Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 82 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

[[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.

``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.

____________________