[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 34 (Thursday, February 26, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H2839-H2848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1106, HELPING FAMILIES SAVE THEIR 
                           HOMES ACT OF 2009

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 190 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 190

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1106) to prevent mortgage foreclosures and 
     enhance mortgage credit availability. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined 
     to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided 
     among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the Committee on Financial Services and the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, 
     no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in 
     the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 
     9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the 
rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 190 provides for consideration of H.R. 1106, the 
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, under a structured rule. 
While the rule waives clause 10 of rule XXI regarding PAYGO, there is 
only a technical violation of clause 10 by section 204 of the bill. 
Because of the timing of cash flows of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, the provision increases direct spending in the first 5-
year period, but more than offsets that increase in the 10-year period.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 
2009, takes a vital step toward reviving our housing market, stemming 
the tide of home foreclosures and putting our Nation's economy back on 
track.
  This bill would first give bankruptcy judges the ability to modify, 
at their own discretion, mortgage loans on a homeowner's principal 
residence if the homeowner meets specified, stringent criteria. 
Further, this legislation would also help veterans and other homeowners 
avoid foreclosure by allowing the Department of Veterans Affairs, the 
Federal Housing Administration and the Department of Agriculture to 
guarantee and/or insure mortgage loans modified either out of court or 
in a bankruptcy case.
  This bill would also provide a safe harbor from liability to mortgage 
servicers who engage in loan modification workouts or other loss 
mitigation. Many services, Mr. Speaker, have claimed that fear of 
litigation or uncertainty about what modification actions may be 
permitted under their agreement have kept them from partaking in loan 
modifications or other workouts. With the safe harbor provisions in 
this legislation, they will no longer have any excuse.
  Additionally, this bill makes much-needed changes to the HOPE for 
Homeowners program in order to encourage greater lender participation. 
It puts the HUD Secretary in charge of running the program, reduces 
fees and eliminates other administrative burdens, and changes the 
profit-sharing

[[Page H2840]]

provisions to induce more loan writedowns.
  Finally, this bill makes permanent the temporary increase in deposit 
insurance coverage for both the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund and the 
National Credit Union Administration Share Insurance Fund. This 
provision will enhance the liquidity and stability of our banking 
institutions and help restore confidence in our financial system.
  Some have criticized the bankruptcy cramdown provisions in this bill, 
and I share some of their concerns, claiming that they will cause 
massive losses to financial institutions, increase the cost of 
borrowing for other homeowners or lead to a sudden surge of bankruptcy 
filings. I am not certain that this is the case. Modifications will be 
at the individual discretion of a bankruptcy judge who will make the 
determination of whether a borrower has acted responsibly and their 
claim has any merit.
  This provision will maximize, not lessen, the value of troubled 
mortgages for the lender, and will avoid the decline in property values 
in neighborhoods where homes have been foreclosed on. It is 
preposterous to think that individuals would willingly submit 
themselves to the arduous process, negative stigma and long-lasting 
effects of filing for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy will remain as it has 
always been, a last resort.
  Under current law, bankruptcy judges already have the authority to 
modify loans on virtually every secured claim, including vacation 
homes, investment properties, private jets and luxury yachts, except 
for primary family residences. This loophole is outdated and in my view 
absurd, and it must be rectified.
  Some may also argue that we are bailing out reckless borrowers at the 
expense of those who were prudent and responsible. However, many 
individuals who have duly made every single monthly payment and lived 
within their means are seeing their home values drop and no longer have 
the ability to refinance due to the rapidly declining market. Some who 
are being swept up by the foreclosure crisis are victims of bad lending 
practices and some who played by the rules and acted responsibly are 
now finding themselves underwater through no fault of their own.
  Throughout this Nation, Mr. Speaker, millions of families are in 
danger of losing their homes. And while it is easy to think that the 
foreclosure crisis affects no other than those directly involved, the 
truth is this crisis has had and will have a rippling effect all across 
the country. Not only are individuals' livelihoods gravely impacted, 
but as foreclosures go up, surrounding home prices go down, tax revenue 
for vital public services falls, financial institutions are saddled 
with losses, access to credit shrinks and our economy grinds to a halt. 
This legislation helps put a stop to this deadly spiral.
  In my home State of Florida, Mr. Speaker, estimates show just in 
Florida alone that approximately 160,000 homes can be saved as a result 
of court supervised modifications. Additionally, a recent report by 
Credit Suisse estimates that the safe harbor provisions alone will 
lessen foreclosures by 20 percent.
  Just this past Wednesday, President Obama announced his comprehensive 
homeowners' affordability and stability plan. This legislation is the 
first step toward putting this plan into action.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend that implementing this legislation will 
prevent every single foreclosure. In fact, there are some cases for 
which foreclosure is the correct action. However, this bill will help 
ensure responsible individuals stay in their home and will mitigate the 
destructive impact of foreclosures on families and communities.
  This bill addresses our Nation's foreclosure crisis in a meaningful 
and responsible fashion by reforming our bankruptcy laws, clearing 
legal impediments to loan modifications, improving the HOPE for 
Homeowners program and ensuring confidence in our banking system.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding us the time on this 
rule, and I also want to say that I thank very much the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, for his help yesterday in the Rules 
Committee meeting on incorporating a suggestion that I made into the 
manager's amendment. It didn't make it in this bill in the form of an 
amendment, but he was very kind to include that, and I think it made 
this bad bill a little bit better.
  I want to say that my colleague from Florida has made some very 
eloquent comments about why this rule should be adopted and why the 
underlying bill is such a good bill. However, those of us on this side 
of the aisle have some clear concerns about this rule and about the 
bill and what it is going to be doing to our economy.
  We heard yesterday a lot of numbers that were very, very difficult to 
pin down. In fact, I tried very hard, knowing I was going to handle 
this rule this morning, because I wanted to try to get a handle on the 
number of people that we are talking about.
  We heard the number 14 million. We heard 14 million now and more 
later. But we also heard that what this bill will do will be to allow 
the bankruptcy system to handle about 30,000 new cases per year. My 
guess is that while this bill claims not to be needing a lot more money 
in that area, that eventually our colleagues across the aisle are going 
to come back asking for more money to deal with this issue.

                              {time}  1030

  But what I want to talk about today a little bit is both the process 
and about the reason why the rule should not be adopted and the bill 
should not be adopted. 94 percent of the people in this country are now 
paying their mortgages and paying them on time. What's going to happen 
if this bill is passed is that those people, and people in the future, 
are going to be punished. We are continually punishing the people who 
play by the rules and rewarding the people who don't play by the rules. 
It is a real shame that we have come to that place in our society 
because we don't want to set that as the norm for what we're doing in 
this country, because we've always had the rule of law and we've 
operated very well. What separates us from most other countries is 
that.
  And yet, now we're going to say to people, it's okay if you go out, 
misrepresent your position in terms of being able to pay for your 
mortgage or do any kinds of things like that, and then we'll bail you 
out. It will be okay for us to do that. And that, basically, is what 
this bill is, the message that we're sending.
  But let me talk just a bit about the process that was involved in 
bringing this rule to us. We had a very lively debate in the Rules 
Committee yesterday. The chairman of the Financial Services Committee 
told us that he was very willing to accept some of the amendments that 
had been offered. They might not exactly fit in the Financial Services 
Committee, but he was willing to work with some of our Members to make 
those fit.
  We had 20 amendments offered, Republicans did. Only one of those 
amendments was accepted to be offered today, and it looks like we may 
have a problem with that amendment once it is offered.
  We are trying very hard to be bipartisan. We want to work with the 
majority on helping the people in this country who are truly hurting, 
who have played by the rules and who are being hurt by the economy, 
through no fault of their own. However, what this bill, again, is going 
to do is it is keeping us from being bipartisan. We have to be opposed 
to the rule and opposed to the bill because they've put together bills 
that should not be put together. Many of us could probably support the 
Financial Services part of this bill, but we would be very concerned 
about the Judiciary part of it. But no, the majority has to lump them 
all together and create a situation that denies our ability to be 
bipartisan.
  A couple of the rules that were offered yesterday and in the various 
committees that Chairman Frank said he was willing to have a debate on 
was a rule offered by Representative Neugebauer which would amend the 
servicer safe harbor provisions to provide that unsuccessful plaintiffs 
would pay all the attorney's fees and any legal costs incurred by the 
defendant.
  Another one by Congresswoman Capito would exempt the Federal Housing 
Administration, Veterans Administration Loan Guaranty Program

[[Page H2841]]

and Guaranteed Rural Housing Loans from adjustments to the terms of the 
loan in bankruptcy. These already are very, very lenient programs and, 
supposedly, all the work has been done so that there would not be the 
need to go to bankruptcy.
  Also, Congressman Hensarling offered, I offered on his behalf, three 
excellent amendments that would, I think, help with the issue of 
responsibility and accountability. The President talks a lot about 
that, but when it comes down to implementing those things in 
legislation, we see nothing coming from the majority on those issues.
  Let me mention the Hensarling amendments which were denied, and we 
can't even vote on them. One would exclude from participation in the 
HOPE for Homeowners Program any borrower whose original loan was a zero 
down payment loan. Many of these people are treating these homes that 
they bought like rental property. They have no investment in them, and 
so when the economy goes south or the home is not worth as much as they 
thought it was worth, they just walk away from it. That's no sense of 
responsibility. We're just, again, rewarding irresponsibility.
  Another amendment by Congressman Hensarling would exclude from 
participation in the HOPE for Homeowners Program any borrower whose 
original loan documentation did not include verification of the amount 
and source of income. A lot of these loans were given out to people who 
did not bring information on their income. That seems a logical thing 
to do. Most people, again, who are paying their mortgages are people 
who paid something down and then were able to show that they could pay 
for the home ultimately.
  And then the third one would have excluded from participation in the 
HOPE for Homeowners Program any borrower who has a family income that 
exceeds 125 percent of the area median income for where they live. 
Republicans are usually the ones criticized for helping wealthy people, 
but this bill is going to allow millionaires to be able to get help. We 
don't think that that's the right thing to do.
  Those were three very logical amendments that were turned down. As I 
said, only one out of 20 of our amendments was accepted. So we think 
that this is a bad rule. We think it's a bad bill and we're going to 
urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to my very good friend from Florida, the gentlewoman, Ms. 
Castor, an immediate past member of the Rules Committee that left us 
for greener pastures.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida and my good friend, Mr. Hastings, for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Helping Families 
Save Their Homes Act and this rule. This Act throws a lifeline to 
families who are fighting to stay in their homes during this economic 
crisis.
  Now, as Mr. Hastings knows, we have a very high rate of foreclosures 
in the State of Florida, and my Tampa Bay area community has been 
particularly hard hit. That is why last year I began holding 
foreclosure prevention workshops, so that homeowners could sit down, 
face to face with lenders and servicers and work out a refinancing. I'm 
planning my fourth workshop now.
  These homeowners appreciate the opportunity to sit down one on one 
because most of the time they have a very difficult time getting in 
touch with the lender or servicer. They won't answer the phone.
  I know many in the banking industry do not like this bankruptcy 
provision that allows bankruptcy judges to modify home loans. But, 
frankly, they've brought this on themselves to a great extent. I 
encourage you all to check the video of Congresswoman Maxine Waters 
staying on the phone for an hour just trying to get a bank to answer 
the phone and pick up the line so that a responsible homeowner can get 
into a refinance. They don't want a bailout. They just want a little 
breathing room and the opportunity to refinance.
  This Act today will help. It won't help everyone, but it will also 
provide a prod, an incentive to these banks to refinance these loans. 
It's fair and equitable to allow home loan modifications because right 
now, in bankruptcy, every other asset can be worked out. The new law 
will allow loan modifications in bankruptcies and it will prod the 
lenders and servicers to hire the necessary personnel, answer the 
phone, begin the refinancing that they should have been doing over the 
past year.
  Many of these banks have received billions in taxpayer dollars. And I 
know that President Bush did not include a condition that these banks 
should refinance or sit down with folks and begin a discussion, but 
that must be a requirement now, or else foreclosures and the continued 
deterioration of all of our property values will continue.
  President Obama's plan also will provide responsible homeowners with 
additional leverage. And Congresswoman Doris Matsui from California and 
I have an amendment contained in this Act that will encourage a holiday 
for foreclosures until President Obama's plan takes effect.
  We're going to continue to stand up for responsible families and 
ensure that if you work hard and you play by the rules, the tools and 
resources will be available to help you stay in your home.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to recognize for 5 minutes my 
distinguished colleague from Iowa (Mr. King) to discuss the amendment 
that he had written that I offered last night in the Rules Committee, 
which was rejected. And I think he will share some very enlightening 
comments with us.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for yielding, and also for her diligent endeavor on the Rules 
Committee to try to hold together the integrity of this system and this 
process.
  On this cramdown legislation, the amendment that I offered in the 
Judiciary Committee was an amendment that would have, and I'd just take 
the language right out of it, it would have allowed the court to find 
that there had not been misrepresentation, false pretenses or actual 
fraud on the part of the lender if there's going to be a change in this 
contract ordered by a judge.
  Now, we don't want to reward people who are lawbreakers, or those who 
are disingenuous, or those who, by fraudulent or misrepresentative 
means to take advantage of a lender under these circumstances. This is 
new territory we're in. It's a narrow standard in a significant way.
  This was an amendment that not only I thought was a good proposal, 
Republicans thought it was a good proposal, but the Democrats also 
thought it was a good proposal. And this amendment is an amendment that 
I negotiated across the other side of the aisle in committee. It's an 
amendment that the chairman voted for. It's an amendment that passed, 
the bill passed on a recorded vote in committee, 21-3, Mr. Speaker.
  So when that happens in this process, the people who took government 
class all over America and read the Constitution believe that's the 
language that comes to the floor, that the language that's approved by 
the committee on a final markup is the language that comes to the 
floor.
  But what happened was, H.R. 200 was switched out for H.R. 1109, or 
whatever this bill is that we're working with. The language of this 
cramdown was to be transferred into that, but it was changed in that 
process. It was changed after we had a committee markup, a committee 
markup that apparently doesn't have any value when the will of the 
committee can be usurped by the staff of the committee. And I say the 
staff of the committee, because when I asked the chairman about this 
yesterday in the Judiciary Committee, he didn't seem to be aware that 
my language had been changed. And so we talked to their staff, and 
their staff said, well, there were Democrats that had some second 
thoughts. Wouldn't that include the chairman of the committee? And so 
they reconsidered and they rewrote the bill after the fact. And the 
final answer that came from the staff, the unelected staff, probably 
still employed, not if they were working for me, is ``it is what it 
is.'' In other words, tough. You can pass an amendment. You can 
negotiate

[[Page H2842]]

an amendment. You can get a 21-3 vote. You can have the support of the 
chairman. But if they decide when the sun comes up the next morning 
that they want to change their mind, they will change the language in 
the bill without even having the courtesy of contacting the sponsor of 
the amendment, the ranking member of the committee or, apparently, the 
chairman of the committee.
  And so I brought an amendment request to the Rules Committee last 
night. And thankfully, Dr. Foxx offered that amendment to the Rules 
Committee. It was voted down on a party-line vote.
  So what we have now is a process that does not reflect representative 
government. It doesn't reflect the will of this Congress. It reflects 
the will of somebody's staff.
  And there's plenty of means to change the language if there happens 
to be some kind of flaw in it. And I'll argue there is not. But there's 
plenty of means. That means would be come to the Rules Committee, bring 
your own amendment. Or bring this out on the floor for an up-or-down 
vote, or lobby the Senate to amend it over there, or seek to get 
something amended in conference. None of those avenues were followed, 
Mr. Speaker. And I think it brings a sense of shame upon this Congress 
that the integrity of a Member, of the entire Republican side of the 
aisle and many of the Democrats has all been usurped by what appears to 
be a staff decision, because I can't find a single elected Member that 
will say yes, I took responsibility and I didn't think you ought to 
know when I changed your language. That's what's going on.
  I urge this body to vote down this rule. Take this thing back to the 
Rules Committee, bring us the language that was passed out of the 
Judiciary Committee, or at least let's have some dialogue on why it was 
changed in the dark of the night by staff without a single Member that 
will take accountability for what's happened here.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New York, a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler.
  Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is an 
opportunity for Members to help families who are about to lose their 
homes thanks to a terrible combination of job loss, spiraling health 
costs, declining home values, and predatory lending practices. It will, 
among other things, correct a 30-year-old anomaly in the bankruptcy 
code.
  If you're a family farmer, you're allowed to use bankruptcy to modify 
your mortgage. We enacted that law in 1986 during the farm foreclosure 
crisis. It was a success, and we made it permanent 3 years ago. If 
you're a real estate speculator or if you own 5 or 20 or 50 homes, you 
can modify your mortgage in bankruptcy. If you're a major corporation, 
you can modify all of your loans and contracts in bankruptcy. The only 
exception is the family home. Yet, while millions of middle class 
families are on the verge of losing their homes, much of the banking 
industry and some Members of this House are still opposed to providing 
the same relief to the middle class that is now enjoyed by farmers, 
speculators, the wealthy, and major corporations.
  Lenders warn that we can't save the family home because it will 
increase borrowing costs for everyone else. This is the same industry 
that in 2005 told us that making bankruptcy more onerous would reduce 
people's interest costs by $400 per year on their credit cards. Nothing 
of the sort happened, of course.
  The banks have received billions of dollars from the taxpayers to 
keep the industry afloat, but they scream at the thought of our helping 
a few thousand families. I have nothing against Wall Street. In fact, 
it's in my district, but it is time we did something for the middle 
class homeowner. We tried the voluntary modification route without 
success. Maybe the programs in this bill will all work this time, but 
families getting thrown out of their homes shouldn't have to wait for 
Congress to figure out how to get banks to save the middle class. The 
banks have failed to save troubled homeowners. We must not fail. For 
every day we delay, the crisis deepens. People's lives hang in the 
balance. It is time we put American families first.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support this legislation 
and to end this anomaly in the bankruptcy code that affects only 
homeowners. Let them enjoy the same rights as everyone else.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned before that 94 percent of the 
American people are paying their mortgages and are paying them on time, 
and they don't understand why this is happening and why they should be 
burdened with having to pay off the mortgages of people who are not 
being responsible and who are not being held accountable.
  I want to share with you an article that came out in The Washington 
Post last December about the HOPE Program and about the situation that 
we're dealing with. When I read the article, it made me realize that 
our colleagues across the aisle are simply not in touch with reality. 
They don't have any idea about how the real world works. Most of them 
have not been in business. Most of them have not had to meet a payroll. 
They're living sort of in a Never Never Land, and I'm going to quote 
some things from this article that, I think, will help the public 
understand what that is.
  There is criticism about the bill from the HUD Secretary. Now, that 
HUD Secretary was in the last administration, and there is a lot of 
blame back and forth between Congress and the executive branch. This is 
what the HUD Secretary said:
  ``What most people don't understand is that this program was designed 
to the detail by Congress.''
  So that bill was passed. The bill setting up the HOPE Program was 
passed under the Democratic Congress. It also shows how off their 
numbers are in so many cases when they make predictions. They said the 
3-year program was supposed to help 400,000 borrowers avoid 
foreclosure, but between October and December of last year, only 312 
applications had come into the program.
  Let me tell you a little bit about why that is the case and why, I 
think, people who irresponsibly got mortgages to begin with continue to 
look for bailouts and continue to look for welfare. This is basically 
expanding the welfare program in our country by passing this bill. Here 
is what one of the people said who is working with those people who 
might benefit from the program:
  ``Getting the lenders to agree has been our biggest challenge,'' said 
Peyton Herbert, director of the foreclosure services at HomeFree-USA, a 
housing counseling firm in Hyattsville.
  This is what he says. This is the ridiculous way that these folks 
respond to this. He says, ``The lenders want dollar for dollar what's 
owed on that loan or something close to it. That's the fly in the 
ointment.''
  Imagine that. People who loan other people money want them to pay it 
back dollar for dollar. Isn't that an unusual situation? But that's the 
way most of us operate in this country. However, most of these people 
who got these loans and who are in trouble now got them because they 
never expected to pay them back. They expected somebody to bail them 
out. They weren't honest when they got the loans, and now they're going 
to be bailed out by this legislation.
  The other thing, which is just mind-boggling to me, is how the press 
writes these. Okay. ``The number one impediment is the lenders will 
redo their loans if the people promise to pay them back.'' Now, that's 
the way it usually operates, but the article goes on to say, ``The list 
of impediments goes on.''
  That's the attitude of The Washington Post. There is an impediment 
given out there to the people who want to redo their loans. Do you know 
what that impediment is? That the people who are getting these loans, 
if their home increases in value, they have to split that value with 
the Federal Government, which is underwriting their loan, if they sell 
the home; and the people don't want to do that.
  Again, there is no sense of responsibility. We didn't hear the 
President the other night talk about personal responsibility, personal 
accountability. He uses those words a lot, but he never pins them on 
anybody. It's just unbelievable that that's the attitude that people 
have. They could be getting help that already exists out of the HOPE 
Program, but they don't do it because

[[Page H2843]]

they don't want to pay the money back, and they don't want to share the 
increase in value with the Federal Government, which is underwriting 
their mortgage, if they ever sell the home.
  Again, I think they're living in a Never Never Land. They think that 
they're due this money for free. They've been taught to live in a 
welfare society. We're continuing the welfare mentality. We're going 
back to welfare that was done away with when the Republicans took over 
the Congress in 1995. That is not what the American people want.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from North 
Carolina refers to the President's constant statements five or six 
times during his joint resolution speech of calling for responsibility 
and accountability, and what she says is that he never pins it on 
anybody.
  My recollection of his speech was he said, ``including me,'' when he 
was talking about responsibility and accountability. If that's not 
pinning it on somebody, I don't know what is.
  Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, my colleague and former member of 
the Rules Committee, Ms. Sutton.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, on October 3, 2008, Addie Polk, a 90-year-
old woman from Akron, Ohio, in my district, shot herself because her 
home was in foreclosure. Ms. Polk fell behind on her mortgage payments, 
and could not bear to lose the home that she had lived in for nearly 40 
years. Fortunately, Ms. Polk survived and her home was saved, but Ms. 
Polk is not alone.
  Millions of homeowners across the country are finding it more 
difficult to keep up with their payments. Homeowners are struggling for 
many reasons. Many, in fact, have lost their jobs. You're right when 
you say Americans don't want welfare--they want jobs--which is why we 
passed the recovery act just a couple of weeks ago. Some have lost 
their homes because of health care costs, another issue that our 
President and this Congress are set to take action on. Some have lost 
their homes because they were deceived into signing predatory loans, 
another issue that we're acting on, and some did get in over their 
heads when they shouldn't have.
  Regardless of the cause, the crisis is real. It is real not only for 
homeowners like Addie Polk who are losing their homes; it is real for 
our communities, and it is real for our country. We have an interest 
and a responsibility to do better in dealing with the challenge.
  Today, the House will vote on the Helping Families Save Their Homes 
Act. The bill provides homeowners with options to refinance into 
mortgages that they can afford, and it will help countless families 
stay in their homes. Now, this is not the end. It is just one step in 
tackling the housing challenge that we face as a nation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this crucial legislation 
because Americans like Addie Polk and so many others out there deserve 
more than feeling so desperate as to shoot themselves, after living in 
a home for almost 40 years, for fear of losing it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to say there is another issue here 
related to process that, I think, we need to talk about.
  Many people say that the American people's eyes glaze over when we 
talk about the process here and that they don't really care, but I 
think we showed a couple of weeks ago that they do care and that 
they're watching and that they're paying close attention to what's 
going on in Congress, because the American people believe in fair play, 
and they believe that we should play by the rules.
  So often, Congress passes bills and exempts itself. It often passes 
rules, and the majority exempts itself. One of the ways that Congress 
is exempting itself or that the majority is exempting itself right now 
on this bill, on this rule, is with something they call PAYGO. Now, the 
majority party 2 years ago made a big splash and got a lot of great 
publicity, saying, ``Everything is going to be pay as you go.'' It's 
abbreviated PAYGO. ``We're not going to do any more spending unless we 
cut spending somewhere else. We want to be diligent.''
  They criticized Republicans for years on the deficit. They criticized 
Republicans for spending too much money. They were going to show that 
they were different. Yet what have they done every time they've gotten 
a major bill they've wanted to pass? They've just waived the PAYGO 
rules. It's real simple, and it usually doesn't get a lot of publicity 
because they got all that great publicity for saying that they weren't 
going to do that, but that's what's happening here, ladies and 
gentlemen. The PAYGO rules have been waived on this bill.
  They don't want to show the American people how again they're abusing 
their own rules, how they're being unfair to the American people 
because they're saying one thing and they're doing another. They say, 
We want to bring down the deficit. We want to curtail spending. What 
they're actually doing, as I said earlier, is bringing back the old 
welfare system. We saw that with the stimulus bill. We saw it with the 
appropriations bill. It's back to the old style of welfare. We don't 
have to ask people to work to draw welfare payments. No. Let's just get 
rid of that. Let's extend the payments. Let's increase the payments. 
Let's put more people on welfare. That's exactly what this bill does. 
We're simply going to be increasing welfare.
  The way they do that is to say, By passing this bill, we don't have 
to show how we're not increasing the deficit, so we'll just waive that 
rule, and nobody is going to notice it. Well, I think the American 
people are noticing that. I think they are paying attention.
  Again, the majority of the American people who are paying their 
mortgages, who are playing by the rules, who are going to work every 
day, and who are doing their jobs are getting sick and tired of the 
increase in the welfare system again. Here you go. The Democrats have 
been in charge of the Congress for a little over 2 years, and what do 
we see but a massive increase in welfare.
  I appreciate my colleague talking about the President saying he was 
going to be responsible, that he was going to be held accountable, but 
you know, we've not seen anything written into legislation so far. I've 
asked about that. Again, I appreciate very much Chairman Conyers 
putting a little piece in this bill about accountability. I think that 
was good.
  We're going to look at bankruptcy judges, see if they're abusing 
their power, make sure we have some idea of what they're going to be 
doing. We give them 2 years to make that report--it's plenty of time--
but I have great concern over the fact that the majority party has 
waived the PAYGO rules on this bill. That's a part of what they're 
doing, and I think the American people are concerned about that, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, please, as to 
the amount of time remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 14 minutes, 
and the gentlelady from North Carolina has 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, my 
fellow Floridian and classmate, my good friend, Ms. Brown.
  (Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you for giving me the opportunity 
to speak on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill but with some 
reservations because I know that it's not a perfect bill, but it's a 
perfect beginning. I also have held numerous meetings in my district 
concerning foreclosure, and, you know, we need to assist people to 
avoid the foreclosure process.
  We have over 1,000 foreclosures a month in my district of Florida, 
and we need to include legal aid and other community organizations like 
Wealth Watchers and those that are helping families to avoid losing 
their homes in foreclosure.
  Mr. Hastings, I have a question that I want to ask.
  As we move forward, is there a possibility that we can work to 
include additional assistance for families so that

[[Page H2844]]

they can avoid foreclosure? Some of the Members are telling people the 
problem is they're not getting good legal representation, and I think 
this is something that's missing in the bill. And what can we do to 
make sure when this bill leaves the House and the Senate and it goes to 
conference, that we can include additional assistance for families so 
they can avoid bankruptcy because there is a stigma attached to 
bankruptcy, and the banks don't have this stigma. And I am just 
concerned that people will have this stigma.
  What can we do to assist these families?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. If the gentlelady will yield.
  I'm not in a position to speak for the Judiciary Committee, but the 
distinguished Chair of the Judiciary Committee obviously will be one of 
the conferees, and if such an opportunity exists, then I would urge the 
gentlelady to speak with he and the Chair of Financial Services.
  I think the gentlelady brings up an outstanding point that's true 
throughout the Nation where people are in need of appropriate legal 
representation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I met with the credit unions who have 
been working very hard and doing a real good job, but they are not 
included. They can't get any of the TARP money, so they are limited 
with their amount of participation. We are having a hard time getting 
banks to get them to do what we intended them to do.
  What is the possibility that we can also discuss how we can include 
credit unions in getting additional resources to help our constituents?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. If the gentlelady would yield.
  I'd have you to know that this won't be the last vehicle in 
straightening out financial services.
  But you cite to the credit unions correctly. I, too, have had 
meetings with them. They're very concerned about the cramdown 
provisions allowing that it may very well cause increases, and they 
have been extremely responsible in our respective communities.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you very much for the time, and I 
hope we can work to perfect this bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe 
Lofgren), a member of the Judiciary Committee who has worked tirelessly 
in producing this particular document along with Chairman Conyers and 
Chairman Frank and other members of their respective committees.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we are facing a crisis of 
historic proportions in the housing market. Every 13 seconds, a new 
house in America goes into foreclosure. What this has caused is a 
dramatic decline in the value of housing all over the United States. 
For example, in Contra Costa County, across the bay from my home, 
housing values in one year have declined 53 percent. So those values, 
the collapsing housing market, is something we need to interrupt. This 
bill is part of that effort to interrupt the collapse of the housing 
markets by doing something that we should have done long ago to restore 
fairness to the bankruptcy system.
  Now, bankruptcy has been part of the Constitution since the very 
beginning of the United States, and what it allows is for people who 
are insolvent, who cannot pay their bills, to go into bankruptcy court 
and reorganize. The unfortunate thing is--and the unfair thing--is that 
people who are bankrupt, who are insolvent, who are in bankruptcy 
court, can get reorganization for their yacht, for their investment 
property, for their vacation homes, for their cars, for their credit 
cards, for their jet airplane, but not for the mortgage on their 
principal residence. That's not fair. That's not reasonable.
  This bill changes that. And in doing so, it restores some fairness to 
the chapter 13 process.
  The voluntary modification system has not worked so well. According 
to Business Week last week, only 35 percent of the voluntary 
modifications have actually resulted in lower monthly payments. In 
fact, in 47 percent of the cases, they've resulted in increased 
mortgage payments. So it's small wonder that most of those voluntary 
reorganizations end up with a re-default in 6 months.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an 
additional 1 minute.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I would just like to note not anyone 
can go into bankruptcy court. You have to be insolvent. We made it very 
tough in 2005 to get in there. But we do believe that banks and lenders 
will come to the table with the stick that homeowners could, in fact, 
go into the bankruptcy court for relief.
  It's important to note what this is not. This won't cost the 
taxpayers one dime. This is about lenders eating part of the cost for 
the collapse of the housing market. It's not a bailout from the 
taxpayers. It makes lenders take some responsibility for what has 
happened. I think it's about time that the banks stood up to their own 
responsibility and participated in part of this solution, which they 
have not done to date.
  This bill has been narrowed. It's only for retroactive loans. We've 
made many other adjustments, but it's sound policy. It's something we 
should do as soon as possible. It's going to help millions of people, 
and it's going to help stop the collapse of the housing market and the 
collapse of prices.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the gentleman from Florida 
if he has any more speakers?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I do have one more speaker, and I will be 
prepared to close.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased 
to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and in strong 
support of the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not going to fix our economy until we fix the 
problem in the housing market, which currently has risen to the level 
of a national crisis. In my home State of Rhode Island, we've been 
deeply affected by the downturn in the housing market. Our foreclosure 
rate last year was ranked 10th worst in the Nation, according to the 
Mortgage Bankers Association. And to make matters worse, we currently 
have the second highest unemployment rate in the country at 10 percent.
  A lack of action on the housing issue is going to lead to even more 
dire consequences.
  Now, in order for the economy to recover, it's evident that action 
must be taken to prevent foreclosures, help more families preserve home 
ownership and stabilize home prices. H.R. 1106, the Helping Families 
Save Their Homes Act, provides the resources that homeowners and 
lenders will need to guide them through this crisis.
  We also must ensure that the appropriate measures are in place to 
prevent this kind of crisis from ever happening again. This bill goes a 
long way towards fixing our housing programs.
  And I want to thank our colleagues, especially Chairman Conyers and 
Chairman Frank, for their outstanding and tireless efforts on this 
measure.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, you know, we hear all this talk about 
bipartisanship. Bipartisanship to the other side, to the majority 
party, means do it my way. That's what bipartisanship means to them. 
Bipartisanship to us means how about we have a discussion? How about we 
bring up some amendments and have some votes on them? If you're so sure 
that your position is right, bring those amendments up for a vote. 
Let's see what kind of votes they're going to get. No. They won't even 
allow amendments to be voted on. That's not bipartisanship.
  We had 20 amendments offered for this bill. Only one was accepted. 
That's not bipartisanship. Bipartisanship would be, again, bringing up 
lots of Republican amendments. Let them be voted on. Again, people who 
are sure of their position aren't afraid of having votes on alternative 
points of view.

[[Page H2845]]

  Again, the American people are watching us. They're watching this 
Congress, and we know the Congress is putting off some tough votes they 
don't want to deal with right now because they know the American people 
are watching. And you know, that's one of the best things that I think 
has come out of last year's election and, perhaps, the economic 
uncertainty.
  People are suffering. Republicans are concerned about that. We want 
to do everything we can to help those people who are suffering. But 
what this Congress has done so far hasn't helped those people who are 
suffering. It hasn't helped the people who are working and lost their 
jobs through no fault of their own.
  We want bipartisanship, but it should be true bipartisanship. It's 
not ``do it our way or do it not at all.''
  You know, I respect my colleague from California who just spoke and 
said that this bill doesn't cost taxpayers anything; it only costs the 
lenders. Well, who are the lenders? They're banks that are owned by 
stockholders. Those, the last time I looked, were taxpayers. They're 
the real taxpayers. That, again, is part of the out-of-this-world 
mentality that the people on the other side of the aisle have. It 
doesn't cost anybody.
  I had people in my office and they said, ``Oh, this bill doesn't cost 
anything.'' I said, ``Pardon me? You mean they're going to cram down 
the mortgages, they're going to reduce the amount of the mortgages? 
Who's going to pay the difference between the original amount and the 
cramdown amount?''
  ``Oh, those are the bankers. But it just means they won't be as rich 
as they were before.''
  That's not the way this country operates. ``Cramdown'' is the right 
name for the people talking about part of this legislation. That's 
exactly what it is. And what are we doing here?
  You know, the New York Post--not exactly known as the most 
conservative newspaper in the world--calls it the Foreclosure Five. 
What we are doing is we are bailing out people in five States. And is 
it any surprise that those five States are California, Nevada, Arizona, 
Florida, and Michigan? Where is the leadership in the majority party? 
California and Nevada. Is it surprising?
  This is just more earmark legislation, ladies and gentlemen. More 
earmarks. We're bailing out these five States.
  This is not a crisis of a national proportion. This is a personal 
matter, not a national crisis.
  Falling home prices are not the problem. Home prices went up 
tremendously for several years. Everybody knew that was going to have 
to come to a halt. Again, people living in this world knew that. People 
who had a real-world mentality understood that. But if you're living in 
Never Never Land, if you're living on the welfare mentality, then you 
assume you can behave any way you want to and somebody is going to bail 
you out. And that's what this legislation does.

                              {time}  1115

  Lots of newspaper articles and magazines have said, ``What this plan 
is doing is undercutting the banking and private sectors, and hurt many 
honest, hardworking people.'' That's a commentary from the Street. Over 
and over and over again we hear, ``we're subsidizing bad behavior,'' an 
article in the National Review. And that's exactly what this 
legislation does, it subsidizes bad behavior.
  This is a sham. It is hurting average Americans who pay their bills, 
who do their work. You know, I think that the majority party has an 
addiction to spending other people's money, and that's what this does. 
Again, saying it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything is ridiculous. 
It's going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money, both directly and 
indirectly. And I want to say that this is a bad bill, it's a bad rule, 
and I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
the time.
  This is a good rule for a critically important bill that addresses 
our current housing market crisis.
  My friend from North Carolina speaks of the leadership of this 
committee being from California and Nevada, the Democratic majority. It 
is true that Speaker Pelosi is from California and it is true that 
Senator Harry Reid is from Nevada, but they are two people. There are 
other people in the leadership in the majority, Senator Durbin from 
Illinois, Mr. Clyburn from South Carolina, Mr. Larson from Connecticut, 
the distinguished majority leader, Steny Hoyer, from Maryland.
  What we are talking about here is a universal problem insofar as this 
country is concerned. And I'm just back from an anti-Semitism 
conference in England, where I read, very actively, regarding their 
home crisis in the United Kingdom. We are also experiencing a whole 
global set of circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, in today's Daily Summary, the quote is made from the 
majority whip's office that Confucius said, ``The strength of a nation 
is derived from the integrity of its homes.'' I can think--and I'm sure 
every Member here can think--of all of our families through the years 
that among the things that they wanted was an opportunity to have a 
home. When my good friend from North Carolina speaks about returning to 
welfare, I didn't, when I was a boy, think that it was welfare after 
the Second World War when the Federal Home Administration, old FHA, and 
the Veterans Administration built a monument to middle class homes in 
this country, many of them still standing, many of them giving the 
foundation, a safe and inhabitable environment for people to raise 
their children as a result of those particular programs, followed by 
their successor, the Housing and Urban Development Department. I, as a 
young lawyer, participated in a variety of methods that gave low and 
moderate income families an opportunity to have a safe and inhabitable 
environment under programs such as 221D-3, 221H, a variety of programs 
rehabilitating properties, building homes for seniors, and giving 
everybody a chance.
  I would like to add an anecdote. The value of my home in my 
neighborhood in Miramar, Florida, has decreased substantially. Other 
Members in this body are experiencing the same thing. I have paid my 
mortgage for 11 years every month on time. If my home value decreases 
another 6 percent, I will have an upside down or underwater mortgage, 
having done nothing but the right thing. But there are seven of my 
neighbors that I know of that are in foreclosure. And fortunately our 
homeowners association is mindful of the need that we have to work 
together.
  This is a collective thrust, this piece of legislation. This is 
something to help us all. That's what Americans do. It is not a 
giveaway. It is not welfare when I look out for my neighbors and they 
look out for me, it is the potential to lay the foundation for us to 
get out of a crisis that is in an enormous one for this entire Nation.
  Nearly 6 million households in America face foreclosure. My State of 
Florida has the second highest foreclosure rate after California. It's 
just plain old common sense for Congress to pass a bill that will help 
working families who have played by the rules and acted responsibly to 
stay in their homes and to continue to pay off their mortgages. We 
can't run away from this crisis. We must rebuild. And we must help 
those in need.
  Neighborhoods in the district that I'm privileged to represent, as 
well as around this Nation, are struggling, homes are being foreclosed, 
and we have an opportunity to mitigate the destructive impact of those 
foreclosures on families and communities. I urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of this rule so that we may support a bill that will give 
millions of Americans the opportunity to stay in their homes and not be 
forced out on the streets.
  In defense of some of the services, in my district, Ocwen Financial 
Services has been doing loan modifications on their own, and their 
return rate for foreclosures is substantially less than the norm. There 
just are some good ones out there. The credit unions and the community 
banks have been doing responsible lending. They did not take advantage 
of people who may not have known what they were doing or who should 
have known and took advantage of the system to buy homes that they 
should not have bought. It's just that simple.

[[Page H2846]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on 
the rule. And I beg of us all to understand the critical need that we 
have to work together in this country, Democrats and Republicans, 
liberals and conservatives. Everybody in this Nation must face this 
problem. And, yes, we must act responsibly; and yes, we must act with 
accountability. And that's what this measure, as authored by the 
distinguished Chair of the Judiciary Committee and the distinguished 
Chair of the Financial Services Committee, working in conjunction with 
their colleagues--I might add in a bipartisan way. There are few people 
here that have had as many markups as they had in Judiciary and 
Financial Services. And when they come before the Rules Committee, all 
I hear of them is the fairness of Congressman Conyers and the fairness 
of Congressman Frank. So to say that these measures are not bipartisan 
or that others are not being listened to is just absolutely wrong.
  Let us pass this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. 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 adopting the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 183, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 88]

                               YEAS--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--183

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Boucher
     Campbell
     Cao
     Cassidy
     Kline (MN)
     Miller, Gary
     Nye
     Pence
     Perriello
     Stark

                              {time}  1152

  Mr. McHUGH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. KISSELL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          Honoring Gay Topper

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, just 2 days ago--and I know one of the 
Members said can we do this after votes--but some people, like Mike 
Sheehy we talked about the other day, have put in extraordinary weeks 
and months and years serving this institution and every one of us. They 
make this institution run in a way that accommodates not only the 
contention but the compromise and the action. They do so as well with a 
spirit that makes this a better place in which to work. As surely as 
each of us who are elected, they serve our country and serve it well.
  I have particular honor to rise on behalf of all of us, not just the 
majority party. I will yield to my friend, the minority leader, the 
Republican leader in just a minute, but I am particularly pleased to 
rise because this particular person lives in my district. I've known 
her for a long period of time.
  She has served the House of Representatives for 32 years. She must 
have started at 9 or 10 years of age, I think. She is the retiring 
clerk to the Parliamentarian. She will retire tomorrow. It will be her 
last day. All of you have seen her, if you don't know her. If you've 
seen her and talked to her, you know that she is a warm and gracious 
person who greets all of us of whatever party, whether we're first-year 
Members or, in my case, a 29th-year Member.
  She will be retiring tomorrow. She lives in Upper Marlboro, and she 
graduated from Frederick Douglass High School, which is in my county 
and the county represented by my colleagues Donna Edwards and Chris Van 
Hollen.
  She started working in the House of Representatives in 1977 as an 
official reporter where she worked until 1986. She began working for 
the Office of the Parliamentarian in 1987 and has worked there for 22 
years.
  The Office of the Parliamentarian is an absolutely critical office, 
nonpartisan, knowledgeable, focused on assuring that the business of 
the American people is done in a way that reflects fairness and 
reflects well on the

[[Page H2847]]

House as an institution. And each and every one of those who work with 
our Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, make it a better service 
organization, not just for the House of Representatives but, as I said, 
for the American people.
  Before I close, I want to yield to my friend, the Republican leader, 
John Boehner of Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding, and, Gay, 
congratulations and thank you for 32 years of service to the House. We, 
as Members, are fortunate to have a lot of professionals who help us do 
our job and help our country do the job that they sent us here to do, 
and whether they work in the Parliamentarian's office like Gay, whether 
they work here on the floor, in committees or in our personal staffs, 
we're very fortunate to have people such as yourself help us do the job 
the American people sent us here to do.
  And I just wanted to rise today and say thank you. Thank you for 32 
years. God bless your soul for putting up with all of us for 32 years, 
but we're glad you did.
  Thank you.
  Mr. HOYER. I now want to yield to a Member, senior to me, very good 
friend from Michigan who has served this institution so well, 
Congressman Kildee.
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My tenure here started about the same time as Gay Topper's tenure, 
and you know, through those years I never knew what party she belonged 
to. I do know that she was a great American and a great human being, 
and those of us who had the opportunity of coming in contact with her 
became better people because of her professionalism, her kindness, her 
gentleness, her knowledge, not just to the Members but to the pages.
  The two pages sitting right there, when my son, one summer, sat there 
as documentarian, he would come home at night and talk about how 
kindly, how friendly Gay was to the pages. That's very important. That 
kindness means so much in this House. It helps sometimes take off those 
sharp edges, and she has done that.
  This House is a better House because of Gay Topper, and I can say 
personally, Mr. Speaker, that I'm a better person because of Gay 
Topper.
  Thank you very much. God bless you, Gay.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the majority leader for yielding.
  I just wanted to add on our side, in happier times--and I know you 
won't agree with me, but I define happier times as when the Republicans 
were in the majority--a number of us had the opportunity to spend very 
long evenings in the chair as the Speaker's representative, during the 
appropriations process in particular.
  I know it won't come as a surprise to Members, but when you've heard 
that 50th speech on the National Endowment for the Arts or the 40th 
observation about whether or not an IUD is an abortifacient, you have 
some time on your hands when you're in the chair and you get to know 
people. And one of the people that you get to know is Gay Topper. 
Professionalism is right. And I tell Mr. Kildee, I found out she was a 
Democrat after about 10 years of being up there.

                              {time}  1200

  But you get to know people. You get to know people, and you also get 
to know the professionalism.
  A lot of us think on each side somehow the Chair is rigged up there. 
Well, it is not rigged. I can remember a debate one evening when a 
Member, I won't name the Member, said, ``Hey, I want you to give me a 
minute like you just gave that Republican.'' And I turned to Gay and I 
said, ``Give the gentlelady the same minute you gave the Republican,'' 
and she did.
  Gay, we are going to be a poorer institution without you, and I want 
to thank you on behalf of us during those happier times for your 
service.
  Mr. HOYER. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette.
  Mr. Speaker, I will close on behalf of the Speaker and myself; and I 
know that the Speaker, on behalf of all the House, irrespective of 
party, Gay, wants to thank you for the service you have given to us, 
the friend you have been to us, the fairness you have displayed 
throughout 32 years of your career, and wish you Godspeed.
  Thank you very much.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 198, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 89]

                               YEAS--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kaptur
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Massa
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul

[[Page H2848]]


     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Boucher
     Campbell
     Cao
     Cassidy
     King (IA)
     Kline (MN)
     Miller, Gary
     Perriello
     Stark

                              {time}  1213

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________