if the 
student had enough money on his or her own, then the student couldn't 
buy it.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Then the student couldn't buy it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I don't understand why we would say 
that. There might be students who have the money to buy it. And this 
fiction that students who buy a home, parents who buy a home for their 
own child to live in are foreign investors seems to me to import a 
fiction to get around an excessively rigid bill. And there may be other 
categories of people who are lawfully in this country who don't have 
Social Security numbers and could have the money to buy a home, and I 
am unpersuaded that we should prohibit that.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Are you saying that this amendment would prevent home buyers without 
Social Security numbers from obtaining home loans? Is that correct?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is correct.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Is it Social Security number, or valid Social 
Security number?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, obviously the intent is valid Social Security 
numbers.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. But you don't have valid Social Security number 
in here. And my point is this: That one of the problems we have got in 
immigration is there are many illegals, if you are getting at illegal 
immigrants, who have Social Security numbers. We would place on these 
this system, much like it is in the employer system, where employers 
will come and tell you that all of our employees are legal because they 
have Social Security numbers.

                              {time}  2345

  But I will also tell you, there is a burgeoning industry within the 
illegal immigration area of falsified Social Security numbers. That's a 
big deal. So I think that this raises a very serious problem within 
your amendment, because if you simply say Social Security Number, 
you're not really getting at the problem that you feel you're getting 
at.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Yes, I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We might be able to work this out. I am 
really concerned about the students and others. I am prepared to say 
that I would be willing to see that this bill is in conference. The 
gentleman obviously can press ahead. I going to vote against it at this 
point because it does seem to me that there are categories of people 
who can lawfully be in the country who have money who could buy a 
house, and I don't think we want to stop it.
  There will be some enforcement issues that we could work out, but I 
would hope we could more clearly define it; that is, I do think it's 
important that we say that this be confined to people who are illegally 
here. But relying on the Social Security number as the exclusive 
validator of someone's legal presence in the U.S. seems to me not good 
policy.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, again, that does create a 
problem with your amendment. And further, another problem it creates is 
because under current requirements, lenders may use any legitimate form 
of identification, so it would compound the difficulty, because it 
would make it difficult, again, for community banks to use blanket 
liens to pledge collateral, raising costs. The point I'm trying to get 
at is while the intention is good, I think that when you look at all of 
the problems with immigration, when you look at the problem of the fact 
of the cottage industry of providing bogus Social Security numbers, 
unless you put into this feature some mechanism to check to make sure 
that the Social Security number is valid, then the amendment seems to 
be moot.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Altmire). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


      Second Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Second Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Garrett of New 
     Jersey:
       Page 129, after line 22, insert the following:
       ``(4) Prohibition of pass-through of cost of allocations.--
     The Director shall, by regulation, prohibit each enterprise 
     from--
       ``(A) treating the costs to the enterprise of making the 
     allocations required under paragraph (1) as a regular 
     business expense of the enterprise; and
       ``(B) redirecting such costs, through increased charges or 
     fees, or decreased premiums, or in any other manner, to the 
     originators of mortgages purchased or securitized by the 
     enterprise.''.


[[Page H5463]]


  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor at this 
late evening time now to offer this amendment and, in essence, what 
we're trying too do here is to, bottom line is to help protect middle 
class American home owners as we move forward with this legislation 
with the housing fund in it, with the world class regulator, and to 
protect the American taxpayer from what we heard not only on the floor 
tonight, but going all the way back to testimony when this bill was 
being first considered from Chairman Bernanke, the potential for an 
MTI, a mortgage tax increase.
  We know how the underlying bill works. H.R. 1427 takes 1.2 basis 
points of the GSE's total annual business, not their profit, but the 
total annual business and directs those funds to help in an appropriate 
manner, some would say, to provide for low income housing.
  What this amendment does not do, and I know we have heard from the 
other side every time we tried to make any improvement to this 
legislation, that we characterize our efforts to improve the 
legislation to try to kill the underlying fund in this bill. Anyone 
making a clear reading of this amendment would realize this amendment 
does not do that in any way shape or form. This does not kill the fund. 
It improves the fund and it does so in a manner consistent with what 
the chairman said he has intended for the underlying bill in the first 
place, and that is to say that the increased tax would not hit those 
who we're trying to help, the low and moderate income earners.
  How does it do that? Well, if you just look to the text of the 
amendment, section 4, prohibits pass through of costs of allocation. 
The director shall by regulation prohibit such enterprises, the GSEs 
from treating the cost of enterprises of making allocation required 
under paragraph 1 as regular business expenses. In essence, what the 
amendment does is says it cannot pass those costs down the line to the 
originator and to the home owners. It has to be just where the chairman 
has said he intended it to be all along, on the stockholders and the 
investors in the GSEs.
  So I would hope that this commonsense amendment which basically 
effectuates what the Chairman said he intended for this legislation 
would seek unanimous support.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word. The gentleman overstated what I said. I do agree as to B. I would 
say this, and B, I think is perfectly reasonable. I think it might be 
hard to administer, but I would certainly, I would want to agree to B.
  I have a problem with A for this reason. We got CBO to score this. 
CBO scored it based on a tax reduction, and then there's a repayment in 
the REFCORP bonds. There's a fairly complicated proposal that we 
accepted from CBO to keep it revenue neutral, and it includes a tax 
deduction at one end, but a payment back at the other end. If the 
gentleman would be willing to ask unanimous consent to strike A, I 
would be prepared to be in favor of B. We could go back into the whole 
House, we could get unanimous consent. The problem is that if we strike 
A, I'm afraid it could unravel or scoring from CBO which assumes that 
they could deduct it and they would get the deduction, but CBO then 
said the government will lose money because you deducted it and we make 
up for another way with payments for the REFCORP bonds. I don't always 
understand what CBO says, but I can say that it's revenue neutral, 
recognizing the tax deduction, but making a payment that offsets that.
  So if the gentleman would agree, I would certainly agree, because I 
think B is a reasonable effort to do this. I'm not sure how effective 
it will be, but I agree we should try. We are not sure about the 
pricing. I know procedurally we could do this, so if the gentleman 
would be agreeable, I would hope we could do that. If you would ask 
unanimous consent to modify the amendment by dropping A. If not, I will 
oppose this amendment, but I will move to, if I am successful in 
opposing it move to incorporate B when we get to conference. But I 
think a better way to do it would be to get unanimous consent to modify 
the amendment.
  I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Thank you. Would the gentleman, by chance, 
have at your fingertips there the language from the CBO?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, I do not. I can tell the gentleman 
that what CBO, we asked them about the scoring, they said there would 
be a cost because it would be a tax deduction. But they then made up 
for that by requiring some of the funds to go to help pay off the 
REFCORP bonds which are left over from the S&L bailout. And I do know 
that's what was done.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I'm not looking for a yield. I'm looking 
for a moment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will just talk for a while, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I'm not looking for that either. Just for 
a moment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I was just going to kill time while 
you were looking so that, you know, we look like even though it's 
midnight, we're not all comatose. And as I said, alternatively, because 
it does cause us problems in the scoring and technical ways. It does 
seem to me the key is section B, and I would be agreeable to accepting 
section B now. Alternatively, I would hope that it would be defeated 
and we would put section B in conference.
  I'll yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I would agree with the gentleman's 
comments. And we can proceed with the procedural matters.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. What steps would be needed for us to have 
the gentleman get unanimous consent to modify his amendment by striking 
section A?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey could request 
unanimous consent to modify his amendment the way he so chooses.


 Modification to Second Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New 
                                 Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
modify my amendment by striking lines 4 through 7, which would be 
paragraph A, and I guess appropriately renumbering or relettering 
paragraph line A, paragraph B to correspond.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If it's only one paragraph, we probably 
don't have to call it A. It can just be the paragraph.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. That's why I say to appropriately reflect 
the change and deletion of that.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modified amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Second amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Garrett of New 
     Jersey, as modified:
       Page 129, after line 22, insert the following:
       ``(4) Prohibition of pass-through of cost of allocations.--
     The Director shall, by regulation, prohibit each enterprise 
     from--
       ``(A) redirecting such costs, through increased charges or 
     fees, or decreased premiums, or in any other manner, to the 
     originators of mortgages purchased or securitized by the 
     enterprise.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       Page 153, line 14, after the period insert close quotation 
     marks and a period.
       Strike line 15 on page 153 and all that follows through 
     line 6 on page 154.

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I'd like to do is 
really thank the chairman of the full committee. There are many on this 
side of the aisle who talk a lot about making this the most open and 
democratic and fair Congress. Many of their deeds do not match their 
words. But I want to congratulate the committee chairman for this open 
process this evening and

[[Page H5464]]

his commitment to the institution, his commitment to democracy and 
permitting these amendments to be offered. And although I have two 
remaining, Mr. Chairman, I have decided to only offer one. The 
amendment I offer at this moment, No. 30, achieves one very simple 
purpose.
  I understand that our side has lost on the creation of the so-called 
affordable housing fund, but in the underlying legislation, there is a 
place holder for something called an affordable housing trust fund. And 
apparently, if this fund, which is rather ill-defined, is created at 
some later time, the bill would authorize funds to be transferred from 
the affordable housing fund to the housing trust fund. I've been pretty 
diligent in my attendance of our subcommittee and committee hearings. I 
don't recall a hearing on the housing trust fund. I don't remember a 
markup on the housing trust fund. And I don't know exactly what the 
housing trust fund is, but I'm nervous about it. I'm nervous about it 
because when I look at almost every other government trust fund, what I 
see is an entitlement. Entitlement spending, Mr. Chairman. And the last 
thing we need to do is to be authorizing spending for a yet to be 
created entitlement spending fund.
  The number one fiscal challenge in the Nation is to reform 
entitlement spending. And I believe the Chairman's passion about 
wanting to create affordable housing. I have profound philosophical 
differences with our chairman, but I don't doubt his passion. I don't 
doubt his sincerity.
  But I have my passion. I have my passion. And right now, according to 
the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, 
the Federal Reserve chairman, we are on the road to bankrupt the next 
generation. Ask anybody who has looked at the long-term spending 
patterns of entitlement spending in America today and they're going to 
tell you, we're facing a fiscal fork in the road. In one generation, in 
one generation, either there will be almost no Federal Government 
except for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, there will be no 
HUD. None of these housing programs will exist. And the other fork in 
the road, Mr. Chairman, is that we're going to have to double taxes, on 
the next generation just to balance the budget. Don't take my word for 
it. Go to the Web site of OMB, GAO, CBO. They're all going to tell you 
the same thing.

                              {time}  0000

  And yet here we are tonight deciding that we are going to transfer 
funds to this yet-to-be-created housing trust fund, create yet another 
entitlement spending.
  I am a Member of Congress, but let me tell you something else. I also 
happen to be a father of a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son who 
are already looking at paying for unfunded obligations in this 
entitlement spending of $50 trillion and now we are going to add to it. 
And I have heard many speakers on this side of the aisle eloquently 
speak about the least of these among us. Well, I maintain the least of 
these among us are those who cannot vote and those who are yet to be 
born. So I don't particularly care to take it on trust or faith that I 
am not somehow enabling the next new entitlement to hopefully hasten 
the bankruptcy of next generation.
  The Comptroller General of America has said we are on the verge of 
being the very first generation in America's history to leave the next 
generation with a lower standard of living. I myself will not sit idly 
by and allow that to happen.
  So perhaps the chairman has a good idea of what he intends to with 
the housing trust fund. I do not and I will not create another 
entitlement program.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not an entitlement. It isn't close to one. It 
cannot get out of control. The only money that can come from this is 
very clearly limited to 1.2 basis points on the mortgage portfolio of 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  The gentleman misstates the problem of entitlements if he thinks this 
is a problem. An entitlement is when the Federal Government, without 
necessarily a funding source, says if you are X, if you have these 
characteristics, you are entitled to this amount of money. That is 
Social Security and that is Medicare. That is not this bill. This bill 
does not entitle anybody to an affordable housing fund. It does not say 
if the population grows at a certain rate, then there is the demand for 
spending. It defines the spending source, a nontax spending source. It 
says 1.2 basis points of the mortgage portfolio. It doesn't entitle 
anyone to housing.
  Social Security and Medicare, he mentioned. Those are entitlements. 
That means if you are a certain age and have a certain characteristic, 
you are entitled to receive the funding.
  No one is entitled under this bill to receive housing funding. This 
is an authorization of spending, but it is not an entitlement to 
receive it.
  Secondly, there is nothing secret here. It says it will be 
transferred if there is enacted a provision of Federal law establishing 
the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. That means it only becomes 
operational if this Congress decides in open session, with another 47 
duplicate amendments from the Republican side, to deal with it. We will 
have a dozen roll calls to make sure that it happens.
  I should also point this out. Why do we do it this way? To make sure 
we meet the PAYGO issue. This bill creates a fund out of Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac profits. We have not yet got any consensus on how best to 
spend it after the first year when it goes to Louisiana and 
Mississippi. So we say to meet budgetary requirements, we don't want to 
be in a situation where we create a pot of money in one bill and then 
in the second bill decide how to spend it. This means that when we get 
to the collective decision in open session about how to spend it, 
whether it goes through the States, whether it is goes through HUD, 
whatever method we choose, we will not be charged with a source of 
funding. We will simply take the source of funding and hold it in limbo 
after Mississippi and Alabama and it will catch up if this Congress 
decides to do it with the method of distribution. That is not an 
entitlement. An entitlement is when you as an individual are legally 
entitled to receive money from the Federal Government because of your 
status. No one is entitled under this bill. No one gets the right to 
say I'm such and such, build me a house, rent me an apartment. This 
says a fixed sum will go at a limited rate, a percentage of the 
mortgage portfolio, and Congress will decide how it will be 
distributed.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And, again, I guess the chairman has a whole lot more confidence on 
the attributes of an ill-defined housing trust fund than I do. I have 
read earlier comments that the chairman has made: ``The placeholder 
would similarly preserve from this bill to the next bill our ability to 
spend money on a housing trust fund.'' And I know that the chairman, I 
believe in the same markup of March 28, in responding to a question: 
``Would the gentleman be willing to accept an amendment that explicitly 
states that it would be subject to PAYGO?'' the chairman replied, 
``No.''
  So knowing that PAYGO, as the Democratic side has defined it, applies 
to new entitlement spending and to tax relief, it makes one a little 
bit suspicious thinking maybe there could be a new entitlement here. 
The housing trust fund does not appear to be defined; so maybe it is an 
entitlement; maybe it is not an entitlement. But if it is defined, I 
don't know. I just happen to be very passionate about not wanting to be 
part of an effort that might ultimately lead to helping create a new 
entitlement program and exacerbate the number one fiscal challenge in 
America. But I don't know how the chairman can say with such great 
definition if we are going to potentially create a funding stream for a 
housing trust fund, we don't define it, that he knows absolutely it 
will not or ever have the attributes of an entitlement.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the chairman of the committee.

[[Page H5465]]

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I very much resent the 
gentleman from Texas simply doubting my words so blatantly. You do not 
create an entitlement by accident. Secondly, of course, he misstates 
the word ``entitlement.'' An entitlement means that you as an 
individual are entitled to receive the money. That has never been 
contemplated here. Nothing I ever suggested says it. I repudiated the 
notion. The gentleman says, yeah, but who knows what he is thinking? I 
really do not believe the gentleman has any basis for impugning these 
kinds of motives to me. I am simply repeating what the gentleman said. 
Well, he says it is not an entitlement but how can we be sure?
  Because the committee which I chair where I have talked frequently 
with all the members, including certainly the majority, I know what we 
intend. It is not to create anything remotely like an entitlement. An 
entitlement means that individuals will be able to say give me housing, 
I am entitled to it legally. What we are saying is we will set up a 
housing fund. We will debate how it is distributed, but it will never 
be close to an entitlement. No one has ever suggested that any 
individual would have the right to demand, as you do on Social Security 
and Medicare, which makes then entitlements, the funding.
  I said no to PAYGO because I rejected the assumption that it was 
necessary. This meets PAYGO. It totally meets PAYGO. Has scored this as 
revenue neutral. We asked them from the standpoint of the Federal 
Government, and it is revenue neutral. You don't need PAYGO with 
something that is revenue neutral. What it says is that the Congress, 
not me personally or a small cabal, will decide that we are going to 
create an entitlement when no one is looking. It says that having 
reserved this money in a revenue-neutral way, we will then decide as a 
Congress how best to distribute it but to distribute it as a housing 
fund, not as an entitlement. There has never been any suggestion that 
it would be an entitlement. It is not remotely going to be like Social 
Security and Medicare, and it cannot be a runaway fund. It is limited 
to 1.2 basis points of the mortgage portfolio of Fannie Mae. That is an 
entirely different funding mechanism than an entitlement funding 
mechanism.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Neugebauer:
       Page 128, strike lines 18 through 20 and insert the 
     following: ``amount equal to the lesser of (A) 1.2 basis 
     points for each dollar of the average total mortgage 
     portfolio of the enterprise during the preceding year, (B) 
     the number of basis points for each dollar of the average 
     total mortgage portfolio of the enterprise during the 
     preceding year, which when applied to such average portfolios 
     of both enterprises, results in an aggregate allocation under 
     this paragraph by the enterprises for the year of 
     $520,000,000, or (C) a lesser amount, as determined by the 
     Director, if the Director determines for such year that 
     allocation of the lesser of the amounts under subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B) poses a safety or soundness concern to the 
     enterprise.''.

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, this is a pretty simple amendment. We 
have had a lot of debate this evening about whether to have a housing 
fund or not to have a housing fund, and the votes are in and we are 
going to have a housing fund.
  One of the things that I feel very strongly about is this is a 
substantial amount of money to any entity. While these are large 
entities, $520 million, over $3 billion over a 5-year period, is a lot 
of money. If we are going to ask these entities to make this kind of 
commitment, I think we owe them some certainty here.
  Now, the current formula is that we will take 1.2 basis points times 
the portfolio. But what I believe is fair is to set a ceiling on what 
that amount can be. Now, the current scoring by is that at 1.2 on the 
total portfolio that we would have about $520 million. What I am saying 
is let's cap it at $520 million.
  When you start looking at an entity, you don't want them making a 
decision on whether to make additional loans available for people in 
America that need loans, affordable loans, of saying if we increase our 
portfolio, we are going to have to pay more money into the housing 
fund. So what I believe is a fair balance is saying that as they bring 
their portfolio up and down to meet the market demands and adjust to 
the market conditions that we just give them a number that they know 
that is not going to exceed so what when they are budgeting, making 
sure that they are going to have a safe and sound entity, that they 
know what the number is.
  I am a small businessman, Mr. Chairman, and when I was sitting down 
every year, I made a budget for my business. And one of the things that 
we tried to do was to fix a lot of our costs so that we would know what 
our costs would be because variable costs many times are causing you 
not to be able to control those or they are counter to being profitable 
in many cases. These are entities that have provided housing 
opportunities for Americans for many, many years. And I was in the real 
estate business and the home building business in the 1980s, and I will 
tell you if it was not for Fannie Mae and Mae and the Federal Home Loan 
Bank board buying mortgages in America, many people would not have been 
able to buy a house during that time because a lot of the players got 
out of the market.
  So, number one, the original purpose of this legislation was safety 
and soundness. That is how this debate got started. So if we are really 
concerned about the safety and soundness of it we have come up with a 
number here, and it is a big number. This is a lot of money. When I 
came to Washington, I was a little surprised. People use a billion 
around here like it is not a lot of money. But everybody in this room 
should understand what $1 billion is. If you and I started a business 
the day that Jesus Christ was born and that business lost $1 million 
not every week, not every year, but that business lost $1 million every 
day since the birth of Christ, we wouldn't have yet lost $1 billion. So 
we are talking about a large sum of money. That may not be large to 
people in Washington, but let me tell you to people in West Texas it is 
a lot of money.
  So if we are going to ask a company to make that kind of contribution 
to a housing fund, I think we owe them some certainty. And I believe 
that $520 million a year is a certain number. It is a big number. It a 
accomplishes a lot of the things that the other side, I think, wants to 
do with this fund. So whether you agree with the fund or not agree with 
the fund, I don't see how you can disagree with the opportunity to come 
up with a fair compromise for these entities to say that we are going 
to cap this contribution requirement at this level.
  As I mentioned, and it was somewhat turned around in our committee 
meeting when I offered this, when I sit down and make a commitment to a 
charity, they say to me sometimes we want you to make a multi-year 
commitment. Now, I don't always make that multi-year commitment based 
on whether I am going to make money that year or lose money that year. 
I make a commitment and I stick to it. But I always make a commitment 
that I think I can live up to.
  So it is important for several reasons: That, number one, that we 
give some certainty; and, number two, that we make sure that when these 
contributions are asked for that the regulator is given some ability to 
be able to say we think in this particular year, because of the market 
conditions, because of the profitability of this company, that that may 
be less.
  So I encourage Members on both sides let's give some certainty.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.

[[Page H5466]]

                              {time}  0015

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have reached a very interesting point in this debate 
and in this discussion. It has been a long one and it has been a rather 
interesting one. This amendment that my friend, Mr. Neugebauer, is 
attempting was attempted in committee and it was defeated.
  I find it very interesting because we have seen all kinds of attempts 
here this evening by the opposite side of the aisle to deny this 
Housing Fund. We have seen attempts to try to diminish or cut the 
Housing Fund, to redefine the Housing Fund, to use it for economic 
development. We have seen everything. And we are at the point now that 
I guess if you can't stop it, somehow cap it. Cap it no matter how much 
money under this formula it will bring in. We are going to take an 
arbitrary amount at $520 million or so and just cap it, even if the 
actual funds under the formula exceed the estimated $600 million a 
year. I don't think so.
  I would ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment again 
because it does not make good sense. This particular fund that has been 
developed by our chairman is one of the most creative items that have 
happened here in this House in a long time.
  We don't have a lot of money to do some of the things we need to be 
doing for the domestic agenda. As a matter of fact, yes, we support 
PAYGO because our deficit has gotten out of hand. Our friends on the 
opposite side of the aisle, in cooperation with this administration, 
have been spending like drunken sailors. So now we have a way that we 
can help the least of these in our society attain quality, decent 
housing, low and moderate income people, and not tap the general fund 
at all.
  And so we have this very, very creative way to do this led by our 
chairman. And a lot of people are going to benefit from it. And again, 
we have had attempts to deny it, and now we have an attempt to cap it.
  I am saying we should not support this amendment. We should debate it 
in the way that we have been debating basically this Housing Trust Fund 
all evening. You have tried everything that you can possibly think of. 
You have tried to redefine it. You have tried to talk about it in 
different ways that certainly it was not meant to be described. And you 
are not winning at this. As a matter of fact, I am hoping that since 
you are now at the point where you see that there is a lot of support 
for this Housing Trust Fund, and that you have tried everything that 
you can possibly try and it hasn't worked, that you will just fold your 
tent, roll over, come on in, and in the final analysis, vote for this 
bill which will include this Housing Trust Fund.
  I am so tired. I don't have another word that I can share about it. 
And I hope you feel the same way, too, so we can wrap it up and go 
home.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the distinguished 
chairwoman of the Housing Committee. I enjoy serving with her.
  You know, I think one of the points I would make here is my bill does 
not try to kill the Housing Fund. My bill tries to say that, you know 
what? We're asking these entities to step up and make a big 
contribution, and we want to make sure that they do it in a safe and 
sound manner.
  You know, I will tell you, the problem here is that if these 
entities, if we do something that jeopardizes the health of these 
entities by taking money out of their capital structure, these entities 
will not be able to perform the functions that they have been 
performing in the marketplace. And so what this is, I believe, is a 
realistic approach at looking at how we begin to go down this road.
  Now, even the majority has put a sunset in this bill, a 5-year sunset 
I believe, if I am correct. What that allows us to do is we are going 
to see, you know, $520 million roughly over a 5-year period, we are 
going to see what happens to how does that Housing Fund perform, how 
does that impact the entity that is paying these monies? If we want to 
come back at the end of 5 years and you want to raise the cap, let's 
look at the cap. But let's also let the regulator look at the cap 
during that process and make sure that we're not doing something that 
is causing harm.
  The worst thing we can do for the housing market in this country is 
to disrupt one of the envies of the world, and that is our financial 
structure, how we finance housing in this country.
  When I was in the home building industry, I was on the National Board 
of Directors of Home Builders, people from all over the world wanted to 
come and say how is it that America has such a high ownership rate and 
such a robust financial market for housing. They wanted to know how to 
copy ours. So we need to preserve that and not sit around and figure 
out ways to necessarily harm it.
  So I encourage Members to support this. This is a fair proposition. 
This is not killing anything. This is a fair proposition. It's saying 
that we believe that how we got to the ownership rate that we have in 
America today is by protecting the companies and the entities and the 
financial structure that allowed us to get here, and not by trying to 
somehow cause it harm.
  In closing, I want to say this to Chairman Frank and to the ranking 
member, this has been a very deliberative process. And Mr. Frank, in 
our full committee, allowed us the opportunity to offer as many 
amendments as we would like to. We had a lot of dialogue there. We've 
had a lot of dialogue here tonight, and maybe some of it has been 
duplicative. But I think the good thing about it is that we have aired 
all of the concerns that people have about this. Because this is a very 
important piece of legislation. It has a tremendous amount of impact on 
the future of the financial markets in America. And so if it takes 1 
day or it takes 2 days, and if it takes 20 amendments or 100 amendments 
to get to the right place, then I think that is a good process. But I 
want to thank the chairman for allowing us to get to this point.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
  Let me see if we can put some of this in perspective for tonight as 
we wind down in this successful debate.
  Here we've got an extraordinary emergency problem affecting the very 
poorest of people. Not just the very poorest of people, but people who 
have been devastated by the worst natural disaster in the modern 
history of our country; and on top of that, people who have been denied 
and denied. What comes to my mind are those images of those individuals 
who lost everything standing on rooftops to get saved. In a way, they 
are still standing on those rooftops, without homes. And here we've got 
a measure to go and address that.
  This evening has just been an illustrative of attempt after attempt. 
First you wanted to make this equate to saving Social Security or 
raiding Social Security. Then you put this program in as being a 
measure to add to the deficit. Then came immigration. That wasn't 
enough. Then you want to restrict the means of the GSEs to have the 
most profitable way of arranging their portfolios. And you want to 
clamp down and make it so that the only investments they could get 
would be those at the bottom of the economic heap yielding the lowest 
return. Because you knew that this would not require a tax increase. 
You knew that this was based upon shareholders, nontaxable funds, a 
very creative way. And yet you tried to slam it in. Here are these 
Democrats raising your taxes again. But the American people are not 
buying that. That is not the case.
  Then the game comes that again, this is an entitlement, where nowhere 
in the legislation is it an entitlement. All of tonight just reminded 
me, when I remember those images of those poor people still looking for 
help, but what you have offered them tonight is a massive cut, cutting 
the legs out from under them and then condemning them for being a 
cripple. That's devastating.
  Now we come to the last amendment. Having failed all of that, my good 
friend from Texas says we're going to cap it. Oh, that's not going to 
do anything. But your fellow Congressman from Texas game down to that 
floor, Congressman Green and Congressman Brady asking for help, wanting 
to help, but no money, and here you are wanting to crimp it, wanting to 
cap it.
  Now, you say the cap doesn't mean anything, that it is going to be 
the lesser of 1.2 basis point average total

[[Page H5467]]

mortgage portfolio for the prior year, or $520 million, or a lesser 
amount determined by the director. The director determines either the 
higher amount possesses a safety or soundness concern.
  But what this amendment actually does, it reduces the amount 
available in the affordable housing program from an estimated $600 
million a year down to $520 million a year. But it goes more than that. 
It just doesn't cap that. It would also cap the amount that the $520 
million, even if the actual funds under the formula exceeded the 
estimated $600 million a year.
  Chairman Frank has put a very creative measure in. He has tagged it 
to no set amount, he just put it at 1.2 of the basic points so it 
allows a free marketplace. And then it allows these GSEs and the 
shareholders, based upon the profit that they make, to take some of 
that and help the most needy among us.
  This has, indeed, been a tremendous debate tonight. We have been 
going at it since 5 o'clock this afternoon. But it has been worth it 
because there is no greater thing you can do for your fellow citizens 
than make sure they have a roof over their heads.


                  Announcement By the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members on both sides are reminded to address 
their comments to the Chair.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I want, first of all, to start with a loud applause for the Financial 
Services Committee. As I said in my office, to see this story unfold, 
something that has never happened in this Congress during the tenure 
that I have had, is a real legislative initiative that addresses the 
question of the deficit in housing in America.
  This bill, for the first time, will provide a stable and well-
regulated mortgage market. And my good friend from Texas, the spirit 
that he has offered this amendment, I assume that he is both serious, 
and, of course, concerned. But coming from Texas as well, I don't know 
how many Texans my good friend speaks for because this particular 
Affordable Housing Fund does start off the first year in funding the 
devastation of Louisiana and Mississippi, but what it continues to do 
is provide a $500, $600 million affordable Housing Trust Fund that the 
people of Texas will benefit from.

                              {time}  0030

  Maybe my good friend has not been to East Texas and seen the 
devastation of Hurricane Rita. Those people, just a few miles down from 
Houston, are still living without housing.
  This is a very measured legislative initiative, for the fund 
prohibits any hanky-panky. It has nothing to do with administrative 
costs, political activities, advocacy, lobbying, counseling, travel 
expense, preparation or advice on tax returns. It is all about housing. 
It even limits administrative costs. And it is sunsetted after 5 years.
  We in Houston are still suffering from Storm Allison, and an 
affordable housing plan will allow housing to be restored to those who 
are unable to find housing. In fact, what this particular legislation 
will do is to answer the question why 71 percent of extremely low 
income renters pay more than half of their income for housing and 64 
percent of homeowners who are low income pay more than half. There is a 
housing crisis. Right now there is an epidemic of foreclosures because 
of a broken mortgage system that has preyed upon eager Americans to be 
able to buy a home.
  The capping of this strategic and innovative formula for affordable 
housing will only dumb-down the opportunities for people to gain 
housing. I can assure you that the throngs of Americans are begging for 
the passage of this legislation tonight, because all an American wants 
to do when you hear them talk about we all are created equal with 
certain inalienable rights, it is all about the quality of life, the 
ability to send a child to school for a good education, a good home and 
good healthcare.
  My friend talks about money, $520 million, it may go up a bit, for 
one year. We are spending $1 billion a day almost in Iraq and certainly 
we have a difference of opinion on that use of money. But the real 
question is, what can we do to fix the broken predatory lending system, 
the broken mortgage system, the lack of housing for people who want 
housing? We can pass H.R. 1427.
  It is interesting that I am looking at a letter to our colleagues, 
and it says signed by Barney Frank, Mel Watt, Richard Baker and Gary 
Miller. To me, that seems like a bipartisan commitment to this reform.
  So I am confused by the gentleman's amendment to cap and to dumb down 
this affordable housing trust fund that would in fact provide money for 
Texas. Those of us in Houston in districts like mine and districts that 
are surrounding all know of the many hard-working survivors who are in 
our community trying to make it from Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane 
Rita. We have ceased calling anyone a deadbeat or someone who doesn't 
want to work or doesn't want housing. I would venture to say if you 
walked along any block, inner-city block, you would find people saying 
give me an opportunity.
  Chairman Frank, all I see in this bill is an opportunity; a 
regulated, precise opportunity for affordable housing, and I ask my 
colleagues to defeat the Neugebauer amendment and vote for H.R. 1427.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Altmire, Acting 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 1427) to reform the regulation of certain housing-related 
Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes, had come to 
no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________