Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 150 (Thursday, October 4, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 150 (Thursday, October 4, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11287-H11298]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MORTGAGE FORGIVENESS DEBT RELIEF ACT OF 2007

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 703, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3648) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
exclude discharges of indebtedness on principal residences from gross
income, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration
in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 3648

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page H11288]]

SECTION 1. DISCHARGES OF INDEBTEDNESS ON PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE
EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 108(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``or''
at the end of subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the
end of subparagraph (D) and inserting ``, or'', and by
inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) the indebtedness discharged is qualified principal
residence indebtedness.''.
(b) Special Rules Relating to Qualified Principal Residence
Indebtedness.--Section 108 of such Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Special Rules Relating to Qualified Principal
Residence Indebtedness.--
``(1) Basis reduction.--The amount excluded from gross
income by reason of subsection (a)(1)(E) shall be applied to
reduce (but not below zero) the basis of the principal
residence of the taxpayer.
``(2) Qualified principal residence indebtedness.--For
purposes of this section, the term `qualified principal
residence indebtedness' means acquisition indebtedness
(within the meaning of section 163(h)(3)(B), without regard
to clause (ii) thereof) with respect to the principal
residence of the taxpayer.
``(3) Exception for discharges on account of services
performed for the lender.--Subsection (a)(1)(E) shall not
apply to the discharge of a loan if the discharge is on
account of services performed for the lender.
``(4) Principal residence.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `principal residence' has the same
meaning as when used in section 121.''.
(c) Coordination.--
(1) Subparagraph (A) of section 108(a)(2) of such Code is
amended by striking ``and (D)'' and inserting ``, (D), and
(E)''.
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 108(a) of such Code is amended
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Principal residence exclusion takes precedence over
insolvency exclusion unless elected otherwise.--Paragraph
(1)(B) shall not apply to a discharge to which paragraph
(1)(E) applies unless the taxpayer elects to apply paragraph
(1)(B) in lieu of paragraph (1)(E).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to discharges of indebtedness on or after January
1, 2007.

SEC. 2. LONG-TERM EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION FOR MORTGAGE
INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 163(h)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to mortgage
insurance premiums treated as interest) is amended by
striking clauses (iii) and (iv) and inserting the following
new clause:
``(iii) Application.--Clause (i) shall not apply with
respect to any mortgage insurance contract issued before
January 1, 2007, or after December 31, 2014.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to contracts issued after December 31, 2006.

SEC. 3. ALTERNATIVE TESTS FOR QUALIFYING AS COOPERATIVE
HOUSING CORPORATION.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 216(b)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining cooperative
housing corporation) is amended to read as follows:
``(D) meeting 1 or more of the following requirements for
the taxable year in which the taxes and interest described in
subsection (a) are paid or incurred:
``(i) 80 percent or more of the corporation's gross income
for such taxable year is derived from tenant-stockholders.
``(ii) At all times during such taxable year, 80 percent or
more of the total square footage of the corporation's
property is used or available for use by the tenant-
stockholders for residential purposes or purposes ancillary
to such residential use.
``(iii) 90 percent or more of the expenditures of the
corporation paid or incurred during such taxable year are
paid or incurred for the acquisition, construction,
management, maintenance, or care of the corporation's
property for the benefit of the tenant-stockholders.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. GAIN FROM SALE OF PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE ALLOCATED TO
NONQUALIFIED USE NOT EXCLUDED FROM INCOME.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 121 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitations) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Exclusion of gain allocated to nonqualified use.--
``(A) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to so
much of the gain from the sale or exchange of property as is
allocated to periods of nonqualified use.
``(B) Gain allocated to periods of nonqualified use.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A), gain shall be allocated to
periods of nonqualified use based on the ratio which--
``(i) the aggregate periods of nonqualified use during the
period such property was owned by the taxpayer, bears to
``(ii) the period such property was owned by the taxpayer.
``(C) Period of nonqualified use.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `period of nonqualified use'
means any period (other than the portion of any period
preceding January 1, 2008) during which the property is not
used as the principal residence of the taxpayer or the
taxpayer's spouse or former spouse.
``(ii) Exceptions.--The term `period of nonqualified use'
does not include--

``(I) any portion of the 5-year period described in
subsection (a) which is after the last date that such
property is used as the principal residence of the taxpayer
or the taxpayer's spouse,
``(II) any period (not to exceed an aggregate period of 10
years) during which the taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse is
serving on qualified official extended duty (as defined in
subsection (d)(9)(C)) described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii)
of subsection (d)(9)(A), and
``(III) any other period of temporary absence (not to
exceed an aggregate period of 2 years) due to change of
employment, health conditions, or such other unforeseen
circumstances as may be specified by the Secretary.

``(D) Coordination with recognition of gain attributable to
depreciation.--For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) subparagraph (A) shall be applied after the
application of subsection (d)(6), and
``(ii) subparagraph (B) shall be applied without regard to
any gain to which subsection (d)(6) applies.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to sales and exchanges after December 31, 2007.

SEC. 5. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

Subparagraph (B) of section 401(1) of the Tax Increase
Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is amended by
striking ``114.75 percent'' and inserting ``116.50 percent''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 703, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill, modified
by the amendment printed in House Report 110-360, is adopted and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 3648

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Mortgage Forgiveness Debt
Relief Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. DISCHARGES OF INDEBTEDNESS ON PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE
EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 108(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``or''
at the end of subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the
end of subparagraph (D) and inserting ``, or'', and by
inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) the indebtedness discharged is qualified principal
residence indebtedness.''.
(b) Special Rules Relating to Qualified Principal Residence
Indebtedness.--Section 108 of such Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Special Rules Relating to Qualified Principal
Residence Indebtedness.--
``(1) Basis reduction.--The amount excluded from gross
income by reason of subsection (a)(1)(E) shall be applied to
reduce (but not below zero) the basis of the principal
residence of the taxpayer.
``(2) Qualified principal residence indebtedness.--For
purposes of this section, the term `qualified principal
residence indebtedness' means acquisition indebtedness
(within the meaning of section 163(h)(3)(B), ``applied by
substituting $2,000,000 ($1,000,000' for `$1,000,000
($500,000' in clause (ii) thereof'' with respect to the
principal residence of the taxpayer.
``(3) Exception for certain discharges not related to
taxpayer's financial condition.--Subsection (a)(1)(E) shall
not apply to the discharge of a loan if the discharge is on
account of services performed for the lender or any other
factor not directly related to a decline in the value of the
residence or to the financial condition of the taxpayer.
``(4) Ordering rule.--If any loan is discharged, in whole
or in part, and only a portion of such loan is qualified
principal residence indebtedness, subsection (a)(1)(E) shall
apply only to so much of the amount discharged as exceeds the
amount of the loan (as determined immediately before such
discharge) which is not qualified principal residence
indebtedness.
``(5) Principal residence.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `principal residence' has the same
meaning as when used in section 121.''.
(c) Coordination.--
(1) Subparagraph (A) of section 108(a)(2) of such Code is
amended by striking ``and (D)'' and inserting ``(D), and
(E)''.
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 108(a) of such Code is amended
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Principal residence exclusion takes precedence over
insolvency exclusion unless elected otherwise.--Paragraph
(1)(B) shall not apply to a discharge to which paragraph
(1)(E) applies unless the taxpayer elects to apply paragraph
(1)(B) in lieu of paragraph (1)(E).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to discharges of indebtedness on or after January
1, 2007.

SEC. 3. LONG-TERM EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION FOR MORTGAGE
INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 163(h)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

[[Page H11289]]

(relating to mortgage insurance premiums treated as interest)
is amended by striking clauses (iii) and (iv) and inserting
the following new clause:
``(iii) Application.--Clause (i) shall not apply with
respect to any mortgage insurance contract issued before
January 1, 2007, or after December 31, 2014.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to contracts issued after December 31, 2006.

SEC. 4. ALTERNATIVE TESTS FOR QUALIFYING AS COOPERATIVE
HOUSING CORPORATION.

SEC. 5. GAIN FROM SALE OF PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE ALLOCATED TO
NONQUALIFIED USE NOT EXCLUDED FROM INCOME.

SEC. 6. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

Subparagraph (B) of section 401(1) of the Tax Increase
Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is amended by
striking the percentage contained therein and inserting
``116.75 percent''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the minority ranking member on the
Ways and Means Committee and our staffs for working to bring some
relief to those people that are feeling the problems of the subprime
mortgage crisis.
I want to make a special thanks to Congressman Rob Andrews, whose
creativity in working with the committee, along with Zach Space, gave
us the direction to remove some of the inequities that may relieve some
of the pain that people are feeling.
It's a commonsense piece of legislation that when the banks and those
that hold the mortgage decide to give forgiveness on some parts of that
loan, that these parts of the loan not be considered as income and does
not create a taxable event. So we do that. We passed it out by voice
vote because it just made a lot of sense.
In addition to that, we make it easier for people to extend their
mortgage insurance, as well as those people who own condos, to be able
to get relief from debts that they may have by getting long-term
extension of private mortgage insurance on all of them.
Finally, the bill makes it easier for taxpayers to form housing
cooperation co-ops.
We give a general relief and at the same time make it more difficult
for people to move into their rentals or vacation homes and enjoy the
same tax relief as they move from their original homes. In other words,
they can only get the tax relief for that part of the time they
actually lived in the rental or the vacation home, rather than having
the luxury of moving from one vacation home to the other and enjoying
the tax benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to one of the hardest-
working members of the committee that spent a lot of time on this
subject matter, Mr. Blumenauer, and allow him to delegate the time as
requested by other Members of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon
will control the remainder of the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation,
though not without some reservations. I share the concern of my
chairman and my colleagues about the subprime mortgage crisis.
While we are all ultimately responsible for the contracts we sign,
there were clearly failures in the market that led people to buy homes
larger or more expensive than they could really afford, or to accept
mortgage terms that might quickly become unsustainable.
The result has been a growing number of foreclosures, which, in turn,
puts downward pressure on other home prices. Moreover, when a bank
forgives some or all of the mortgage, that cancelled debt is treated as
income and is subject to tax. Too many people are learning the hard way
about this ``kick-'em-when-they're-down'' feature of the tax code.
In August, President Bush recognized the seriousness of this crisis
and proposed a temporary provision exempting from tax the income that
individuals receive when a bank reduces or eliminates the mortgage on a
primary residence.
I think that his proposal, a temporary solution to a temporary
crisis, is appropriate, and asked the Rules Committee to make in order
a substitute which did just that. As my colleagues know, however, we
were not given that opportunity, and so we are not debating such a
proposal.
Nevertheless, there are good policy arguments for making this
provision permanent, just as there are for making it temporary. But the
important thing is that we do something to help. I am glad the chairman
of the Ways and Means Committee decided to move a bill dealing with
this crisis.
The bill does, however, contain revenue offsets that I do find
troubling. Generally, I continue to oppose PAYGO rules that require us
to raise taxes in one place in order to provide tax relief in another.
Nonetheless, those are the rules that this House has adopted, so I
understand the majority's need to include an offset in the bill.
The offset being used today will deny part of the capital gains
exemption to families who sell a second home which was not always their
primary residence. During committee markup, I expressed concerns that
the proposal could undercut housing prices in areas of the country
where second-home purchases form a large share of the housing market. I
understand the chairman's desire to identify an offset within the
housing market, and that certainly constrained our choices.
I also appreciate the chairman's efforts to include transition relief
to limit the effect of this provision on families who may already own
more than one home. As has been noted already and will surely be noted
again, the bill, including this offset, has been endorsed by several
leading real estate

[[Page H11290]]

groups, and that calms, although it doesn't eliminate, my concerns
about the impact the offset may have.
Thus, while I do support the positive tax relief in this bill for
those with cancellation of indebtedness income, I would prefer to do so
without this objectionable offset. It is my hope that as this
legislation moves forward, as I believe it should today, we will have
an opportunity to reconsider the revenue raises attached to it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and request unanimous
consent that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), who coauthored
the original legislation similar to the bill before us today with Mr.
Andrews, be allowed to allocate the remainder of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for 2\1/2\ minutes.
It is not often I find myself disagreeing with my esteemed friend,
the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, but I would like to
briefly address his concerns.
As our esteemed chairman, Mr. Rangel, pointed out, this is a serious
program that all agree needs a serious solution to avoid having people
who lose their homes end up having their loss become a taxable event.
Our legislation solves this.
Where I take modest exception to the ranking member and, in fact, had
a rather spirited debate before the Rules Committee with Ranking Member
Dreier that this is somehow a temporary problem and just requires a
temporary solution, we are in a situation now where the majority would
argue that there is never a good time to have people who lose their
homes have that loss be a taxable event. Second, unlike the Bush
administration thinks this is going to be solved in the next year or
two, the fact is, in 2006, 20 percent of the first-lien mortgages were
in the subprime market.
We are going to see exploding adjustable rate mortgages for years.
Those people shouldn't have uncertainty if there are people who assume
control who think that their loss should be a taxable event.
As it speaks to the pay-for, the Democrats have made a commitment
that we are going to pay for our actions. We are not going to add to
the deficit. This is an entirely appropriate pay-for. There was never
an intent with the $500,000 per couple exclusion from capital gains on
the sale of their homes to string these together.
I came to Congress committed to enacting that relief to protect them.
But under the provisions that, as it has worked out, some
extraordinarily wealthy people can string these together and have a
$500,000 tax-free gain three times in 6 years.
Our amendment, our pay-for, gives everybody the protection for their
principal home and allows them to get the capital gains exclusion to
the extent that a second home is their principal home. It's reasonable,
it's balanced, it's paid for. I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today in strong support for the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt
Relief Act of 2007. I have heard concerns from many homeowners in my
district about the serious situation in the mortgage market. A recent
University of Michigan study of homeowners indicated that at least 26
percent of those surveyed had experienced a loss of equity in their
home during the past year. These declining prices have led some
families to sell their homes for less than they paid for them.
On August 31, President Bush spoke from the Rose Garden and called on
Congress to address a crisis in the mortgage market. Included in the
President's priorities was a bill that Congressman Rob Andrews and I
introduced in April to relieve tax obligations on those who sell homes
that have lost equity and have been forgiven a portion of outstanding
mortgage debt.
Our measure was later incorporated into the larger bipartisan
committee bill that we are debating today, just a little over a month
since the President's remarks. This legislation, although not perfect,
is a piece of legislation that I asked my colleagues to take a close
look at and the intent of the bill before casting your vote.
You will see that this legislation delivers real help to our
constituents. Under current law, only two categories of individuals pay
taxes when selling the principal residence: those who have been able to
realize a capital gain of more than $250,000 or $500,000 on a joint
return and those who lose the equity in their home and are forced to
pay tax if the lender forgives some portion of the mortgage debt.
It is unfair to tax people on phantom income, particularly when they
have suffered serious economic loss and had less ability to pay the
tax. The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act would relieve this tax
burden.

{time} 1400

The Andrews-Lewis provision states that no tax will be collected when
a lender forgives part of the mortgage on the sale or disposition of a
principal residence. This proposal has earned the support of the
National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of
Realtors, and the United States Department of the Treasury.
Addressing this Tax Code inequity and other long-term issues in the
housing market cuts to the core of our national economic stability as
we seek to calm financial markets, aid local communities, and support
one of our most basic American aspirations, and that's homeownership.
I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Andrews, for his
commitment to this issue. I also appreciate the time and effort of my
chairman, Congressman Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery, and their staffs
for moving this important measure to the House floor.
The bill before us is a good first step toward addressing the
mortgage situation. But more important, this bill is an example of what
happens when both parties work together to produce good policy that
will benefit millions of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Chair of the Trade Subcommittee, and a senior member of the Ways and
Means Committee, Mr. Levin.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
On the Democratic side, we've been emphasizing the importance of
fairness in the code, of equity in the code, the ability to go home,
meet our constituents, look them squarely in the eye and say that we're
taking steps to make the Tax Code more equitable. And this legislation
is a step in that direction, and an important one so a loss isn't
taxable when it should not be. So this is one step, an important step,
towards meeting the subprime mortgage crisis.
My home State of Michigan has very much suffered from this
phenomenon, and I'm glad that we're taking this step today.
As mentioned, also included in this legislation is a 7-year extension
of the deduction for mortgage insurance premiums. This is also
necessary. What it does is to level the playing field among the
products of mortgages; and this will be helpful, especially helpful
now, in view of the crisis with these mortgages.
Let me just say a word about the payment. There's been some comment
about the pay-for, and I mean to say this charitably. I think this pay-
for is better than, much better than no pay-for. And we've been having
too much, in recent years, legislation that proceeded without any pay-
for at all. And this is an effort to be fiscally responsible, and I
think it does so in an effective and an equitable way.
I urge support for this legislation.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend
from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity
to speak on a bill that he has spent an extraordinary amount of time on
and is most timely.
The bill before us today is really a question of bringing fairness to
the Tax Code. At its heart it puts those taxpayers that have been
placed in the tough situation of declining property values and perhaps
even foreclosure in

[[Page H11291]]

a better position to be able to stay in their homes.
Under current law, a homeowner must pay taxes at ordinary income
rates on the fictitious income never realized by the homeowner when a
lender forgives part of the debt owed on a mortgage. It is simply
unfair that when lenders do the right thing and try to work to keep
working families in their homes during tough times, that the taxman
then comes and presents that family with a bill on money that they
never saw.
The kicker, Mr. Speaker, is that were the homeowner to realize a gain
on selling their home, the situation is a very different matter. In
that instance, the seller of the home would be only required to pay
tax, and at the capital gains rate versus the income tax rate on the
amount above an exclusion. Yet, for the homeowner facing a short sale
or participating in a debt forgiveness proposal in order to keep them
in their home, no such help is extended through the Tax Code.
This bill provides a major step toward helping taxpayers, our
constituents, facing this difficult situation. And, Mr. Speaker, it
does it while maintaining tight controls to ensure that this change
will not be abused by those looking to game the system.
In short, given the situation facing so many of our constituents in
this uncertain housing and credit market, this is a needed change for
working families and for our economy as a whole.
In States such as Pennsylvania, where delinquency rates are climbing
by the quarter, this will serve to keep people in their homes.
Homeownership is a major part of the equation when it comes to building
savings and ownership in our society, and we shouldn't permit our Tax
Code to unnecessarily stand in the way of enabling working families to
participate in the ownership society.
I urge my colleagues to make this bill law as soon as possible.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Chair of the Select Revenue Measures Committee and a champion of tax
fairness, Mr. Neal from Massachusetts.
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Blumenauer for
yielding the time. And I want to acknowledge Chairman Rangel and Jim
McCrery today for the manner in which they moved this legislation and
how swiftly they addressed the issue that is looming across markets
here in America and has had, in fact, an international impact.
In my home State of Massachusetts, foreclosures have risen by 66
percent over the last year. Recent studies have estimated that one in
five subprime mortgages from the past 2 years will result in
foreclosure. That means more than 1 million homeowners will lose their
opportunity to hold on to the American Dream. But even more distressing
will be the tax bill if the lender is kind enough to forgive part of
this debt.
We want to do all that we can to keep them in their home and to work
out some arrangement to help them keep paying, even if that means
forgiving a part of the tax debt. But with the tax bill looming, many
might even argue that that could be counterproductive. So that's why
I'm enthusiastic about supporting the legislation that's on the floor
today.
This bipartisan bill, and I emphasize, the most bipartisan bill in
the last 7 years on the Ways and Means committee, this bipartisan bill
would change the current tax law and provide that homeowners would not
be taxed on the portion of forgiven debt if due to financial hardship
or decline, and I emphasize decline, in the value of the home.
It simply makes good sense to do this. The bill has been endorsed by
the Realtors Association, the homebuilders, the mortgage bankers, and
most importantly, members of the American family.
This is a commonsense proposal. I hope we're all going to support it.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Sam
Johnson from Texas.
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the current problems with
mortgage and real estate markets are considerable, but they're not
permanent. For the individuals and families who have gotten into
trouble with inappropriate mortgages, I'm glad to see that their
lenders are restructuring and writing down loans so people can move on
with their lives. Taxation of phantom income is something I've fought
for a long time. I have confidence in the American economy and in the
fact that real estate markets will rebound. It's not a permanent
problem.
However, this bill puts permanent relief in place and sets up a
system where there is permanent assumption of sliding home prices.
Instead of a permanent problem, I believe it's a short-term problem
worthy of being given emergency budget designation. This would allow
this phantom income to remain untaxed, and to make it unnecessary for
permanent tax increases to be imposed on other Americans.
The tax increase the majority has chosen as an offset is a permanent
luxury tax on one in 20 American families who own a second home. The
Ways and Means Committee has a track record on luxury taxes, and it's
not good. When the Democrats were last in the majority, they imposed a
luxury tax on yachts and claimed that only the rich would pay the tax.
The luxury tax on yachts really ended up being a tax on boats. It was a
disaster tax on the American boat building industry and on marinas all
over America. The luxury tax killed the yacht business, devastated an
industry and was finally repealed with sincere regret.
I fear this luxury tax on second homes will have the same effect as
the luxury tax on yachts. Yet our friends, the Realtors, the bankers
and the homebuilders all support the bill before us today because of
the need for relief and mortgage debt forgiveness.
It's clearly not a perfect bill. It should come back from conference
with the Senate with only a temporary provision, then the luxury tax on
second homes ought to no longer be necessary because it should be given
the emergency budget designation it deserves.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to clarify
that there's no luxury tax on second or third homes. It preserves the
tax exemption for the $500,000 capital gain on a residence, and it
permits people to claim an additional benefit to the extent to which it
is their primary residence in the future.
I would at this point, Mr. Speaker, recognize a distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, Mrs. Tubbs Jones from Ohio, whose
experience helped shape this legislation, for 2 minutes.
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues,
both on the Democratic and Republican side, for introducing this
legislation.
I rise today in support of H.R. 3648, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt
Act of 2007.
It comes as no surprise to most Americans that when debt is forgiven
by lending institutions in a foreclosure, this amount must be included
as income in their tax statement. In a time of rising foreclosures, I
cannot imagine anything more upsetting to a family than this scenario.
The situation usually occurs when the family cannot pay their mortgage
and then must give up their home. Then they must pay tax on phantom
income when the lender forgives some part of the homeowner's mortgage.
More than 8 years ago, I introduced a piece of legislation called the
Predatory Lending Reduction Act of 2001, I believe it was. And in that
legislation, I suggested that we needed to monitor or regulate mortgage
brokers.
The reason I raised the issue is because most of the subprime lending
that occurs in America comes through brokers who are brokering subprime
lending mortgages.
The reason I'm so concerned about the statement of my colleague
before about this taxation should not be permanent, the reality is, for
many families who lose their homes as a result of the situation we're
in, it's permanent. It's permanent loss of assets that would pass from
one generation to the next. And they can never recover from it. It's
permanent loss for communities

[[Page H11292]]

where the tax duplicate is reduced because they don't have that money
upon which they can build a rating so that that community could then
borrow money on a bond. It's a permanent loss for public school systems
that no longer receive the tax that you allow them to be able to
support that public school system. So this legislation is very, very
important.
And whatever happens in the housing market, and hopefully we're going
to get a hold on these subprime lenders who have devastated permanently
our communities across the United States of America, we're going to get
a hold on that. But in the interim, let's give the people who are in
this position a break.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Brady
from Texas.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if you lose your job and lose your
home or are forced to sell at a loss, only in America do you get a
bill, a tax bill from Uncle Sam for forgiven debt. Having witnessed
this during the terrible Texas recession of the 1980s, it is nothing
less than shooting the financially wounded. There's no question this is
long past time to correct this unfairness.
I applaud the authors of this bill, Representatives Lewis and
Andrews, and all of those who have helped bring this to the floor
today. There is serious question, however, about the way we pay for it.
Raising taxes on the sales of second homes unfairly taxes families
who live in one city, but are forced to work in another, and couples
who have scrimped their whole lives to enjoy a retirement home they
dreamed of.

{time} 1415

It is a poor way to fund this bill.
This $2 billion tax hike unfairly punishes those who make their house
payments to help those who can't or who find themselves in a bad
situation. It's a false choice, completely unrelated to each other. And
yet those who profited millions of dollars from the sale of predatory
and risky loans walk away unscathed. What type of accountability is
that?
Because this pay-for has had no real study, no in-depth analysis by
Congress, I and others worry there may well be unintended consequences
that damage the value of second homes and, in the long run, not today
but in the long run, harm lake communities, vacation communities, and
retirement communities around the Nation whose economies are dependent
upon these types of homes.
There are better ways to offset the tax cost of this bill, including
raising more than $1 billion simply by allowing government workers in
457 plans to have the option of a Roth-style IRA, an option available
to millions of workers in the private sector.
I am hopeful that before this bill goes to the President's desk that
a change is made, whether that recommendation or another. This is an
important measure to help those who are losing their homes or are in a
bad situation. There is surely a fairer, more thoughtful way to pay for
it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Ways and Means Committee member, Mr. Pascrell from New Jersey, a former
mayor who has firsthand experience about the significance of this
legislation.
Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank Mr.
Rangel and Mr. McCrery for the great work they have done and the great
work of Rob Andrews from New Jersey, the exhaustive efforts in this
regard, to help people avoid foreclosure, to stay in their homes.
There is a little doubt that the current tax effect on the struggling
homeowners is not fair or prudent. Requiring any discharge of
indebtedness to be included in taxable income further exacerbates and
endangers the financial health of those already in distress.
Think about it: A bank forgives some amount of indebtedness for a
homeowner in trouble, either to avoid foreclosure or to forgive a debt
to a homeowner in the foreclosure process. Right now the amount of
forgiven indebtedness is treated by the IRS as income, which is then
taxable. That's pretty incredible, I think.
For families across America, this dubious income and the resulting
tax burden can cause an even greater level of anguish that they should
not have to absorb in the time of need.
This legislation would provide a permanent exclusion of gross income
of discharged homeowner indebtedness. It is the wise and decent thing
to do.
And I might add there is danger ahead. Right now between January and
September of this year $263 billion of debt that was opened up, people
were losing their homes, and in 18 months that is going to go to $700
billion of loans in the pipeline that are going to open up to higher
rates. This is what we have to look forward to. This is a serious,
serious problem that's not going to go away next week.
So I thank both the chairman and the ranking member. With the
abundance of acute problems in the mortgage finance system, this
legislation can help stabilize families, their neighborhoods and
communities, as well as our national economy.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the
distinguished Ways and Means member from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who has
represented an area that is facing this problem and has been so
generous in sharing with us the consequences.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Blumenauer for his leadership
on this issue.
I rise today in support of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act.
This legislation represents an important step in helping homeowners
caught in our Nation's housing crisis. The people I represent have been
hardest hit by this crisis. It pains me to say that the State of Nevada
currently has the highest rate of foreclosure in the Nation. In Nevada
there is one foreclosure for every 163 households. That is three times
the national average.
Unfortunately, many of those who lose their homes to foreclosure are
hit with the added insult of a surprise tax bill. This occurs when a
home has decreased in value and the amount owed is more than the
current value of the home. The difference between the amount owed and
the actual value of the home is considered forgiven debt and,
therefore, taxed at regular income. With interest rates on hundreds of
thousands of mortgages about to reset and home values in decline in
many areas, this foreclosure tax is likely to be a growing problem.
This bill will help protect homeowners from this tax by providing a
permanent exclusion of the discharged debt as long as the mortgage was
on the primary residence.
And for those who fear that this legislation will bail out wealthy
land speculators who have made bad investments, let me assure you that
the relief provided in this bill is targeted towards those losing the
very roofs over their heads, their family's home, and not to real
estate speculators who made bad bets.
Additionally, this bill will extend the tax deduction on private
mortgage insurance to provide an additional measure of tax relief to
homeowners. Lowering the cost of mortgage insurance by keeping this tax
deductible will help ensure that more borrowers are choosing mortgages
they can actually afford. For some of my constituents this tax savings
will mean the difference between being able to stay in their homes or
becoming one of thousands facing foreclosure and loss of their family
home.
For those on the other side of the aisle who are criticizing the pay-
for in this bill, not one, not one of them has come up with a sensible
and honest alternative or solution to the pay-for that is included
here.
I think this is a good piece of legislation. I urge support for this
legislation.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has been
acknowledged as one of the prime drivers in shaping this legislation.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding, and I
would like to thank Chairman Rangel and his staff especially for their
great work in bringing this to the floor. Thank you very much. And to
Mr.

[[Page H11293]]

McCrery and to my friend Mr. Lewis for showing that when people from
two parties come together in support of a good idea, it can happen.
This is what this bill is about: A person buys a house for $150,000
and has a $140,000 mortgage. And then bad times hit the neighborhood
and the person can only sell the house for $130,000, but they still owe
$140,000 on the mortgage. So they go to closing and they sell the
house, but even after all the proceeds of the sale are paid, they still
owe money on the mortgage. Now, someone is only going to do this
because they have lost their job or had a health crisis or some other
family crisis. By definition, this is an American family in some
trouble.
If their lender says that they are going to write off that $10,000
that still is owed on the mortgage, if the lender says we are not going
to bother to chase this person, usually because there is nothing to
recover from, under present law the IRS would treat that family as
having $10,000 worth of income. Now, they have no money in their
checking account to pay it. They have no means to go earn the money.
They owe a tax on money they never saw.
This is unfair, and it exacerbates the problem we see in the mortgage
market right now. So Republicans and Democrats came together. We are
thankful for the leadership of Chairman Rangel, and we have before us
now a bill that will address in a fair and targeted way this problem.
I would also add I do appreciate the pay-for. I think we should pay
for what we do here. And what this bill does is close a loophole. It
basically says that everybody can get the $500,000 exclusion for the
house they actually live in, but you can't take that for a property you
don't live in. That seems pretty fair to me.
So, again, I thank people on both sides of the aisle for their
support. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I want to thank Mr. Andrews for this bill, and I certainly have
appreciated working with him on this.
And this is a good time. This is good for the American people to see
that we can come together when a problem, a serious problem, is
affecting them and we can come up with a solution. Instead of pointing
fingers and talking about a problem, we have actually come up with a
solution. So thank you for your work.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Mortgage
Forgiveness Debt Relief Act. I commend the sponsors. I believe that
this is a necessary and compassionate step in helping families recover
from problems caused by the continuing mortgage crisis.
Let's face it. Unscrupulous lending practices have taken their toll
as hardworking families struggle to keep pace with ballooning mortgage
payments.
Under current law any debt forgiven by a lender is treated as phantom
income and subject to taxation. At a time when so many families are
already in crisis, it is fundamentally unfair to penalize them by
taxing money they may recover through refinancing their mortgage or
foreclosure of their homes.
The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act will change the Tax Code to
prevent forgiven mortgage debts from being assessed as gross income.
This critical measure will help address the persistent problems in the
housing market that have resulted from unfair lending practices. And I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Space).
Mr. SPACE. I thank the gentleman from Oregon.
Home foreclosures are, unfortunately, something that Ohioans face far
too frequently. Ohio ranks near the top in the Nation in foreclosures.
In this year alone, approximately 61,000 families will have their homes
foreclosed upon. These are families who have fallen victim to
unscrupulous subprime lending brokers, who have fallen victim to
failing health, and who have fallen victim to a changing economy, one
where we have seen our manufacturing base eroded, our cost of the
living through gas and utilities increasing, and stagnant wages. The
phantom tax on forgiven debt adds injury to insult, especially to
working families who have undergone the trauma of a foreclosure.
I am very grateful for Chairman Rangel's leadership on this issue and
thankful that our leadership as the Democratic Party has taken up this
cause as well. And, furthermore, I am gratified at the bipartisan
support that this body has demonstrated in its commitment to tax relief
for middle-class and working families.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud, with my colleagues on both the
Republican and Democratic sides, to support H.R. 3648, the Mortgage
Forgiveness Debt Relief Act. This provides much-needed tax relief to
American families facing foreclosure. As mortgage rates reset to levels
that families are unable to afford, this crisis continues to grow.
In my home State of Indiana, one in every 219 Hoosier families now
face foreclosure. We rank well above the national rate, with 3 percent
of our loans in foreclosure. Subprime loans which have affected many of
our Nation's families account for nearly half of our State's
foreclosures.
This legislation permanently exempts individuals from being taxed on
forgiven debt in the event of foreclosure. By passing this legislation,
we are taking an important step in preventing homeowners already faced
with the devastation of losing their home from also incurring an
additional tax burden that they are unable to repay. We should not be
imposing additional hardships on families by imposing an unfair tax
bill on them at the worst possible moment.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bipartisan nature of this legislation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

{time} 1430

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Mortgage
Forgiveness Debt Relief Act, an important piece of legislation.
A few years ago, Arizona had been a national leader in home prices.
With the growing subprime mortgage crisis, Arizona is now experiencing
increasing record foreclosures. In May, new foreclosures in my State
were 141 percent higher than they were just 2 years ago.
Some mortgage lenders are working responsibly with homeowners to
adjust their mortgages to fairly reflect the decreased home values.
They are adjusting their lending policies in response to the current
housing market. Congress has to do the same. We should not penalize
homeowners by taxing them their discharge debt.
This bill encourages market-based decision; it creates fundamental
tax fairness. This bill responsibly helps Arizona families avoid
foreclosures and to remain in their homes. Fewer foreclosures will help
stabilize property values and protect our local and our regional
economies.
I proudly cosponsored this bipartisan legislation that is endorsed by
the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home
Builders, and the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would recognize the gentleman from
California (Mr. McNerney) for 1 minute.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, in my district, the city of Stockton,
California and surrounding San Joaquin County are the very epicenter of
the growing national home mortgage crisis. San Joaquin County has the
second highest level of foreclosures in the country. Nearly one out of
50 homes is being repossessed. Stockton has the highest foreclosure
rate of any United States city, and this is tearing our communities
apart. To add insult to injury, former homeowners who lost money when
their houses were sold, have to pay taxes on their losses. And

[[Page H11294]]

those able to negotiate for a reduction in the amount they owe are
forced to pay taxes on this amount.
This doesn't make sense. Thankfully, the legislation we're voting on
today will eliminate this phantom tax and provide some breathing room
for people in financial crisis.
I strongly support this bill.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this
isn't a perfect bill, I don't guess there has ever been a perfect bill
on this floor, but it's a good bill and it does provide a solution to a
real problem for Americans. I am very happy that we have a good
bipartisan bill that I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for and
help out in this very tough time for a lot of homeowners in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to commend my colleague for the work that he has done on
this measure, Mr. McCrery, and our leadership because at core there is
bipartisan understanding and support for the elimination of what has
been referred to as a phantom and unfair tax on the poor souls who lose
their homes and who receive no net increase to them.
Where we have modest disagreement is in two specific areas: one, the
bill that is before us recognizes that there is never a good time to
tax American homeowners on this phantom benefit of having their loan
forgiven on a foreclosed property. There no circumstances under which
we could conceive that we wanted to penalize them for something that
they didn't receive, so we made it permanent. Unlike the minority,
unlike the Bush administration, we don't think there is ever a good
reason to tax them on something that they don't receive.
Second, we're paying for the cost that is associated with it because,
sadly, even a tax provision that makes no sense carries value, and
under our rules, we need to pay for it. And what we did was not to
implement any additional tax, but to clarify the benefit that is given
to owners of principal residences that they have a $500,000 tax-free
gain if they occupy that as their principal residence for 2 out of 5
years. That's something that we broadly agree upon.
Now, we've always agreed that that ought to occur to the homeowner.
Now we're hearing that somehow our friends on the other side of the
aisle think that an additional tax benefit, so that people could string
this together over the course of 6 years and get $500,000 three times
as a tax benefit, is somehow, some way a tax increase. It is not. The
purpose of that tax provision was never to reward people who could game
the system and string together tax increases two or three times over a
relatively short period of time.
So we have clarified it: as long as it is their principal home, their
principal residence, they can claim the exclusion. And to the extent
that a second home, after they've gotten $500,000 tax free, the extent
to which they occupy a second home for an additional period of time,
they can claim the proportion that it is actually their principal
residence. I would dare say that was the intent for the majority people
of why that provision was implemented in the first place. It's
reasonable, it's sound, and I would strongly suggest that that's why
people in this industry, Realtors, mortgage bankers, homebuilders,
support the bill that we brought forward.
I suggest that this bill is something that all of us ought to
support. I strongly urge its passage.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3648, the Mortgage
Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007.
Among large metro areas my district in the Inland Empire has the
fourth highest rate of foreclosure filings in the Nation and was the
hardest hit area in California through the first half of 2007.
In San Bernardino County alone there were 19,185 foreclosure filings
during the first half of 2007, representing a staggering 345 percent
increase from the previous year. Overall, there is one foreclosure
filing for every 33 households in the Inland Empire.
These numbers go to show that the subprime crisis we are experiencing
today is not an abstract issue. These are real people who are going
through painful struggles to stay in their home and keep their families
together.
Regrettably, when banks and loan servicers decide to help these
families by forgiving a part of a loan, that debt is then treated as a
source of income which in turn makes the forgiven amount subject to
tax.
Families who are already facing foreclosure should not have to face
the additional burden of paying tax on phantom income.
This bill restores fairness for homeowners who are financially and
economically distressed by eliminating that requirement. It will play a
central role in helping American families avoid foreclosure and stay in
their homes and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Mortgage
Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 (H.R. 3648). This measure is a
necessary and compassionate step in helping individuals and families
recover from the problems caused by the continuing mortgage crisis.
Unscrupulous lending practices have taken their toll on hard-working
families, who are increasingly unable to keep pace with their
ballooning mortgage payments. We have all seen how the skyrocketing
interest rates associated with nontraditional mortgages, such as
adjustable-rate mortgages, have devastated families nationwide. These
families are often left with few options. They may either try to
renegotiate the terms of their mortgage for fixed interest rates, or be
forced to foreclose on their homes. Both options can be emotionally
difficult and are further complicated by the hefty taxes that may
result.
Under current law, when a lender forgives all or part of a loan, it
is required to report the amount of debt forgiven to the IRS and to the
homeowner. That amount is subsequently treated as ``phantom income''
and is subject to taxation by the IRS. At a time when families are
already in financial dire straits, it is fundamentally unfair to
penalize them by taxing the money they recover through either
refinancing their mortgage or foreclosure of their homes.
I am proud to support the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act, which
will change the Tax Code to prevent forgiven mortgage debts from being
assessed as gross income. This improvement will limit the financial
penalties families incur when refinancing their homes at fixed rates
and could even keep some families on the brink of foreclosure from
losing their homes. I am also pleased that, under this legislation,
people would not be unfairly taxed when a lender voluntarily agrees to
waive prepayment penalty fees.
The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act is a critical measure that
will help address the persistent problems in the housing market
resulting from unfair lending practices. This legislation is another
important step toward fixing the mortgage crisis nationwide, and will
help stabilize families throughout the Nation and our economy as a
whole.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, the situation in the housing market
is well documented.
Unscrupulous practices by mortgage brokers in search of fees and the
unrealistic belief that housing prices would continue their meteoric
rise is resulting in the most perilous situation for the housing
sector, and the economy as a whole since the Great Depression.
The most urgent action for this Congress is to encourage actions that
enable families to stay in their homes.
Today we will consider H.R. 3648, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt
Relief Act. This bill takes the crucial step to restore fundamental
fairness for homeowners in financial distress by revising language in
the tax code that includes discharged home mortgage debt as taxable
income.
Homeownership, especially among minorities, is at an all time high.
It has contributed greatly to our economy and our social fabric.
Foreclosed, empty homes only impose costs that everyone must bear.
Now is the time to make sensible reforms to protect families and
consumers who are on the verge of losing their home.
I commend the Committee on Ways and Means and the House Leadership
for bringing this important bill to the floor.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker I am a cosponsor of this important
legislation and rise to support its passage
As we all know, the real estate market is troubled. In Colorado and
across the country, some families are caught in a bind--as prices have
declined, they are finding that the value of their homes are less than
what they owe on their mortgages.
And many of these people are experiencing financial problems--
including increased payments required as the interest rates on their
mortgages are adjusted--that can lead to foreclosure or require them to
work out other arrangements with lenders.
That is bad enough--but as things stand now, in many cases they find
that there is more bad news, because today homeowners are taxed on debt
that they are no longer required to pay, either because a mortgage has
been foreclosed or restructured.

[[Page H11295]]

That is because the tax code today treats the value of cancelled
mortgage debt as taxable Income.
This bill will provide relief to people in this situation. It will
change the tax laws so as to permanently exclude debt forgiven under
these circumstances from tax liability.
It also will help make home purchases more affordable by a long-term
extension of the tax deduction for private mortgage insurance. Current
law allows certain premiums paid or accrued for qualified mortgage
insurance by a taxpayer in connection with financing of the taxpayer's
residence to be treated as interest--that is, to be deductible.
However, this is now scheduled to terminate for any amount paid or
accrued after December 31, 2014.
This bill will extend the deduction through December 31,2014.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good measure. I strongly support it and urge
its approval.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
3648, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act.
This bill will end the double-whammy of paying taxes on the lost
value of their homes by providing a permanent exclusion from gross
income of discharged home mortgage debt.
We are passing this legislation at a time when anxiety over the state
of the economy remains high and concerns mount that the subprime
mortgage meltdown will infect the rest of the economy.
Last month, RealtyTrac released the latest bad news that foreclosures
reported in August increased 36 percent since July and 115 percent
since this time last year.
Expectations are that the next 18 months will be even worse, as many
subprime loans reset to higher rates. We have real concerns that this
subprime crisis will cause 2.2 million people to lose their homes.
The credit crunch, the worsening housing slump, market volatility,
and weak consumer confidence point to a gathering storm that could drag
down the economy, possibly taking thousands of American jobs with it.
In the face of this gathering storm, Democrats in Congress are
working to help families stay in their home and are working to prevent
another crisis. The House has passed FHA and GSE reform bills. We are
working on a predatory lending bill.
We are working with regulators to advocate forbearance and with
servicers to engage in workouts for strapped borrowers.
We recognize this crisis in homeownership and we are doing everything
we can to respond in a forceful and responsible way.
Again, I support this legislation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that, before this
housing slump is over, 2 million homeowners will lose their homes due
to skyrocketing interest rates on their mortgages.
Increased foreclosures have adverse effects on the values of
neighboring properties. For example, research indicates that, for each
foreclosed home in a given neighborhood, the prices of nearby homes
could fall by 1 percent to 1.5 percent.
Nationally, housing prices have stopped rising. In fact, some
measures of home prices have already declined, by more than 3 percent
since the beginning of 2007. Some economists predict that real housing
prices are likely to decline by more than 15 percent over the next 2
years.
We want to prevent thousands of Americans from getting hit by the
double whammy of (1) losing their homes to foreclosure, and (2) getting
slapped with a tax bill when the debt on their home is discharged by
the lender.
Even taxpayers that restructure their mortgages to avert foreclosure
face this risk of triggering large tax bills.
It doesn't seem right for individuals in this circumstance to face a
tax bill when they really have no increase in their net worth.
As I see it, their house went down in value, and the individuals
couldn't meet their mortgage requirements, resulting in foreclosure.
The amount of the income that they would recognize without regard to
this bill would be equal to or less than the decline in value of their
home. So, absent this legislation, homeowners in this situation would
be slapped with a tax liability for no net increase in wealth.
H.R. 3648 would correct that result so that if a person's principal
residence lost value, that loss won't give rise to a tax liability.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
3648, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act. I am proud to be a
cosponsor of similar legislation that also gives a much-deserved break
to homeowners and their families facing enormous tax liability made
more painful by the housing crisis.
Nearly 3,000 homeowners in Suffolk County, New York in my district
are facing foreclosure. One out of every 180 families in my district
will join 2.2 million families nationwide whose subprime loans have
already failed or will end in foreclosure.
Adding insult to injury, most of them have to pay a tax when a lender
forgives some part of their mortgage. The IRS treats that forgiven debt
as income, and can even add interest and penalties.
To be relieved of debt at one moment, but then to be charged shortly
thereafter with a huge tax bill is a tremendous shock and burden. We
can all agree that middle class families who lose their homes should be
spared any further penalty by the IRS.
Mr. Speaker, losing your home is bad enough. The last thing any
family in today's housing market needs is for the IRS to make their
struggle more of an uphill climb. I urge my colleagues to support H.R.
3648 and commend the leadership for expediting its consideration by the
House today.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3648, the
Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 because I believe that it
is the least that the Congress can do to aid beleaguered homeowners,
who in addition to facing foreclosure, are also facing taxation on
phantom income.
It was not a long time ago that the housing market was being touted
as the savior of the economy and that homeownership was looked to as a
reliable, stabilizing force in communities across the country. Now that
the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and the housing market
is wobbling under the weight of the subprime crisis, it is incumbent
upon the Congress to assist beleaguered homeowners.
H.R. 3648 would amend current law which would now tax a homeowner who
received relief from financial institutions on their mortgages in order
to save their homes. H.R. 3648 would provide a permanent exclusion for
any discharge of indebtedness which is secured by a principal residence
through acquisition, construction or substantial improvement of the
principal residence.
Mr. Speaker, this bill also extends the deduction for private
mortgage insurance for 7 years through 2014 and would relax the rules,
making it easier for housing groups to qualify as a cooperative housing
corporation. It would also modify the exclusion of gain on sale of a
principal residence, all items that would make it easier for homeowners
to survive the murky waters of the current housing market. As the
housing crisis continues to run its course, I believe that this
legislation is a step in the right direction. I believe that more has
to be done in order to keep homeowners in their homes and help
stabilize the part of our economy that has been the surest route to
wealth in our country. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for its
passage.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, 75 million American households own their
home. About 68 percent of these homeowners have a mortgage, and about
26 percent of those also carry a second mortgage, a home equity line,
or both. In total, Americans have about $10.4 trillion of mortgage debt
outstanding.
The large majority of families are paying their mortgage payments on
time, but many families are having a difficult time meeting their
monthly mortgage payments as the interest rates on their loans are
being reset to higher levels. Missed payments can mean high added fees
also apply.
In this last year, more families have found that they just can not
keep up and end up loosing their home in foreclosure. Both foreclosures
and their precursor, delinquencies, shot upward. By August 2007,
foreclosures were up 115 percent from last year, and up 36 percent from
July. Since economic research shows that a single foreclosure within a
city block lowers the value of homes in the area by 0.9 percent, many
lenders want to help families stay in their homes. These families work
out a new loan with their lender revising the home loans by forgiving
some of the debt caused by the decline in housing prices.
The last thing these families need is a tax bill for the ``phantom
income'' arising from the loss in the value of their home or the amount
of debt forgiveness. Today, Congress rips up that tax bill for
struggling families as we pass the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act
of 2007. This bill provides relief to those families by permanently
excluding debt forgiven under these circumstances from tax liability.
Housing is an important job creator in our economy. We still need to
keep home ownership a reachable part of the American Dream. With recent
reports in the Wall Street Journal showing that demand for previously
owned homes tumbled in August to the lowest level in 5 years, we know
that the trouble in the mortgage market hurts sales. Home resales fell
to a 5.5 million annual rate, a 4.3 percent decline from July,
according to the National Association of Realtors. Help for new home
buyers is in H.R. 3648.
Solid Midwest values helped keep folks in my state North Dakota out
of the subprime mortgage fallout, by and large. Yet, we all know that
it is hard for young families to scrape together the money to make a
significant down payment on their first home. Many of them are not able
to purchase their home with a 20 percent down payment. Mortgage
insurance protects these buyers that the market

[[Page H11296]]

needs, while insuring against the loss in home value in the event of
default.
H.R. 3648 would help our kids and other would-be homeowners secure
their first homes through a long-term extension of the tax deduction
for private mortgage insurance. Mortgage insurance keeps new homeowners
from taking out second and riskier loans to buy their first home.
Extending this tax deduction until 2015 treats mortgage insurance as a
cost of homeowners hip in the same way as mortgage interest.
The bottom line is that foreclosures do not help the taxpayers. It
does not help the economy and it does not help our communities. H.R.
3648 is another step that this Congress is taking to restore strength
to the Nation's floundering housing market. Providing help to keep
families in their homes and to improve the ability of young families to
buy their first home from those houses on the market would help ease
the crisis we face.
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Northeast Wisconsin and
countless others across this Nation are hurting because of the current
mortgage crisis.
The fact is many homeowners are increasingly unable to make monthly
payments or sell their homes in the middle of a national housing slump.
The number of national foreclosure filings reported last month more
than doubled from a year ago.
For these reasons, I rise in support of H.R. 3648.
We need to provide tax relief to homeowners who face foreclosures on
their homes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 703, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Cantor

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CANTOR. Yes, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Cantor of Virginia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3648
to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to
report the same back to the House promptly with the following
amendment:
Strike sections 5 and 6.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is very simple. It
strikes the tax hike from the bill. A vote for this motion to recommit
gives us all an opportunity to vote for the underlying bill whose
purpose is to provide relief to homeowners impacted by the subprime
crisis without raising taxes on America's families. I, for one, don't
believe we should raise taxes on one family to cut taxes for another.
Contrary to the remarks made by my friend from Oregon who alleges
that some are gaming the system, which could or could not be true,
there is an instance, and plenty of which occur, that will impact real
families. If we don't pass this motion to recommit, there will be a
real cost to real people and real families who are relying on the
equity built up in their greatest asset, their home.
Take, for example, a family that moves to a new area in search of a
job. If that family currently lives in an area with a depressed housing
market and the family intends to return in the future, they may make
the reasonable decision to rent their home instead of selling it. They
would do so in hopes of recovering some of the home's value in the next
few years.
Under existing law, if they later move back to their home and, having
lived at least 2 years in the home for the last 5, any gains realized
from the eventual sale of the home would be excluded from the tax up to
$500,000. The underlying bill, however, will change that. Families that
move back into their old house after several years and then intend to
sell it could be facing tens of thousands of dollars in additional tax
bills when they later sell that home. This is nothing more than a tax
increase on those American families, an additional burden on families
that are trying to put their children through school, provide health
care and live the American Dream.
This provision adds another level of complexity to an already
complicated Tax Code. Bottom line, Mr. Speaker, the net effect is to
take away from some American families a tax benefit that they are
currently enjoying.
We, in this House, should be making it easier for the American people
to comply with the Tax Code, and we should strive to make it easier for
them to provide for their families.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the opponents of this motion will argue that
because the motion directs the committee to report back promptly that
somehow this kills the bill; that simply is not true. Instead, it
directs the committee to reconsider the bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Senate is in recess next week and the House
schedule is extremely light. If this motion passes, we will have plenty
of time next week to improve the bill. And I, for one, pledge to work
with the chairman, as I'm sure our leadership will and our ranking
member, so that we can have a good bill waiting for the Senate when
they return from their week-long recess.
So, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill has a tax increase in it. I urge
support of this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. First of all, as the gentleman mentions, using the
term ``promptly'' means that it is kicked back to the committee to an
uncertain future.
This has been before the committee for some time. There is broad
bipartisan support that we need to solve this problem. And I have
listened to my friends, they haven't come forward with any reasonable
suggestion about an alternative pay-for. They had an opportunity in the
Rules Committee; they had an opportunity before the committee. If we
follow their course, we're going to be in limbo, I don't know how long,
but unnecessarily.
The minority has been interested in the past in making it temporary.
That was the Bush administration's position; that's what Republicans
argued before the Rules Committee. We don't want to put it back to an
uncertain future.
The one proposal that has come forward today for a pay-for was itself
a long-term revenue loser. Using a Roth-style approach to government
employee accounts, I think they're 457s, is a long-term revenue drain
which uses an accounting gimmick in the short term to have people pay a
little tax so they save a whole lot of tax in the future. That will add
to the deficit over time.
Now, contrary to what my distinguished friend from Virginia says, it
does not disadvantage people. The exclusion for residential property
for a prime residence was just that, it was to give people a $500,000
exclusion from capital gain on the sale of the property. It doesn't
foreclose other people from stringing it forward to get more than
$500,000. It just means the extent to which it's not your primary
residence, you don't get a percentage increase above that. If it's your
primary residence for one-third of that time, you get one-third of the
benefit, in addition to $500,000 that you get with your first bite of
the apple. It means you don't get two it means you don't get three in 6
years; you get one full bite, and then you get a percentage on top of
that. It's reasonable; it's fiscally responsible.
I strongly urge the rejection of this proposal that puts this
legislation in limbo. There is broad bipartisan support for the
concept. The permanent support of a permanent nature of it is sound,
the pay-for is reasonable. I urge rejection of the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

[[Page H11297]]

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 201,
nays 212, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 947]

YEAS--201

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
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
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--212

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
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)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
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
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Capuano

NOT VOTING--18

Barrett (SC)
Carson
Costello
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Delahunt
Dingell
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Lee
McNulty
Perlmutter
Pickering
Pryce (OH)
Schakowsky
Sullivan
Visclosky
Weller

{time} 1508

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN and Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota and Messrs.
EDWARDS, SPRATT, JOHNSON of Georgia, NEAL of Massachusetts, RUSH and
BUTTERFIELD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 946 and 947 on the motion
to recommit H.R. 3648 and final passage of H.R. 3648, I was unable to
vote due to a prior family commitment. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea'' for both votes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 386,
noes 27, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 948]

AYES--386

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George

[[Page H11298]]

Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
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)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--27

Akin
Bachmann
Blunt
Boehner
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Camp (MI)
Culberson
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gingrey
Herger
Issa
Kingston
Linder
Mack
Marchant
Paul
Price (GA)
Sali
Sessions
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Westmoreland

NOT VOTING--19

Barrett (SC)
Carson
Costello
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Lee
McNulty
Pence
Perlmutter
Pickering
Pryce (OH)
Sullivan
Visclosky
Weller

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1516

Mr. FERGUSON and Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 948, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

____________________