[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 70 (Thursday, May 7, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H5350-H5371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             MORTGAGE REFORM AND ANTI-PREDATORY LENDING ACT

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


         Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 111-98.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 2.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
       Strike section 216(e) and insert the following:
       (e) Limitation on Distribution of Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--None of the amounts made available under 
     this section shall be distributed to--
       (A) any organization which has been convicted for a 
     violation under Federal law relating to an election for 
     Federal office; or
       (B) any organization which employs applicable individuals.
       (2) Definition of applicable individuals.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``applicable individual'' means an 
     individual who--
       (A) is--
       (i) employed by the organization in a permanent or 
     temporary capacity;
       (ii) contracted or retained by the organization; or
       (iii) acting on behalf of, or with the express or apparent 
     authority of, the organization; and
       (B) has been convicted for a violation under Federal law 
     relating to an election for Federal office.

       Strike section 106(a)(4)(D) of the Housing and Urban 
     Development Act of 1968 (as added by section 404 of the bill) 
     and insert the following:

       ``(D) Limitation on distribution of assistance.--
       ``(i) In general.--None of the amounts made available under 
     this paragraph shall be distributed to--

       ``(I) any organization which has been convicted for a 
     violation under Federal law relating to an election for 
     Federal office; or
       ``(II) any organization which employs applicable 
     individuals.

       ``(i) Definition of applicable individuals.--In this 
     subparagraph, the term `applicable individual' means an 
     individual who--

       ``(I) is--

       ``(aa) employed by the organization in a permanent or 
     temporary capacity;
       ``(bb) contracted or retained by the organization; or
       ``(cc) acting on behalf of, or with the express or apparent 
     authority of, the organization; and

       ``(II) has been convicted for a violation under Federal law 
     relating to an election for Federal office.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H5351]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am here to correct a 
mistake I made in my haste to get the markup concluded so we could have 
plenty of time to get the reports done, the bill on the floor. I agreed 
to an amendment that I had not read carefully.
  The amendment would ban any organization, any organization in 
America, from receiving housing counseling funds if anybody in that 
organization is indicted by any prosecutor anywhere for Federal 
election or voter fraud.
  So I rise to vindicate an important principle of American law that 
indictment should not be a cause of serious penalty, that people should 
continue to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
  To allow any prosecutor, anywhere in America, to tell any 
organization that it is ineligible for these funds, simply by an 
indictment, is, it seems to me, inappropriate.
  I would point out that while there is an effort to claim that somehow 
this is specific to one organization, that may be the intent, but this 
bill earmarks no funds for any organization.
  And it says, here is what it says about the funds: The Secretary 
shall make financial assistance available to HUD-approved housing 
counseling agencies and State housing finance agencies. So we have HUD-
approved counseling agencies--these are approved now on the list from 
the last administration--and State housing finance agencies.
  I have some confidence in them and those who are worried, my 
amendment says if there is a conviction and the person isn't fired, you 
cut off the funds.
  But to cut off funds that were given by an approved HUD counseling 
agency because once persons anywhere in America were indicted by some 
prosecutor, is a violation of the basic principle of fairness.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I rise in opposition to this amendment, which strips 
down language in the bill designed to keep tax dollars from falling 
into the hands of organizations indicted for voter fraud or its related 
crimes.
  It was last week during our Financial Services Committee markup of 
the underlying bill, I offered a straightforward amendment to limit 
eligibility for the housing counseling grants and the legal assistance 
grants authorized by the bill to exclude organizations indicted for 
voter fraud or that employed people indicted for such crimes.
  Plain and simple, Mr. Chair, it should sound familiar to everyone 
here in this Chamber, because the exact same language was passed as 
part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 to prohibit 
groups, such as ACORN, from obtaining taxpayer-funded grants.
  272 Members of this body, including the gentleman from Massachusetts 
who just spoke, voted for that legislation, which became law last July. 
But not only is it legitimate for Congress to decide the threshold for 
accessing taxpayer funds, it's incumbent upon this body to do so in our 
fiduciary capacity to the taxpayers of this great country. And for far 
too long Congress has cavalierly distributed taxpayer money.
  Every day we can go on record saying we will no longer set the bar 
this low. We are all saying, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, 
shame on me. But ACORN and organizations like it have fooled us not 
once, not twice, but seemingly after every election. The stories of 
their indictments for voter fraud for violating their tax status for 
voter registration improprieties abound. Grand juries across the Nation 
have found them and their employees lacking. Yet we continue to funnel 
millions of dollars to their coffers.
  Just last week, on Monday, the headlines out of Nevada read ``39 
counts of voter registration fraud against ACORN and two of its former 
employees.'' It was just several hours ago, hot off the presses, that 
the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported breaking news, an Allegheny County 
district attorney charged seven employees with ACORN ``with forgery and 
election law violations, saying they filed hundreds of fraudulent voter 
registrations during last year's general election.''
  Can't this body do something about this, Mr. Chairman? How many 
felony charges does it take to see that this organization has violated 
the public trust?
  Congress isn't the arbitrator of guilt or innocence. Congress does 
decide to spend the people's money. At what point do we finally say 
that this organization is simply not worthy of the hard-earned money of 
the American people.
  According to recent testimony at the House Judiciary Committee, ACORN 
has been under investigation in States, for, among other things, 
violations of the Tax Code, 501(c)(3); violations of the Federal 
Election Campaign Act of 1971; fraudulent voter registration 
activities; and failure to comply with State law in voter registration 
drives.
  And here are just a few more headlines of late: January, 2009, a 
voter registration worker for ACORN in East Saint Louis was indicted on 
two counts of voter fraud for submitting forged cards for residents at 
nursing homes without their knowledge.
  According to the AP in October of 2008, ``a suburban Philadelphia man 
was charged with forgery, allegedly altering 18 voter-registration 
applications during his employment with an organization [ACORN] whose 
voter-outreach efforts have become a flash point in the presidential 
campaign.''
  CNN reported October 28 about an ACORN worker who helped register 
nearly 2,000 voters for the community group ACORN, not one of them 
actually existing, and he was convicted last year and spent nearly 3 
months in prison.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts says that his amendment is about due 
process. But I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, the American people are smarter 
than that. They deserve better than such an oratory sleight of hand. 
His amendment is about our duty as stewards of the taxpayers' dollar 
and mine.
  Others say this is about the importance of the underlying grant 
program. But there are plenty of legitimate law-abiding nonprofits who 
have never seen an indictment that could still apply for these grants.

                              {time}  1230

  The bottom line is this: either you're against allowing organizations 
that engage in or employ individuals under investigation for voter 
fraud to receive tax dollars, or you aren't.
  Mr. Chair, our votes on this amendment make our positions crystal 
clear to the people we serve. Are we on the people's side or are we on 
ACORN's side? We owe it to our constituents who are already tired, 
frustrated, and outraged by this cycle of spending and bailout and 
taxing and borrowing to at least show them that we aren't going to pick 
their pockets to fund groups that are about abusing their trust over 
and over again.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chair, I would just end by saying I urge the 
people of this body to oppose this amendment, because as we stand in 
our fiduciary duty before the taxpayers, we need to make our vote 
clear--and our vote will say we either stand with the taxpayers of this 
great country, or we stand with ACORN.
  Mr. Chair, I would yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. First of all, I want to acknowledge that the funding for 
this bill is a good thing for mortgage foreclosure efforts. I would 
point out that I think the Bachmann amendment is the same amendment we 
adopted in the GSE Affordable Housing Fund. So we did adopt that in 
that legislation. So her amendment would be consistent with what this 
body did last year.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time remains to me, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. The gentlewoman from Minnesota said, ``Do we want to allow 
funding for people who employ people who are under investigation?'' 
Yes. I don't want to live in a society where the mere instituting of an 
investigation by any prosecutor anywhere shuts down lawful activities.
  Now, she said an organization that's under indictment, but the 
amendment

[[Page H5352]]

goes far beyond that. Any individual member of an organization, no 
matter how far flung, apparently, according to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota, if an investigation begins of anybody, you shut them down.
  The gentlewoman from Minnesota mentioned someone who has been 
convicted. Under the amendment I offered, that would end it. We would 
either have to fire that person or lose the funding.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No. The conviction triggers it. No 
question. That's what is in the amendment. My amendment says if you are 
convicted, it's triggered. But to say that any individual who works for 
any organization who's indicted, shuts it down. The gentlewoman said, 
Are you on the side of ACORN?
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Will the gentleman yield to answer your point?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts controls the time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The issue is this: the gentlewoman, I 
think, inaccurately says, Are you for ACORN or the American people? 
This bill says nothing about ACORN. This bill says that approved HUD 
counseling agencies and State financing agencies can make the choice.
  What I think the amendment says is this: Are you for the principle of 
American justice that says the mere institution of an indictment by any 
prosecutor anywhere, at any level?
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair, I have told the gentlewoman I 
would not yield. Could she be instructed that that is the answer that 
she's going to get, and to stop interrupting?
  The CHAIR. It is apparent the gentleman is not going to yield. When a 
Member has asked a Member under recognition to yield several times, and 
it becomes apparent that the Member under recognition is not going to 
yield, the Member shouldn't continue to ask him to yield or otherwise 
interrupt him.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. There are some basic rules like the ones 
of debate. Also, the fact that I said that to empower any prosecutor 
anywhere, at any level. And this isn't about ACORN. We don't sit here 
to judge on this or that organization. The gentlewoman said we don't 
judge guilt or innocence. Well, the amendment tries to do that.
  The amendment says: a guilty finding by statute; in the absence of a 
guilty finding, in a court of law. Because if there's a guilty finding 
in a court of law, under my amendment, then this denies funding to 
people.
  There are a lot of prosecutors. And it's not just ACORN. There are a 
lot of organizations, including political parties in the State of New 
Hampshire, near me. The Republican Party operatives were convicted of 
election fraud. I don't think that means you go after everybody else. 
It certainly didn't mean pending indictment you do this. There ought to 
be a bright line between penalties for indictment and for conviction.
  Now if the amendment had said a pattern of indictments, that's a 
different story. It might have been a better argument. But this says a 
single indictment of any individual by any prosecutor for any 
organization anywhere in American has these negative consequences.
  I think we have seen enough of prosecutorial misconduct, whether it 
was Senator Stevens or whether it was Members on both sides of the 
aisle, whether it has been organizations that have been prosecuted. I 
don't think we want to set that principle. Remember, this is 
precedential. Once we set as a body the legal principle--apparently, it 
was in the earlier bill. It shouldn't have been. If I missed that, I 
apologize.
  I want to now repudiate the notion that the action of a single 
prosecutor who may be politically motivated to indict anybody anywhere 
for election fraud, disables that organization, forces the organization 
to fire an individual who may later be vindicated.
  Yes, the gentlewoman said one of the employees of the organization 
that has motivated her amendment was convicted. My amendment says: in 
that case, you either fire the person or you lose the money.
  Conviction ought to be the standard. But a single indictment by a 
single prosecutor anywhere, I do not think that is the rule of law 
under which Americans wants to live.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank ).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bachus

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 111-98.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Bachus:
       At the end of title IV, add the following new section:

     SEC. 410. WARNINGS TO HOMEOWNERS OF FORECLOSURE RESCUE SCAMS.

       (a) Assistance to NRC.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, of any amounts made available for any fiscal year 
     pursuant to section 106(a)(4)(F) of the Housing and Urban 
     Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(a)(4)(F)) (as added 
     by section 404 of this Act), 10 percent shall be used only 
     for assistance to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 
     for activities, in consultation with servicers of residential 
     mortgage loans, to provide notice to borrowers under such 
     loans who are delinquent with respect to payments due under 
     such loans that makes such borrowers aware of the dangers of 
     fraudulent activities associated with foreclosure.
       (b) Notice.--The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, in 
     consultation with servicers of residential mortgage loans, 
     shall use the amounts provided pursuant to subsection (a) to 
     carry out activities to inform borrowers under residential 
     mortgage loans--
       (1) that the foreclosure process is complex and can be 
     confusing;
       (2) that the borrower may be approached during the 
     foreclosure process by persons regarding saving their home 
     and they should use caution in any such dealings;
       (3) that there are Federal Government and nonprofit 
     agencies that may provide information about the foreclosure 
     process, including the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development; and
       (4) that they should contact their lender immediately, 
     contact the Department of Housing and Urban Development to 
     find a housing counseling agency certified by the Department 
     to assist in avoiding foreclosure, or visit the Department's 
     website regarding tips for avoiding foreclosure; and
       (5) of the telephone number of the loan servicer or 
     successor, the telephone number of the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development housing counseling line, and the 
     Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) for the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development websites for housing counseling 
     and for tips for avoiding foreclosure.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Before I discuss my amendment, I'd like to thank Chairman 
Frank and really, first of all, acknowledge his efforts over the past 
few years to combat predatory lending practices. I think as early as 
2005, he was aggressively trying to stop some of these practices.
  I also appreciate the chairman working with me to bring this 
amendment to the floor. Originally, my amendment funded foreclosure 
rescue scam awareness and prevention efforts. And that's what the 
amendment is about. It's about so-called foreclosure rescue scams. I 
had proposed using money from the legal assistance fund and, after 
consultation with Chairman Frank, I revised my amendment to use the 
bill's counseling authorization as a funding source.
  Although the chairman and I disagree on the underlying merits of the 
bill, I do appreciate the spirit of bipartisanship which the chairman 
has shown in our discussions on this amendment and the bill as a whole.
  I earlier acknowledged your efforts since I think at least 2005 to 
come up with a bipartisan bill. I don't think we were successful this 
year, but I think had our efforts been successful in prior years, we 
could have avoided some of

[[Page H5353]]

this. And I'm sorry the other body didn't show the urgency that we did.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield, he said he 
is sorry the other body didn't move. There's a lot of that going around
  Mrs. BACHMANN. That's right. There is. But I'd say to the Members, 
there's an unprecedented number of homeowners that are delinquent on 
their mortgages and entering foreclosures. In fact, the Mortgage 
Bankers Association estimates that at least 11 percent of the mortgages 
now are delinquent and will probably go into foreclosure. This is 
creating really a desperate situation across the country.
  Unfortunately, as all desperate situations, this situation has 
created opportunities for scam artists to take advantage of homeowners 
in desperate situations through so-called foreclosure rescue schemes. 
My amendment is designed to at least offer some protection to those 
homeowners from being victimized in this way.
  It's just amazing that, whether it was in Katrina or other natural 
disasters or gas shortages, that people seem to take advantage and act 
their worst during times of struggle and crisis.
  This amendment allows mortgage servicers to work together with the 
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which is a congressionally 
chartered organization, to make delinquent borrowers aware that they 
may be targets of fraud and inform them on how best to protect 
themselves.
  The amendment is funded by dedicating 10 percent of the funds 
authorized under section 404 to this much needed form of housing 
counseling.
  Many scam artists use publicly available information about defaults 
and foreclosures starts to contact troubled borrowers. In States with 
judicial foreclosures, lenders file a foreclosure action in a local 
court. In States where there's nonjudicial foreclosure regimes, lenders 
file a notice of default with the county recorder. All these records 
are available to the public and provide raw material for fraud artists 
to prey upon troubled borrowers.
  In a classic loan modification scam, borrowers are duped into paying 
up-front fees for a loan modification that never occurs. In some cases, 
borrowers are told that in order to complete a mortgage refinancing 
needed to avoid foreclosure, they must sign over the title of the 
property. Another scam promises homeowners they can stay in their home 
as renters and buy back their properties at a later date.
  On February 10, 2009, the administration released the Home Affordable 
Refinance Program and a Home Affordable Modification Program. 
Unfortunately, with the introduction of these new programs, 
unscrupulous persons or companies have yet again found new 
opportunities to defraud unsuspecting borrowers.
  In fact, April 6, about a month ago, Treasury's FinCEN announced 
guidance to financial institutions on filing suspicious activity 
reports regarding loan modification and foreclosure rescue scams.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in the absence of anyone 
else, I will claim this time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama 
has very accurately stated this. He worked with us until we got an 
amendment that did some good, that avoided some problems we thought we 
would have. So I hope the amendment is agreed to.
  Mr. BACHUS. If the gentleman would yield me 30 seconds?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman for 30 seconds.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very good amendment. I 
want to close and thank the gentleman for that time.
  Mr. Frank and I both agree, and I think most Members of this body, we 
must stop these outrageous mortgage fraud rescue scams. Congress shuts 
off one avenue for fraud, and we did that with the National Mortgaging 
Licensing and Registration System now being instituted by the 
Conference of State Banking Supervisors. But every time you shut one 
door, these innovative crooks find a back door, and now they have moved 
into the fertile field of foreclosure.
  We must protect unsuspecting and vulnerable homeowners from being 
cheated by these rogues and frauds.
  I close by urging my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Perlmutter

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 111-98.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Perlmutter:
       In section 220(a)(2)(B)--
       (1) insert ``(i)'' before ``such notice to vacate''; and
       (2) insert before the period the following: ``; and (ii) 
     with respect to a single-family residence for which the 
     borrower rented the unit in violation of the mortgage 
     contract, such notice to vacate shall be provided by the 
     purchaser to the tenant in such unit at least 30 days before 
     the effective date of such notice, and shall include a copy 
     of the mortgage contract prohibiting the rental of the 
     unit''.
       Amend section 129(l) of the Truth in Lending Act (as added 
     by section 303 of the bill) to read as follows:
       ``(l) Acceleration of Debt.--No high-cost mortgage may 
     contain a provision which permits the creditor to accelerate 
     the indebtedness, except when repayment of the loan has been 
     accelerated by default in payment, or pursuant to a due-on-
     sale provision, or pursuant to a material violation of some 
     other provision of the loan document unrelated to payment 
     schedule.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I propose to the 
House today is twofold. The first part deals with a section of the bill 
that provides 90 days for tenants to stay in a home or an apartment 
house that has been foreclosed upon.
  The purpose of this amendment, and it is very narrowly drawn, is only 
as to those properties that are owner-occupied homes where the owner 
has covenanted with the lender that they are going to occupy the house. 
What happens is often the owner moves out, leases the property to 
someone, foreclosure begins. The lender has no chain of title, no 
connection with this particular tenant, nor is there any expectation 
that there would be a tenant because the owner said ``I am going to 
live there.''
  Under the law today, there is no additional time beyond the 
foreclosure for a tenant to remain in that owner-occupied house. Under 
the bill that is proposed, that timeline is extended to 90 days beyond 
the foreclosure. My amendment shrinks that back to 30 days. So it is 30 
days more than the law allows today, but less than what is proposed in 
the bill, because the lender has never had any dealings with that 
particular tenant. This is not like a multifamily apartment house where 
the lender expects that there are going to be tenants or an investor 
type of a loan where the lender expects a tenant to be in place. Ninety 
days is probably a reasonable amount in that situation, but not here, 
so I have asked to shrink it down to 30 days. That is the first part of 
the amendment.
  The second part of the amendment is something I talked to Mr. Miller 
about, which is to clarify the language about when acceleration of a 
loan can occur. Now what we have said is acceleration occurs upon a 
default in payment or a due-on-sale clause or a material violation in 
the contract. So those are the two sections of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Let me first thank my friend from Colorado who has 
worked diligently. He is an excellent legislator and was a fine lawyer 
and I think still is licensed to practice law, and so it is a pleasure 
working with him. On this issue, unfortunately, we don't quite see it 
the same.

[[Page H5354]]

  I think that the 90-day provision is fine and should remain in the 
bill as it exists now. To cut down by 60 days the opportunity for a 
renter to find a new place to live after they may have done nothing 
wrong, made every payment, paid every penny on time, really is not fair 
and is not good for public policy.
  The fact is that, when a house goes into foreclosure, that 
neighborhood and that home are best preserved by keeping that occupant 
in there. If they are required to leave just after 30 days, which is 
very, very fast, that means that we could end up with an empty building 
where it is subject to copper strippers. It will be an attractive 
nuisance for people who want to commit, perhaps, crime. It will be a 
very difficult and bad situation. And we know that once a house goes 
into foreclosure and then is not occupied, that is a direct blow to the 
property values of people who live everywhere in the neighborhood.
  So this provision, this 90 days actually makes a lot of sense. It 
should stay in harmony with the bill as it exists and not be reduced. I 
will acknowledge appreciation that the author of this amendment does 
allow for 30 days. I appreciate that, but I think it should be more. It 
should be the 90 days that is already there.
  This amendment, if adopted, would work to penalize the one person who 
has not had anything to do with the foreclosure crisis. They were not 
party to the foreclosure. They were not party to the mortgage in the 
beginning. They weren't party to the securitization, nor did they 
engage in any derivatives or anything like that which have brought us 
to this very difficult point.
  The fact is that the tenant who may have been paying every rent every 
month, month after month, has no control or responsibility over the 
owner who may have violated certain conditions of the mortgage 
agreement, and this extra 60 days that the existing bill provides is 
not a major detriment to the lender.
  Let me just also say, the fact is this is not just an individual 
problem. To take a very legalistic view of this problem and say they 
are not in the chain of title, therefore, they are out, ignores the 
fact that this problem of foreclosures has spread across the Nation, is 
a community problem, is a problem of everyone, not just a narrow, fixed 
party-to-party agreement. Therefore, there needs to be a solution that 
takes into consideration the broader interests as well.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his diligent work on 
this issue.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would ask my friend from Minnesota whether he has 
any other speakers? If not, I have the right to close on my amendment.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I thought I had the right to close.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota actually has the right to 
close. The gentleman is the manager opposed to the amendment.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Well, I would say to my friend from Minnesota that I 
appreciate your comments, although I would disagree with you.
  When it comes to a situation where tenants are expected to be in a 
property, whether it is a multifamily apartment house or something 
where there is this expectation on the lender, I would agree with my 
friend's points. But not here, not where there has been a covenant that 
it is going to be owner occupied. And often, that covenant comes along 
with a reduction in the interest rate, so there is consideration for 
it.
  So I appreciate your point about not being too narrow and legalistic, 
but this is an important point, and it is one that deals with the 
contract itself and the certainty of the contract.
  Secondly, the lender may have somebody else who is ready to come in 
and buy, and there are a lot of people who want to buy these homes, 
too. I would say to my friend from Minnesota, and they shouldn't be 
deprived of the opportunity to purchase them. The lender also may want 
to continue to lease the property out to the individual who is 
occupying the home.
  So there are a number of reasons why, at 30 days, I think we are 
giving substantial time to these individuals to vacate the premises. 
That should be the cutoff date.
  I would also remind my friend that, in the manager's amendment, Mr. 
Filner has an amendment that is part of it that gives notice to the 
tenant at the outset of the foreclosure that something is going on with 
the property so that there is not a surprise. So I would urge a ``yes'' 
vote on the Perlmutter amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Let me just point out that tenants are hard hit by this 
foreclosure crisis even though the mortgage is not their 
responsibility.
  As of February 2009, at least 20 percent of the properties in 
foreclosure were rental properties, and roughly 40 percent of the 
families facing eviction due to foreclosure are tenants. Only seven 
States and the District of Columbia provide clear protection for 
tenants.
  The fact is that, if this amendment is adopted, it will add to the 
pain of some tenants when we don't have to do it. The 90 days in the 
bill is more than adequate, and 30 days is too short. We will put 
pressure on our homeless shelters if we adopt this amendment. We will 
put pressure on families who really had no part in making this 
foreclosure crisis occur.
  I thank my friend from Colorado.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 111-98.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       In section 129C(d) of the Truth in Lending Act (as added by 
     section 204 of the bill), strike paragraphs (2) and (3) and 
     insert the following (and redesignate succeeding paragraphs 
     accordingly):
       ``(2) Assignee and securitizer exemption.--No assignee or 
     securitizer of a residential mortgage loan shall be liable 
     under this subsection.''.
       In section 129C(d)(6) of the Truth in Lending Act (as added 
     by section 204 of the bill), strike ``, assignee, or 
     securitizer'' each place it appears.
       In section 129C(d)(7) of the Truth in Lending Act (as added 
     by section 204 of the bill), strike ``, assignee, or 
     securitizer'' each place it appears.
       Strike section 129C(d)(8) of the Truth in Lending Act (as 
     added by section 204 of the bill) (and redesignate succeeding 
     paragraphs accordingly).
       In section 129C(d)(9) of the Truth in Lending Act (as added 
     by section 204 of the bill)--
       (1) strike ``, assignee, or securitizer''; and
       (2) strike ``or an assignee or securitizer under paragraph 
     (2)''.
       In section 129C(d)(10) of the Truth in Lending Act (as 
     added by section 204 of the bill), strike ``the terms 
     `assignee' and `securitizer', as used in this section, do not 
     include''.
       In section 129C(e) of the Truth in Lending Act (as added by 
     section 205 of the bill), strike ``or any assignee or 
     securitizer'' each place it appears.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, the subject of mortgage reform is a 
very serious subject. And although there are certain laudable aspects 
of the underlying legislation, I fear that although it is a serious 
subject, it is difficult to take the legislation seriously.
  How can you have mortgage reform when you leave out the single 
biggest root cause of the economic debacle we find ourselves in, and 
that is reform of Fannie and Freddie? How can you seriously deal with 
mortgage reform and be absolutely silent to at least half of the fraud 
equation, and that is those who lied about their income, lied about 
their occupancy, lied about their net worth?
  The underlying legislation, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, is going to 
ensure that consumers lose their choices. It will make interest more 
expensive. It will protect--``protect,'' a term we hear from our 
friends on the side of the aisle--protect people out of their homes and 
effectively take away the American Dream from millions and millions of 
Americans.
  Now, we need effective disclosure. We need effective policing of 
fraud and misrepresentation. We also need some personal responsibility, 
and we need to quit bailing out failed institutions, and

[[Page H5355]]

we shouldn't force people who are struggling to pay their own mortgages 
to pay their neighbors' as well.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, one particularly bad and onerous aspect of this 
legislation is something called assignee liability. What this means is 
that once the mortgage is entered into, that those who securitize the 
mortgage, those who may invest in the mortgage, that all of a sudden 
new legal liability will attach to them as well.
  The bill introduces legal liability for the originator. It doesn't 
introduce any new legal liability on behalf of the borrower, but 
introduces new legal liability saying that, with respect to 
refinancing, that there must be a ``net tangible benefit''; and, if the 
lender fails this standard, he has legal liability. On all financing, 
there must be a ``reasonable ability to pay.''
  Well, what do these standards mean? Net tangible benefit. So if 
somebody decides to refinance, take equity out of their home and start 
a small business, is that a net tangible benefit? Or does it depend on 
how successful the small business is?
  How about if an individual refinances their home, they take out 
equity, and they decide to put a swimming pool in the backyard? Well, 
maybe that is not a net tangible benefit. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. 
I don't know.
  Maybe they refinance, because in their particular situation they need 
a lower monthly payment but yet they are willing to pay a larger sum. 
Is that a net tangible benefit?
  I would be happy to yield to anybody on the other side of the aisle 
who could tell me if those examples constitute net tangible benefits. 
Hearing nobody on the other side of the aisle take me up on it, it kind 
of proves my point: We don't know what these terms mean, nor do we know 
about reasonable ability to pay.
  So all of a sudden, if a lender figures out that there is a tragic 
divorce going on in a family, does he have a legal obligation now to 
deny homeownership opportunity because maybe there is no longer a 
reasonable ability to pay?
  How about if somebody has the tragic discovery that they have breast 
cancer? All of a sudden, is there a legal obligation that maybe this 
person can no longer have a reasonable ability to pay?
  We don't know what these legal standards are, Mr. Chairman. And so 
now they are getting passed on to the assignees, these fuzzy, muddy, 
cloudy, amorphous terms. It is a plaintiff's lawyer's dream, and so we 
will have an explosion of liability exposure. Why would people want to 
invest? Why would people want to securitize?
  You know, when people invested in the stock of Enron, they were the 
victims. They weren't the victimizers. And now, all of a sudden, we are 
turning this on their head, and at the end of the day there is going to 
be less mortgage money available to anybody who wants to have their 
American Dream realized.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I keep waiting on the gentleman to address 
his proposed amendment. I haven't heard anything about the proposed 
amendment, but I want to address the points that he addressed since he 
wants to have a general debate.
  First of all, he says he can't support this bill because we didn't 
deal with Fannie and Freddie. That is kind of like me saying I am not 
going to vote for the earned income tax credit because it doesn't deal 
with all of what caused poverty in America.
  You can't deal with every subject in every bill. We passed a bill 
that has dealt with Fannie and Freddie, and it has been over there in 
the Senate for a long time. And we are going to pass some other 
legislation to deal with Fannie and Freddie at some point, but it is 
not addressed in this bill, just like the whole totality of poverty is 
not addressed when we passed an earned income tax credit or when we 
passed health care. That is just a non sequitur, as far as I am 
concerned.

                              {time}  1300

  He talks about, we didn't deal with disclosure so I'm not going to 
vote for the bill.
  Everybody in America that got a loan that is in foreclosure now, 
everybody who is in default now got full disclosures of what the terms 
of their loans were. And they were ineffective to prevent the kind of 
predatory lending and policies that this bill addresses. So I don't 
know what the gentleman is talking about when he says ``we didn't deal 
with disclosure.''
  We intentionally didn't deal with disclosure because we acknowledge 
that disclosure and telling people that we are giving you a bad loan is 
not enough to protect them any more than disclosure that a doctor may 
not be the best doctor in America is going to stop people from going to 
the doctor.
  So now that I have dealt with those, maybe he will want to address 
the amendment itself.
  And I will reserve the balance of my time to address the amendment.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To my friend from North Carolina, there are many reasons not to 
support the bill. I didn't say I wasn't supporting it for these 
reasons. I said it was hard to take a mortgage reform bill seriously 
that didn't treat this.
  At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, again, what is going to happen 
is that we are functionally outlawing certain types of loans here, and 
we know particularly subprime, with these amorphous legal standards, 
applying them to securitizers, applying them to investors, 
functionally, you are outlawing this.
  Well, that hurts people. It hurts the Taylor family of Forney, Texas, 
that wrote to me, ``If it hadn't been for subprime lending, I wouldn't 
have my house now. My credit was destroyed because of a divorce. I 
worked hard for 5 years to clean up bad credit.''
  These people still ought to have an opportunity to realize their 
American Dream, and we ought to quit protecting them out of their 
homes.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. WATT. Would the Chair advise me how much time remains.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WATT. I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, on two successive days 
now, Mr. Hensarling has said in the course of addressing the body, 
``Can anyone over there tell me what `net tangible benefit' is?'' And 
then a second later saying, ``Hearing nothing, they must not have an 
answer.'' I don't believe anybody watching on C-SPAN is under the 
impression that we are all paying rapt attention to every word that 
comes out of Mr. Hensarling's mouth. And the reason we didn't hop up 
isn't because we didn't know what the answer is. It is more the case 
that we kind of lean over to each other and say, What did he just say?
  ``Net tangible benefit'' is based very closely on a rule of law in 
securities law called, that gets at churning or making transactions in 
a stock market account just to generate fees for the broker. The 
problem this gets at is flipping of loans, of coming back to a 
homeowner and persuading them to refinance just to create more fees for 
everyone involved in the mortgage system, to refinance so they can get 
the home owner deeper and deeper in debt. Rather than trying to 
delineate every possible net tangible benefit, the bill gives the 
regulatory authorities, the banking agencies, the authority to say 
exactly what a net tangible benefit is.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would now like to address the gentleman's amendment which he still 
never has addressed. I acknowledged from the very beginning that we 
walked a delicate balance between protecting consumers and protecting 
the availability of funds. But the balance that the gentleman would 
have us address says this, ``no assignee or securitizer of a 
residential mortgage loan shall be liable under this subsection.''
  Let me tell you what that would lead to. I will close a loan one day, 
I will assign it to somebody the next day, and we will be right back 
where we are right now because nobody in the chain of custody of that 
loan, other than the original lender, will have any liability.

[[Page H5356]]

That would be as irresponsible as not passing any bill or not doing 
anything, which is exactly what a number of my colleagues would like to 
have us do, but which is not an option in this posture at this moment.
  So I want my colleagues to be clear. This is a destructive amendment 
and should be opposed.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.


             Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Moore of Kansas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
House Report 111-98.
  Mr. Moore of Kansas. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Moore of Kansas:
       In section 129C(a) of the Truth in Lending Act (as added by 
     section 201(a) of the bill), insert after paragraph (3) the 
     following (and redesignate succeeding paragraphs 
     accordingly):
       ``(4) Income verification.--In order to safeguard against 
     fraudulent reporting, any consideration of a consumer's 
     income history in making a determination under this 
     subsection shall include the verification of such income by 
     the use of--
       ``(A) Internal Revenue Service transcripts of tax returns 
     provided by a third party; or
       ``(B) such other similar method that quickly and 
     effectively verifies income documentation by a third party as 
     the Federal banking agencies may jointly prescribe.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. I rise today with my colleagues from Maryland 
and Ohio, Congressman Frank Kratovil and Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy, 
in offering this income verification amendment to H.R. 1728.
  It is well known that the misrepresentation and the unverified nature 
of a borrower's income was a contributing factor to the mortgage 
crisis. Some borrowers purposely misstated or altered their incomes on 
documents in order to qualify for loans they couldn't afford, and some 
lenders either ignored or encouraged that practice.
  Columnist Gretchen Morgenson wrote last year: ``While borrowers may 
have misrepresented their incomes, either on their own or at the urging 
of their mortgage brokers, lenders had the tools to identify these fibs 
before making the loans. All they had to do was ask the IRS.''
  Our amendment would require lenders to do this by simply verifying 
the borrower's income documentation with the IRS. They already have a 
program to do this, the Income Verification Express Service. This 
program utilizes IRS tax transcripts to verify a borrower's income 
within 2 business days, often the same day, for less than $5. This 
simple step will help catch fraudulent behavior before a lender closes 
on a loan that a borrower may not be able to afford.
  In his recent report to Congress, the special investigator inspector 
general for TARP recommended third-party verification of income like 
this IRS tax transcript program to prevent fraud. Income verification 
will strengthen the integrity of our mortgage system by ensuring 
borrowers receive a loan they can repay, lenders underwrite loans that 
are less likely to default, investors regain their confidence in the 
securitization process, and in the case of government-supported loans, 
taxpayers are protected.
  I urge my colleagues to support our income verification amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I appreciate the gentleman offering this amendment. I 
think it does make the underlying bill better. Income verification is 
an important criteria in determining whether somebody qualifies for a 
mortgage or not and has the ability to repay. Providing a low-cost way 
to be able to do that, I think, is an important step in this process. 
And I commend the gentleman.
  With that, I yield back my time.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to Congressman 
Frank Kratovil of Maryland.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, studies suggest that almost 50 percent of 
all subprime loans were accepted by lenders without verification of 
stated income. In some cases, borrowers provided their lenders with 
fraudulent information in order to qualify for a mortgage and deceive 
the lenders. In other cases, the lenders actually encouraged the 
borrowers to do so, or simply looked the other way despite obvious 
questions of credibility. How can we avoid this from happening again?
  Mr. Chairman, we can do this by passing the Moore-Kratovil-Kilroy 
amendment to H.R. 1728, which can appropriately be referred to, as a 
prosecutor might say, a ``trust but verify'' amendment.
  The Moore-Kratovil-Kilroy amendment to H.R. 1728 would help stabilize 
the mortgage markets and help protect against fraud by requiring 
mortgage lenders to verify the income history of each home loan 
applicant by obtaining a IRS tax return transcript from a third-party 
provider prior to closing a loan. IRS tax transcripts can be used to 
verify income and avoid possible fraud or eventual foreclosure. 
Verification of stated income through IRS tax transcripts will protect 
the taxpayers, investors, and mortgage market by discouraging fraud, 
reducing foreclosures and strengthening the market.
  This past April, as was mentioned, the TARP special inspector----
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. This past April, the TARP Special Inspector General 
recommended the Treasury use third-party income verification to prevent 
fraud in the newly announced mortgage modification system. As a former 
prosecutor, I certainly had experience prosecuting fraud in the 
courtroom. What this amendment does is stop fraud before it even gets 
there by eliminating the ability to misrepresent or encourage a 
misrepresentation of income.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Congresswoman 
Mary Jo Kilroy from Ohio.
  Ms. KILROY. Thank you, Chairman Moore and Chairman Frank, for your 
leadership on these issues.
  I'm glad to join with my colleague, Mr. Kratovil, on this commonsense 
amendment that provides a cost-effective and simple way to verify 
income to address the issue of mortgage fraud.
  It is well known that misrepresentation and the unverified nature of 
a borrower's income was a contributing factor to the mortgage crisis 
and the foreclosure crisis that we find ourselves in. Lenders either 
routinely ignored or encouraged this practice, leading to a higher risk 
of default, delinquency and foreclosure for borrowers and for America's 
families. In fact, according to the Comptroller of the Currency, nearly 
50 percent of all subprime mortgages relied on stated income, no 
verification. And the Mortgage Asset Research Institute found that 90 
percent of the borrowers reported incomes higher than those found in 
the IRS files. And even more disturbing, almost 60 percent of the 
income amounts were exaggerated by more than 50 percent.
  In my district, foreclosure is a very serious issue. There were over 
79,000 foreclosure filings in 2006, compared to 15,000 in 1995. One in 
seven of these homes was subprime lending.
  A quick, reliable and confidential income verification process will 
improve things so much. It will catch fraudulent behavior before the 
lender closes on a loan or before a borrower gets involved in a loan 
that he or she can't afford, strengthening the integrity of the

[[Page H5357]]

mortgage market. And one of the things that this amendment will 
accomplish will help to restore integrity and confidence to the 
mortgage lending process, and in the case of the government-supported 
loans, give more support and confidence to the American taxpayer as 
well.
  This third-party income verification can be obtained simply and 
quickly. And it is affordable and confidential.
  The CHAIR. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Moore).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
House Report 111-98.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have an amendment made in order by the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       Add at the end the following:

                       TITLE VIII--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 801. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, titles I, 
     II, and III of this Act shall not take effect until 90 days 
     after the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
     provides written certification to the Committee on Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate that such 
     titles will not reduce the availability or increase the price 
     of credit for qualified mortgages (as defined in section 
     129C(c)(2) of the Truth in Lending Act).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, we all agree that we want to 
increase credit and get the housing market moving again. My amendment 
is a simple amendment and addresses that specific issue. It simply says 
that the Federal Reserve ought to be able to provide written 
certification to the appropriate committees in the House and the Senate 
that this bill will not reduce the availability or increase the price 
of credit for qualified mortgages.
  As we are considering ways to free up credit in the market, this 
legislation may just be the wrong thing at the wrong time. When the 
Federal Reserve testified before our committee on the impact of this 
legislation, the witnesses had reservations regarding the impact of 
this bill on access to credit. In fact, they felt that there was a 
significant possibility that the adoption of this bill would actually 
decrease the availability of credit.

                              {time}  1315

  My amendment would ensure that prime borrowers will not be punished 
with increased rates. It simply requires that the Federal Reserve 
certify that the provisions of this bill will not reduce the 
availability or increase the price of credit for qualified mortgages. 
This certification will protect responsible borrowers that played no 
role whatsoever in the meltdown of the mortgage market.
  It is clear to me and others from the language in this bill that a 
routine, vanilla, 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is being put forward as 
the mortgage of choice. If that is going to be the case moving forward, 
and originators are not going to be comfortable offering other types of 
mortgage products because of the narrowness of the safe harbor 
provisions and the risk-retention provisions, then we need to ensure 
that qualified borrowers will have access to those types of mortgages.
  Many of us are concerned because of the other provisions in this bill 
that it is going to become more difficult for qualified borrowers to 
have access to affordable credit. So if the proponents of this bill 
don't believe it will restrict credit or raise the cost on borrowers, 
then they shouldn't have any trouble voting for this amendment. The 
amendment simply stipulates that the Federal Reserve will certify that 
that would be the case.
  But if they don't think that the bill will pass this review from the 
Federal Reserve with flying colors, then I think it would be time for 
them to reconsider whether or not this legislation is what we need at 
this time.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's 
description of the safe harbor refers to an earlier version of the 
bill. In the committee, a bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) 
significantly increased the safe harbor so it is not a 30-year fixed 
mortgage only that is allowed. Variants of time, certain ARMs, it is 
much more flexible.
  The gentleman's comments apply accurately to a provision that is no 
longer in the bill; but it does not apply to what is in the bill.
  My second point is that I am surprised at the back-and-forth attitude 
some of my most conservative colleagues have toward the Federal Reserve 
system. On the one hand, there has been a great deal of concern, which 
I share, about the unlimited power of the Federal Reserve in some 
areas. But time and again we are being told, as in this amendment, we 
should yield to the Federal Reserve our constitutional power to 
legislate.
  This amendment says we will vote, but the bill will not go into 
effect until the Federal Reserve gives us permission. Now I have a good 
deal of confidence in Mr. Bernanke, but the notion that we would cede 
to the Federal Reserve the power to enact legislation, where is Ron 
Paul when we need him? When did the Federal Reserve become the 
constitutional equal of the Congress of the United States?
  So on that ground alone, I would oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of 
the committee for requesting from the Rules Committee that amendments 
be made in order. I appreciate that because I think these are getting 
to important issues.
  The gentleman talks about the expansion of the safe harbor 
provisions, and they are. But that doesn't have anything to do with 
whether or not the Federal Reserve, or some entity, ought to stipulate 
that the cost of credit won't be greater, or the availability of credit 
won't be less, if this bill is adopted. That is the heart of the 
amendment.
  My friend from Massachusetts talks about being surprised by various 
protestations about the role of the Federal Reserve. Well, I would be 
the first to stand with him if in fact he wants to support maintaining, 
or returning the Federal Reserve to stipulating only about monetary 
policy. But the fact of the matter is that the Federal Reserve has 
jurisdiction over this area. In fact, the Federal Reserve has put 
forward particular rules regarding mortgages. And, in fact, many of 
them address the very issues that are being addressed in this bill 
today.
  So again, the heart of my amendment says if in fact this bill will 
not decrease the availability of credit or will not increase the cost 
of credit, then it's fine. Just move it on forward. But if it will 
decrease the availability of credit, or increase the cost of credit to 
folks out there across this land, then we ought not move forward with 
it. We ought not punish those individuals who, through no fault of 
their own, find themselves in a challenging situation finding credit. I 
once again urge adoption of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first I guess I have to 
apologize to the gentleman from Georgia after listening to what he 
said. He chided me, mildly, in a friendly manner, for mentioning the 
dimensions of the safe harbor, he said it wasn't part of the bill, but 
I was only responding to his description of it. So I listened to him; 
he said the safe harbor was too narrow, it would push people into a 30-
year. I responded. I thought when he raised it that it was relevant.
  Beyond that, though, we do have this issue: do you tell the Federal 
Reserve that it will decide whether or not this goes forward? It also 
says, and there is a lack of balance here. If it says it will reduce 
the availability by any amount. Well, to some extent the purpose of

[[Page H5358]]

this bill is to reduce the availability of credit.
  If Members believe that people got mortgages who shouldn't have been 
able to get them, then they ought to support a bill that will reduce 
the availability of credit. Frankly, the profligate availability of 
credit is a major reason for the current problem. So, yes, there are 
people who used to get mortgages who won't get them under this bill. 
Some lenders don't like that. There are lenders who made loans and they 
won't be able to make the loans under this bill, but that is precisely 
the point. The point is not to allow credit to be as loosely granted as 
it was even for qualified mortgages. People got mortgages who shouldn't 
have gotten them.
  Now if you believe that not everyone who got a mortgage in the past 
should get a mortgage now, then it would seem to me you want to reduce 
the availability of credit. The question is: how do you do it? Do you 
do it in a sensible way? What is the balance? That is what we think is 
achieved in this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. May I inquire as to the time available on each 
side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 1 minute remaining. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts has 90 seconds.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I appreciate the comments of my friend, the chairman of the 
committee. But I would point out that the heart of this amendment gets 
to whether or not through this bill we are going to increase the 
availability of credit and decrease the cost of credit. If we are not 
going to do those things, then it seems to me that the American people 
ought to be very suspect about the nature of the bill.
  The amendment simply says that the Federal Reserve, the entity in the 
Federal Government that has jurisdiction over this area, would simply 
have to say that we will not decrease the availability of credit and we 
will not increase the cost of credit, especially at this time, at this 
time when so many of our fellow citizens across this land are having 
extreme difficulty finding credit, realizing their dream and being able 
to either stay in their home or find a home in which they will be able 
to gain credit to purchase.
  It is a simple amendment, Mr. Chairman. It gets to the heart of the 
matter. Are we as a Congress going to increase the availability of 
credit and decrease the cost? Or are we going to simply decrease the 
availability of credit and, therefore, decrease the ability of the 
American people to realize their dream? I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Yes, that is exactly the issue. The gentleman says, surprisingly to 
me, we want to increase the availability of credit.
  Let's understand the problem. Too many loans were made to people who 
shouldn't have gotten them. In some cases it was the fault of the 
borrower; in some cases it was the fault of the lender; and in some 
cases the fault lies elsewhere. Yes, one of the important purposes of 
this bill is to reduce the pattern of people getting loans who 
shouldn't have gotten them because they couldn't repay them.
  So to say that the purpose of this bill is to increase the 
availability of credit, is it to have more subprime loans, more 
borrowers who can't pay back?
  Now you want to do it with balance and you want to do it in a 
reasonable way. I believe we deal with that. If there are questions do 
we go too far one way or the other, those are legitimate. We discussed 
a lot of those in committee. There were a lot of amendments that were 
adopted.
  But I accept my colleague from Georgia's definition as the heart of 
the matter: Does this bill, if it is enacted, mean that fewer mortgage 
loans will be granted going forward than were granted in that period 
from 2002 to 2006, as the gentleman from Texas' amendment shows, when 
subprime mortgages shot up? I hope so. I hope that we will have fewer 
mortgages granted to people who couldn't have paid them.
  Now other people, we hope things will go better. With the FHA piece, 
we hope to do even more in making credit available.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. My amendment addresses qualified borrowers.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, it says ``qualified mortgages.'' But 
part of the problem has been that people got mortgages with bad 
judgments by the people who made them.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in 
House Report 111-98.
  Mr. McNERNEY. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. McNerney:

       In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment made 
     by section 404 of the bill, after the period at the end of 
     paragraph (4)(C) insert the following: ``In distributing such 
     assistance, the Secretary may give priority consideration to 
     entities serving areas with the highest home foreclosure 
     rates.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment to the Mortgage 
Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act. This important bill will crack 
down on many of the most common predatory lending practices that have 
contributed to the housing crisis. H.R. 1728 also includes essential 
provisions to establish an office of housing counseling to provide 
consumers with the information they need to make informed mortgage 
decisions.
  I am proud to represent the city of Stockton, California, a city that 
unfortunately suffers from one of the Nation's highest foreclosure 
rates. Back home, I have hosted several foreclosure assistance 
workshops where mortgage counselors approved by the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development provided unbiased advice to struggling 
homeowners. I have seen firsthand how effective these counselors are. 
But counseling resources remain very stretched.
  The amendment I offer today simply helps counseling agencies serving 
areas with high rates of foreclosures to get their fair share of grant 
funding. I am proud to support the bill we are considering today, and I 
would ask all of my colleagues to join me in making sure that the areas 
most hard hit by the housing crisis receive the counseling resources 
they need.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
though I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I rise in support of the gentleman from California's 
amendment, which gives the HUD Secretary the option of prioritizing 
funding for HUD-certified housing counseling entities located in areas 
experiencing high foreclosure rates.
  As was said, we really have to look at the resources that we have and 
make sure that they are going to be used in a very well-thought-out 
way. I support the amendment.
  I would also like to thank Ranking Member Bachus for his earlier 
amendment to title IV, to dedicate housing counseling funds to help 
homeowners avoid fraudulent foreclosure rescue scams.
  Both amendments strengthen title IV. As the author of title IV of the 
bill, which is the same as my bill, H.R. 47, I cannot emphasize enough 
the importance of housing counseling, especially when it comes to 
helping homeowners in trouble.

[[Page H5359]]

  In my congressional district, HUD-certified housing counselors have 
the patience, expertise, and experience to help homeowners who are at 
the end of their rope. These counselors have been a lifeline to 
struggling families, often helping families get their budget in order, 
improve communications with the lender or servicer, and most 
importantly, help save their homes.
  So many of the problems out there could have been avoided if 
consumers secured this kind of financial literacy before signing on the 
dotted line for a mortgage. They would be armed with the ability to 
make better decisions about a mortgage. However, many homeowners did 
not secure this advice and are in dire straits today.
  Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I thank the 
gentlewoman from Illinois for her leadership on this issue for housing 
counseling. Again, I have seen too many families that are in trouble 
and could have used help early on in the process or that are in trouble 
and could use help now to salvage the best of a bad situation.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. McHenry

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in 
House Report 111-98.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. McHenry:
       Strike title III (relating to high-cost mortgages).
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. McHenry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, in 2007 this bill passed the House with no 
subsequent action in the Senate. Since then, the Federal Reserve has 
finalized rules establishing a new category of ``high-priced 
mortgages'' under HOEPA that will virtually eliminate all subprime 
lending.
  When the Fed released these new regulations, Chairman Frank described 
the Fed's response to tighten the HOEPA restrictions as a ``very strong 
consumer protection position.'' I have heard the arguments made by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the Fed's regulations 
eliminating all subprime lending don't go far enough, that even more 
lending in the marketplace needs to be eliminated. Now, I say 
``eliminated'' instead of ``prohibited'' because by defining a class of 
loans under HOEPA, you are essentially killing that class of loans, 
never mind the fact that they may be a reasonable option for a number 
of consumers.
  Now, I say ``eliminate'' because these loans under HOEPA are simply 
not originated, financed, or securitized in a normal marketplace, much 
less the severely restricted marketplace we currently have in lending 
that is very clear to the American people. The reason why there is not 
lending under HOEPA is due to the significant risk of loss on the 
holder of these loans.
  In 2006, when we had a normal functioning mortgage marketplace, of 
the 10 million loans made, less than 1 percent were HOEPA loans. By 
expanding the loans that would fall under HOEPA even further than the 
Fed has already done, we would be killing options for millions of 
people to get future lending and ensuring that in an already restricted 
marketplace, things will become even more restricted.
  Mr. Chairman, Members need to ask themselves, if the marketplace for 
mortgages is going to become so heavily regulated, further regulated 
with so many new protections included in the rest of this bill, then 
why in the world do we need title III of this bill? My amendment 
strikes title III.
  During the committee hearing earlier this month, Massachusetts Bank 
Supervisor Steven Antonakes expressed his concern that the dramatic 
expansion of HOEPA will result in much fewer loans being made. Is this 
really the direction the Congress wants to take right now, further 
restricting the mortgage marketplace?
  Mr. Chairman, I ask support of my colleagues for striking title III 
of this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, Mr. McHenry and other 
opponents of this bill have said that the bill will have the effect of 
outlawing certain kinds of loans and limiting choices. Yes, Mr. 
Chairman, we do intend to limit choices. They say they would defend to 
the death the right of consumers to choose to get cheated blind, to get 
cheated out of their income, to get cheated out of their life savings. 
And we want to limit that choice because we don't think that consumers 
really choose that. When someone needs to borrow money to buy a house 
or borrow money against their house or get a credit card or on 
overdraft fees, or whatever else, they shouldn't have to swim in waters 
filled with fins. There should be some protections.
  This amendment changes, in a fairly modest way, the protections of 
HOEPA for high-cost loans, which are highly regulated loans. And 
because they are highly regulated, they are fairly rarely made. But it 
allows loans up to 6.5 percent higher interest rate than prime--that is 
well more than twice prime--on subordinate loans, 8.5 percent above 
prime. And it raises the up-front cost that triggers a HOEPA loan, a 
high-cost loan, from 8 percent to 5 percent and closes some of the 
triggers. Do we want fewer loans like that made? Yes, Mr. Chairman, we 
do. That is exactly what we intend.
  North Carolina did something very much like this in 1999. The 
Commissioner of Banks of North Carolina has testified repeatedly before 
Congress. There was a study at the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill Business School. At least one business publication, 
industry publication, looked into it and found there was no change, 
there was no diminution in the availability or terms of mortgage credit 
in North Carolina. Did people make fewer loans like this? Yes. That was 
the whole point; they got better loans. That is the point, making sure 
that people get better loans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. As a proponent of the legislation, do I have the right 
to close?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) has the 
right to close because he is the manager in opposition to the amendment 
and a member of the committee.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, in summation, my colleague from North 
Carolina has made the argument why you should strike section III. His 
quote is, ``Yes, we intend to limit choices, Mr. Chairman.'' I think 
that is the wrong attitude this Congress should take.
  The fact is, for those that have less than perfect credit, this 
section of the legislation will hamper their ability to get mortgages 
and purchase homes. That is the simple fact. In fact, my colleague from 
North Carolina says that, yes, they intend to limit choices, they want 
to eliminate choices in the marketplace for lending and for further 
restricting lending. I think that is the wrong path, Mr. Chairman. I 
think that is the wrong attitude this Congress should take. I think it 
limits choices for our consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, when this becomes law, if we do not strike this 
section, Members will have to go home and answer to their constituents, 
Why can't I get the lending I need to purchase a home? And we can point 
to this very vote on whether or not they are in favor of more options 
in the marketplace or fewer, restricting choices, restricting 
opportunities, eliminating certain types of mortgages in the 
marketplace. I think we should eliminate section III.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to go home to 
North Carolina and explain to voters

[[Page H5360]]

that I did vote against allowing loans that would be more than 6.5 
percent higher than prime, except very highly regulated loans in very 
unusual circumstances. These loans are made, they are rare, they should 
be rare. We need better loans.
  Does anyone really think there were not enough bad loans made in the 
last few years? It has been in the papers. We have had a foreclosure 
crisis. We now have a financial crisis. We need better loans. Those 
loans were not about making credit available to people who couldn't get 
it otherwise; it was people being taken advantage of and cheated, and 
we need to do better by the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina will be 
postponed.


              Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mrs. Dahlkemper

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in 
House Report 111-98.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mrs. Dahlkemper:
       In section 5(b)(1) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures 
     Act of 1974 (as amended by section 408 of the bill)--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), strike ``and''; and
       (2) insert after subparagraph (B) the following (and 
     redesignate succeeding subparagraphs accordingly):
       ``(C) the advantages of prepayment; and''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1728, the 
Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, legislation that will 
curb predatory lending and other egregious industry practices that 
caused the subprime lending boom and the Nation's highest home 
foreclosure rate in 25 years.
  My amendment in this crucial legislation adds a financial literacy 
component to the underlying bill. Especially during this period of 
economic recession, it is critical that borrowers have all the 
necessary information to make smart financial decisions when purchasing 
a home.
  H.R. 1728 requires that the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development publish a guide for prospective borrowers at least every 5 
years. This guide explains the concepts of balloon payments, prepayment 
penalties, and the tradeoff between paying up-front closing costs and 
the resulting interest rate over the life of the loan.
  Prepayment penalties are limited in many circumstances under the base 
bill and even prohibited in others. Prepayment penalties often limit a 
consumer's choice to refinance when interest rates become more 
favorable or make partial payments when the consumer has the means and 
the desire to do so.
  My amendment adds a requirement that the advantages of loan 
prepayment also be included in the HUD consumer education guide. I 
believe it is important to provide prospective borrowers with an 
advance explanation of the substantial and positive economic impact 
that even modest prepayments during the early years of a loan term may 
have. Having this knowledge prior to committing to a mortgage will 
allow borrowers to weigh the pros and cons of the prepayment penalty 
clause that are often found in mortgage documents before they lose the 
opportunity to either bargain them out of their loan document or seek 
out other options.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my amendment to promote 
greater financial literacy as well as the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. The gentlewoman offers a thoughtful amendment. 
Prepayment is an important option for mortgage holders. I appreciate 
her amendment, and we support that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. I want to thank my colleague from Texas, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).
  The amendment was agreed to.


      Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in 
House Report 111-98.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment 
at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of 
     Florida:
       In section 218(a), strike ``homebuyers and mortgage 
     lending'' and insert ``consumers, small businesses, 
     homebuyers, and mortgage lending''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in the face of 
continuing economic uncertainty, I rise today in support of careful 
consideration, reasoned reluctance, and above all, the need for due 
diligence.
  As we have seen over the last 18 months, rapid changes in the 
structure of mortgage lending can have a profound consequence for the 
broader economy. No matter how one feels about the underlying 
legislation or its implications, we can all agree that this bill is 
designed to change the structure of lending.
  Among other things, H.R. 1728 will require lenders who make and sell 
nonqualified mortgages to retain a 5-percent stake in those mortgages 
if they choose to securitize or sell them. All other things being 
equal, that policy will increase banks' risk exposure. And given the 
close proximity between banks' risk exposure and the capital that they 
are required to hold in reserve, any significant change in one piece 
will clearly have an effect on the other. In other words, if mortgage 
risk increases, financial institutions will either have to hold more 
capital in reserve, or they will have to reduce their risk exposure 
elsewhere. That includes consumer loans and small business lending.
  While the underlying bill addresses the impact on lenders' capital 
reserves, the study required under this bill stops a little bit short 
of directing GAO to monitor and report on any changes in other types of 
lending, such as consumer or small business loans.
  Mr. Chairman, while it is not at all clear what the effects of this 
legislation will be, it is certainly reasonable to expect that there 
will be consequences--hopefully some good, and perhaps some not so 
good. The availability of small business loans may well increase as 
creditors shift away from nonqualified mortgage lending and into other 
forms of lending. Then again, it may not. The point is that we just 
don't know.
  This amendment acknowledges that there are uncertainties inherent in 
any major reform, and that affects people's lives and businesses. And 
it makes certain then that if there are any unanticipated consequences, 
those consequences will be quantified and reported so that Congress can 
make any adjustments, as necessary.
  In closing, I would like to ask my colleagues to remember that 
hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have either been loaned or 
invested in banks precisely to ensure that those financial

[[Page H5361]]

institutions remain sound, that they meet their regulatory capital 
requirements, and that they regain their ability to loan to those who 
need it most.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
although I do not intend to oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WATT. I want to just thank the gentlewoman for offering the 
amendment. We have been saying throughout this process that there are 
uncertainties and we need to know if we've made the balance the wrong 
way, and this study would help us determine that in a constructive way.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina. I enjoyed serving with him while I was on the Financial 
Services Committee.
  At this point I would urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Titus

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in 
House Report 111-98.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Ms. Titus:
       In that portion of subparagraph (C) of section 129B(b)(1) 
     of the Truth in Lending Act (as added by section 102(a) of 
     the bill) that appears before clause (i) of such 
     subparagraph, insert ``in writing, the receipt and 
     understanding of which shall be acknowledged by the signature 
     of the mortgage originator and the consumer,'' after ``timely 
     disclosure to each such consumer''.
       In clause (i) of section 129B(b)(1)(C) of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (as added by section 102(a) of the bill) insert 
     ``(and such comparative costs and benefits for each such 
     product shall be presented side by side and the disclosures 
     for each such product shall have equal prominence)'' before 
     the semicolon at the end.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Titus) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today with an amendment that's offered along 
with my friend from California (Mr. Cardoza) to H.R. 1728, the Mortgage 
Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act.
  As currently written, H.R. 1728 requires mortgage originators to 
diligently work to present the consumer with a range of mortgage 
products for which the consumer likely qualifies. These products must 
be appropriate to the consumer's existing circumstances. The originator 
must disclose the comparative costs and benefits of these options.
  Our amendment simply specifies how this new disclosure must be made. 
The amendment requires that the costs and benefits of each option are 
presented side by side in a simple fashion like this chart, side by 
side, and that the disclosures for each product have equal prominence. 
It would further require that this disclosure be made in writing, the 
understanding of which will be acknowledged by the signature of the 
mortgage originator and the consumer.
  This amendment would add further transparency to the process of 
securing a residential mortgage loan and ensure that information is 
presented to consumers in a way that will give them the ability to 
easily and clearly compare all the options that are available to them. 
By requiring the disclosure to be presented in writing and requiring 
the signature of both the originator and the consumer on the document, 
we will ensure that the importance of this information is highlighted 
for the consumer.
  The Las Vegas area is ground zero of the home foreclosure crisis. It 
is projected that just this year there will be nearly 75,000 homes lost 
to foreclosure in my State. The vast majority of these are in southern 
Nevada and in my district. It is more than likely that many of these 
foreclosures could have been avoided from the start if important rules 
such as those set forth in this bill had been implemented earlier. I 
believe that this amendment will help facilitate discussions about 
what's good for a family and, together with the underlying bill with 
its elimination of incentive payments and antisteering provisions, will 
help curb predatory lending and prevent future foreclosures in Nevada 
and across the country.
  I would like to thank Chairman Frank, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Miller for 
their dedication and persistence on this important piece of legislation 
and Chairwoman Slaughter for accepting our amendment as part of the 
order.

                                                                             COMPARISON OF SAMPLE MORTGAGE FEATURES
                                [For illustrative and educational purposes only--does not represent actual terms of loans available from any particular lender.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 A Typical Mortgage Transaction
                                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Loan Amount $180,000--30-Year Term
                                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Mortgage with a Fixed Interest Rate                        Mortgage with an Adjustable Interest Rate (ARM)
                                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Principal and Interest         Interest Only                5/1 ARM                Interest Only            Option Payment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fixed Rate (6.7%)         Fixed Rate (6.7%)    Fixed Rate for First 5   Interest Only and Fixed       Adjustable Rate for
                                                                                          Interest Only for First    Years; Adjustable Each   Rate for First 5 Years;        Entire Term of the
                                                                                                         5 Years.   Year After First 5 Years     Adjustable Rate Each   Mortgage (Rate in month
                                                                                                                    (Initial rate for years   Year After First 5 Years      1 is 1.25%; Rate in
                                                                                                                    1 to 5 is 6.5%; Maximum   (Initial rate for years    month 2 through year 5
                                                                                                                             Rate is 11.5%)   1 to 5 is 6.6%; Maximum   is 6.4%; Maximum Rate is
                                                                                                                                                       Rate is 11.6%)                    11.4%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Monthly Payment Years 1-5, except as noted............                  $1,162*                    $1,005                    $1,138                      $990   $600*** (1st year only)
Monthly Payment Year 6--no change in rates....................                   $1,162                  $1,238**                    $1,138                    $1,227                    $1,324
Monthly Payment Year 6--2% rise in rates......................                   $1,162                    $1,238                    $1,357                    $1,462                    $1,581
Maximum Monthly Payment Year 8--5% rise in rates..............                   $1,162                    $1,238                    $1,702                    $1,832                     1,985
How Much Will You Owe after 5 Years?..........................                 $168,862                  $180,000                  $168,500                  $180,000                  $197,945
Have You Reduced Your Loan Balance after 5 Years of Payments?.                      Yes                        No                       Yes                        No                        No
                                                                  Your loan balance was   You did not reduce your     Your loan balance was   You did not reduce your         Your loan balance
                                                                     reduced by $11,118              loan balance        reduced by $11,500              loan balance      increased by $17,945
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This illustrates an interest rate and payments that are fixed for the life of the loan.
** This illustrates payments that are fixed after the first 5 years of the loan at a higher amount because they cover both principal and interest.
*** This illustrates minimum monthly payments that are based on an interest rate that is in effect during the first month only. The payments required during the first year will not be
  sufficient to cover all of the interest that's due when the rate increases in the second month of the loan. Any unpaid interest amount will be added to the loan balance. Minimum payments for
  years 2-5 are based on the higher interest rate in effect at the time, subject to any contract limits on payment increases. Minimum payments will be recast (recalculated) after 5 years, or
  when the loan balance reaches a certain limit, to cover both principal and interest at the applicable rate.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the spirit by which the 
gentlewoman is introducing this amendment, but what we are all trying 
to do with disclosure, I think, is simplify it in a way that consumers 
actually understand the terms and conditions of the contract.
  I have worked with Representative Biggert and Congressman Hinojosa to 
ensure that HUD, for example, and the Fed work together to have a 
simple

[[Page H5362]]

disclosure that is uniform and universal so that when people are taking 
credit out, they understand the terms and conditions of that and it's 
the same terms and conditions that they're presented when they get to 
closing.
  Now, what the gentlewoman's amendment says is that all products 
offered or discussed or referred by the originator must be put in this 
spreadsheet. What does that mean? Well, that means that in order to cut 
down on the amount of paperwork that an originator is going to want to 
do, they're not going to discuss very many options and they're going to 
be asked to make assumptions of what are the benefits of a particular 
product over the other product.
  One of the things that this bill does is it moves in a direction to 
begin to simplify that disclosure process, and now we're kind of 
truncating that with this new disclosure; so now we are going to add 
another piece of paper.
  I would submit to you that a lot of people took on mortgages that 
they didn't understand the terms and conditions of. I don't know that 
there was any predatory lending necessarily going on. In some cases 
there may have been. But in many cases the disclosures are very hard to 
read, they're multipages, and the terms and conditions, unless you read 
many, many pages, you didn't understand.
  One of the things that I believe is the best way to do that is that 
on a one-page form you have all of the more important conditions of 
this loan so that the person that's taking out that mortgage 
understands what they are getting. But I think we are going down a road 
here of what's going to happen in this legislation, if this amendment 
is passed is, we are going to tell the American people the government 
knows best what mortgage you should take out because we're going to 
make it so onerous for originators to display their products and to sit 
down and counsel with their prospective borrowers that they are going 
to only give them one choice. And, in fact, I think in many ways that's 
what this bill does.
  It begins to say, you know what, the Federal Government is going to 
tell you what kind of mortgage that you should have. That's not the 
role of the Federal Government. The role of the Federal Government here 
is to make sure there are fair and ethical practices going on and not 
for the Federal Government to force originators of mortgages to be 
telling borrowers what kind of mortgages they should take out because 
they're afraid that they will fall under some of the provisions of this 
bill.
  So I am very much opposed to this. I think it goes down the wrong 
direction. We are working in a bipartisan way to simplify disclosure 
for mortgages and we should stay that course.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I would present this simple 
chart of side by side. With all due respect, I think it's easy to draw 
up and even easier for an individual to understand. This is in the best 
interest of the banks so they can make good loans and the families so 
they can take out good loans to stay in their homes. Buying a house is 
a big decision, and people deserve all the information in a simple 
form.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this is a simplified 
disclosure. Ms. Titus's amendment is good work. It is a helpful 
clarification.
  The bill elsewhere already requires disclosure at the outset in a 
timely way. It requires the originator to present the consumer, the 
homebuyer, the homeowner with an array of mortgage products that are 
suitable to that consumer, mortgages that the consumer likely qualifies 
for and are appropriate to the consumer's existing circumstances, and 
requires a disclosure of comparative costs and benefits of each of the 
mortgage products offered. This simply requires that it be in a form. 
It doesn't bring down the thumb on one side of the scale. It really 
lets the consumer make the decision and make the decision based upon 
good information.
  Elsewhere in the bill, we also require standardized forms designed by 
the bank regulators, not by the lenders, so we make sure that this is 
being presented in a way that's designed so that consumers can 
understand it, not designed in a way so consumers won't understand it.
  This amendment is a helpful clarification. It will help consumers 
understand what they're doing. I support Ms. Titus's amendment.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, somehow adding more forms doesn't sound 
simpler to me, and basically that's what we are doing here.
  In the underlying legislation, we're working together for a simple, 
uniform form. And by the way, what would happen in that case is, as the 
lender is talking about different products, they would have that 
simplified one-page disclosure for this product and that product, and 
then it's up to the consumer to be able to say, I'm going to look 
through this information and make a determination.
  And if the gentleman would like to answer this question: Do you 
believe that a lender that maybe has 15 or 20 products available to him 
for an individual borrower is going to display 15 or 20 products to you 
if he's going to have to do a spreadsheet that's 15 or 16 columns wide?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. The bill elsewhere requires a full, 
complete, and timely disclosure to each consumer of the comparative 
costs and benefits of each residential mortgage loan product.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. That wasn't the question. The question was, do you 
think that someone is going to offer 15 choices if they're going to 
have to do a spreadsheet that's 15 columns wide?
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Well, if it's done on a standardized 
form, it probably is very helpful if it's on a standardized form. 
What's the disadvantage of putting it in writing rather than its being 
oral?
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the answer to that 
question is going to be ``no,'' because the people that are offering 
those are going to offer one or two choices because now they've got 
additional paperwork and they're going to have to be drawing 
assumptions of the cost/benefits.
  If we go back to the underlying bill, which says you've got to make a 
disclosure, and it's going to be in a simplified form hopefully, and 
with government that's a stretch to simplify anything, but if we do get 
HUD and the Fed together to come up with one form, then we're going to 
be able to offer them products where we have a uniform disclosure. So 
they're going to be able to draw their own conclusions and not rely on 
the lender or the originator to make some kind of assumptions on a 
spreadsheet.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I would just still say that the banks want 
to make good loans and families want to get loans so they can that stay 
in their homes. And the paperwork is just a simple chart, side by side, 
that a second grader could make, and I show that to you again.
  I would like to once again thank Chairman Frank, Mr. Watt, and Mr. 
Miller for their assistance on this legislation. I would urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  The amendment was agreed to.


      Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed in 
House Report 111-98.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment 
at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of 
     Florida:
       At the end of the bill add the following new title:

    TITLE VIII--STUDY OF EFFECT OF DRYWALL PRESENCE ON FORECLOSURES

     SEC. 801. STUDY OF EFFECT OF DRYWALL PRESENCE ON 
                   FORECLOSURES.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall 
     conduct a study of the effect on residential mortgage loan 
     foreclosures of--
       (1) the presence in residential structures subject to such 
     mortgage loans of drywall

[[Page H5363]]

     that was imported from China during the period beginning with 
     2004 tand ending at the end of 2007; and
       (2) the availability of property insurance for residential 
     structures in which such drywall is present.
       (b) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 120-day 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall submit 
     to the Congress a report on the study conducted under 
     subsection (a) containing its findings, conclusions, and 
     recommendations.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Before anything else, I want to 
thank the chairman and also I want to thank Mr. Wexler. Mr. Wexler has 
been a leader on this issue from day one, and he's a leader also on 
this amendment, but it's more than just this amendment. He has done an 
incredible job on this issue. And I want to explain the issue and the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have all heard about this problem, I'm sure, with 
the Chinese drywall. Recent reports are that about 100,000 homes could 
be affected. This imported drywall from China contains sulfuric gas, 
which actually has corroded copper electrical wiring. It's corroded air 
conditioning units and copper pipes, including to the point where there 
have been fire hazards. It's also a health issue. It has created sinus 
problems, created bloody noses, headaches. It has created bronchitis 
and pneumonia in children, and now we hear that it's also harmful to 
pregnant women. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, on April 17, the 
Wall Street Journal stated that the University of Southern California's 
School of Medicine, a professor there, stated ``that sulfur compound 
gasses, even at low levels, have been found to cause respiratory 
problems such as asthma.''
  So here's the problem. There is this drywall that has been imported 
from China that has been installed in a number of homes, again maybe up 
to 100,000. Homeowners are stuck with these homes. It's more than just 
smell. It's potentially dangerous, and, again, it eats even wiring and 
copper.

                              {time}  1400

  Individuals, homeowners, are stuck with these homes. They can't sell 
them. They can't live in them, and they are stuck with them.
  So what this amendment does, very simply, is the following. It 
authorizes a study by the Secretary of HUD, in consultation with the 
Secretary of the Treasury, on the effects of Chinese drywall on 
residential mortgage loan foreclosures and the availability of property 
insurance. And, again, then, it's to report to Congress within 120 
days. It's critical that we have all the information, that we have the 
actual information in a timely fashion.
  I want to thank, again, the chairman for his consideration. And, as I 
said before, I want to thank Mr. Wexler for his leadership. There are 
dozens and hundreds of homeowners who are desperately seeking relief, 
and this is one more way to try to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise, in the absence of 
any other claimant, to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I commend this bipartisan 
effort to address an issue that is particularly important in their 
district.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to yield as much time 
as he would consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).
  Mr. BUCHANAN. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of this important bipartisan amendment.
  Defective Chinese drywall has taken a toll on thousands of 
homeowners. Many, including my constituent, John Medico of Bradenton, 
are now finding their homes uninhabitable.
  John left his new home and now rents a place. He is forced to not 
only to pay the mortgage, but he is paying rent on his new place. And 
this has happened to a lot of people in my area in southwest Florida.
  Earlier this year I wrote the U.S. Trade Representative and the 
Federal Trade Commission asking them to take the appropriate steps to 
confront this problem.
  I am concerned about the public health effects of the problem. 
Anecdotal evidence points to the Chinese drywall being responsible for 
the chronic respiratory problems in our region. Also, pregnant women 
have been advised to move out of their homes for the safety of the 
unborn.
  I am grateful to the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
of Florida on this important issue and helping our constituents resolve 
this problem.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
reconsider my hasty action and take back my time.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts may 
reclaim his remaining time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
  Mr. WEXLER. I especially thank the chairman, and I want to point out 
the extraordinary effort that Congressman Diaz-Balart has made to push 
this issue forward. I rise in strong support of this amendment, because 
my constituents in Florida and citizens throughout our Nation are 
facing a real and a growing emergency from dangerous and harmful 
drywall imported from China.
  The level of threat to the health and homes of our citizens is akin 
to a natural disaster. This danger is much more like a silent 
hurricane, and it is touching down not just in Florida, but in 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Virginia and a growing list of other 
States.
  The Federal Government must take immediate steps to protect Americans 
whose homes are afflicted with defective drywall. This amendment is an 
important step forward.
  I again want to thank Mr. Diaz-Balart for his leadership on this 
crucial issue.
  The affected drywall emits a foul odor. It produces gases that 
corrode copper, electrical wiring, and is likely responsible for 
chronic health problems for the occupants of the homes. This is an 
acute and growing crisis with an estimated 35,000 homes in Florida 
affected and tens of thousands more throughout the country.
  Over the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet parents 
and visit with them in their homes, where young children have developed 
bronchitis, pneumonia and other respiratory illnesses that have 
required hospitalization and surgery. Pregnant women in my district 
have been advised by their physicians to move out of their homes, and 
children have been waking up regularly to bloody noses and sinus 
infections.
  It is in this vein that I, along with Mr. Diaz-Balart, under his 
leadership, have introduced H.R. 1977, the Drywall Safety Act of 2009, 
which would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban 
dangerous drywall, study drywall imported from China and make 
recommendations on new safety standards.
  Currently the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention and the EPA are conducting tests. While 
these tests are essential, the current timeframe for completion is 
unacceptable and results may not be known for months, especially 
considering the problem is expected to grow during the hot and humid 
summer months.
  We are, therefore, urging the EPA and CDC to exhaust all possible 
resources to expedite drywall testing. Furthermore, we have requested 
critical emergency funding that would allow relevant agencies to 
conduct the necessary investigations into the health and safety impacts 
of this drywall, as well as provide public information resources to 
alert those impacted about the risks they may be facing.
  I want to applaud the efforts of Governor Charlie Crist and the 
Florida Department of Public Health for their

[[Page H5364]]

leadership. This is a complex and growing problem. We still don't know 
the extent.
  I want to thank the chairman, thank Mr. Diaz-Balart, and please 
support this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, I do want to thank the 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Frank; again, Mr. Wexler in particular 
for his leadership.
  This is a critical issue not only for Florida, but for thousands and 
thousands of other homeowners. With that, I would urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Weiner, as Modified

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed in 
House Report 111-98.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer the said amendment made in order 
under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Weiner:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

   TITLE VIII--FANNIE MAE GUIDELINES FOR PURCHASE OF CONDOMINIUM AND 
                     COOPERATIVE HOUSING MORTGAGES

     SEC. 801. GUIDELINES FOR PURCHASE OF CONDOMINIUM AND 
                   COOPERATIVE HOUSING MORTGAGES.

       The Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal 
     Home Loan Mortgage Corporation shall take actions as are 
     appropriate to establish and revise fee schedules, occupancy 
     and pre-sale guidelines, and other relevant underwriting 
     standards in order to ensure the availability of affordable 
     mortgage credit for condominium and cooperative housing, 
     consistent with appropriate levels of credit risk. In setting 
     such fees, guidelines, and standards, each association may 
     consider factors such as the relative health of the local or 
     regional housing market in which such housing is located, and 
     whether the housing is in a new or existing development.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment with the version that is at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Weiner, as modified:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

   TITLE VIII--FANNIE MAE GUIDELINES FOR PURCHASE OF CONDOMINIUM AND 
                     COOPERATIVE HOUSING MORTGAGES

     SEC. 801. GUIDELINES FOR PURCHASE OF CONDOMINIUM AND 
                   COOPERATIVE HOUSING MORTGAGES.

       The Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal 
     Home Loan Mortgage Corporation shall take actions as are 
     appropriate to establish and revise fee schedules, occupancy 
     and pre-sale guidelines, and other relevant underwriting 
     standards for the purchase of condominium and cooperative 
     housing, consistent with appropriate levels of credit risk. 
     In setting such fees, guidelines, and standards, each 
     association may consider factors such as the relative health 
     of the local or regional housing market in which such housing 
     is located, and whether the housing is in a new or existing 
     development.

  Mr. WEINER (during the reading). I request unanimous consent that the 
modification be considered as read.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I do not object, but I would like for the gentleman 
to clarify what his amendment does.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEINER. First, I want to begin by offering my gratitude to the 
chairman of the committee and the minority, including their staff: 
Scott Olson, majority staff; and Dave Oxner on the minority staff.
  I don't intend to take the full time. You know, we have a phenomenon 
going on that we are trying, at the same time, to get people the credit 
that they want in order to be able to make purchases.
  We also want Fannie and Freddie not to take unnecessary risks. We are 
trying to strike that balance. This legislation does it, I believe.
  One of the challenges we have in some parts of the country, though, 
we have a large number of co-ops and condos that are in the stock that 
are now starting to find buyers. People are saying, you know what, the 
prices have come down, we want to make these purchases.
  At the same time, the standards have been raised by Fannie and 
Freddie such that, according to the regulation, that you need to have 
70 percent of the units in any co-op or condo purchased before the 
first one will be financed and guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie.
  The problem is that you create this dynamic that people say I am 
interested, I am interested, I am interested. In order to reach that 70 
percent threshold it's very, very difficult and you wind up chasing 
away people who simply don't want to wait that long. They leave with 
their deposits in hand, and, frankly we get into this cycle where these 
units remain on the markets.
  We need to clear out the stock. We also want to give credit where 
it's due.
  So what my amendment does is, it says listen, taking a look at the 
guidelines, taking a look at our desires not to have unnecessary risk 
taken, if you want to change, based on regional consideration, say, the 
gentleman from Florida, me from New York, Las Vegas, places that have a 
disproportionate number of these condos and co-ops on the market, we 
encourage Fannie and Freddie with this amendment to make those regional 
changes and requirements.
  Let me stress we are not saying we want them to make bad loans. That 
doesn't do that in this amendment, and I don't think we want to do that 
in this Congress. But we do want them to be flexible to say, you know 
what, if you have communities like New York, where people are saying I 
want to get involved in that market, I want to buy co-ops and condos, 
to make the limit, the threshold so high you wind up putting a damper 
on the investment that we want to see happen.
  I encourage a ``yes'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, 
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I am sorry I didn't make the question clear to the 
gentleman, in his UC, he was trying to fix a PAYGO issue.
  Could you explain how your unanimous consent request addressed that 
PAYGO issue?
  Mr. WEINER. I will do that the best I can, although it was a fairly 
obscure thing. I was commenting to the chairman earlier, we have 
outsourced so much of our authority to bureaucrats at the CBO, but they 
apparently were concerned that language in my bill would have required 
them to make loans or make certain changes in regulations.
  So what we did is we dialed down some of the language, and we said 
take actions that are appropriate to establish and revise schedules. I 
think we made some changes to make it clear we weren't requiring any 
specific action that might trigger a budget implication.
  I think the Parliamentarian has told us that this new language 
doesn't trigger PAYGO. And I didn't want--even at the thought that it 
might happen, I didn't want it to drag down the whole bill, so we made 
the changes they recommended.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you.
  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman is correct. This does 
resolve the PAYGO issue. It makes it clear that this is not mandating, 
it's encouraging and that solves the problem.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So instead of being mandatory, it's discretionary.

[[Page H5365]]

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chair, let me take this opportunity to express my 
support for an amendment offered by my good friend and colleague from 
New York, Congressman Anthony Weiner.
  Like the gentleman, I have heard concerns about how Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac have established new, nationwide requirements relating to 
the guarantee of mortgages for condominiums. These new rules require 
condominium buildings to place 70 percent of the units under contract 
before any one mortgage will be guaranteed. Fannie and Freddie had 
previously required 51 percent of condo units to be under contract.
  In areas of the country experiencing a severe glut in the condominium 
market and large numbers of foreclosures, restrictive requirements may 
be appropriate. But in parts of our nation that have not experienced 
the same degree of foreclosures, like rural Missouri, this one-size-
fits-all approach is hindering the sale of condominiums to creditworthy 
borrowers.
  Congressman Weiner's amendment would give Fannie and Freddie the 
flexibility to consider the health of a local or regional housing 
market when determining pre-sale thresholds. This flexibility is very 
important to realtors, bankers, and prospective homeowners in Missouri 
and especially those near the Lake of the Ozarks.
  I would ask that letters from Central Bank of Lake of the Ozarks and 
from Lake Ozark Property, which explain how the rules are hindering 
business in Missouri, be submitted.
  I commend Congressman Weiner for offering this amendment and look 
forward to working with him and with Financial Services Committee 
Chairman Frank to ensure the language can be retained in a conference 
with the Senate.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of this amendment.

                                                      Central Bank


                                        of Lake of the Ozarks,

                                  Osage Beach, MO, April 20, 2009.
     Re Legislative appeal

     Hon. Ike Skelton,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Skelton: I would like to bring your 
     attention to a couple of issues that have negatively impacted 
     the economy and the lives of thousands of condominium owners 
     at Lake of the Ozarks. These issues have to do with the 
     changes concerning the financing of condominiums implemented 
     by two of the GSEs (Government-Sponsored Enterprise): Freddie 
     Mac and Fannie, Mae.
       For as long as we can remember, we have been operating 
     under a Master Agreement that contained special waivers 
     approved by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which allowed us to 
     make condominium loans on new condo projects. These waivers 
     had been predicated on the resiliency of our condominium 
     market at the Lake of the Ozarks and Central Bank of Lake of 
     the Ozarks' history of quality underwriting on loans sold to 
     Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. While our condominium sales have 
     slowed too in response to economic conditions, neither Fannie 
     Mae nor Freddie Mac have incurred any significant losses on 
     the portfolio of condominium loans our bank has sold them. In 
     spite of this stellar performance, both Freddie Mac and 
     Fannie Mae have now eliminated the waiver that allowed us to 
     finance condominiums in new projects already under 
     construction and for condominium projects that have an on-
     site nightly rental desk. By taking these actions without 
     regard to the specific performance of local markets they are 
     sure to make the issues of a handful of states a national 
     crisis.
       While it is undeniable that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have 
     incurred unprecedented losses in the so called ``sand 
     states'' of Florida, California, Nevada and Arizona, our 
     market has remained stable but that stability is now being 
     threatened by these shortsighted, ``one size fits all'' 
     restrictions.
       Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have implemented presale 
     requirements of 70 percent on new condominium developments. 
     This single change in midstream for many projects that are in 
     various stages of development will cause catastrophic damage 
     to an otherwise stable market. You talk about changing the 
     rules in the middle of the game and tanking a segment of the 
     real estate market. This means that consumers who want to 
     purchase a new condo in a new development cannot get 30 year 
     fixed rate financing. If the consumer cannot purchase, then a 
     developer cannot sell, and if a developer cannot sell, then a 
     bank cannot be repaid for the commercial loan, and everyone 
     involved loses. This change will work to make a regional 
     crisis a national crisis. The Freddie and Fannie Account 
     Representative abilities to negotiate agreements that are 
     common and customary to local markets have been eliminated. 
     Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have removed the ability to lend 
     in established condominium projects where there are nightly 
     rental desks that are diminutive in size and impact the 
     project very little. This will decrease the marketability and 
     value of the units in those projects where consumers cannot 
     get 30 year fixed-rate financing.
       The consumers, condominium owners, and developers are 
     losing out on the opportunity to purchase, refinance, and 
     sell condominiums in a very favorable interest rate 
     environment. We think the President of the United States, 
     Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and Congress are 
     working hard to create a favorable market to sell real estate 
     and stabilize the market. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae policy 
     changes, as they pertain to the condominium market at the 
     Lake of the Ozarks, have done just the opposite. They have 
     managed to take a market segment of the real estate market at 
     the Lake of the Ozarks and bring it to a standstill.
       The primary reason we have been given for the removal of 
     these waivers by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is because of 
     problems they have experienced with condos in the ``sand 
     states''. This is a prime example of Freddie Mac and Fannie 
     Mae painting every market and bank (underwriter) with a broad 
     brush and then making decisions that have a negative impact 
     on good markets and banks (underwriters) with a long history 
     of outstanding performance.
       We need your help. Please contact the people in charge at 
     Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and ask them to get in touch with 
     us to address these issues.
       Thank you for your time and help in this matter.
           Very truly yours,
     Gregory J. Gagnon,
       President & CEO.
     Russell Clay,
       Vice President, Mortgage Department Head
                                  ____
                                  


                                          Lake Ozark Property,

                                Gravois Mills, MO, March 31, 2009.
     Re Regulation Changes for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

     Congressman Ike Skelton,
     4th District of Missouri, N. Adams Street, Lebanon, Missouri.
       Dear Congressman Skelton: I am a real estate broker with my 
     own company here at Lake of the Ozarks. My main source of 
     business is the sale of new condominiums.
       Just today I spoke to Mr. Russ Clay from Central Bank. He 
     informed me that the regulations for Freddie Mac will follow 
     along with Fannie Mae by changing from the newly imposed 51 
     percent sold to 70 percent sold on any new condominium 
     project.
       As the Lake of the Ozark is a large portion of your 
     district, you are aware that our economy is based on resort 
     and vacation visitors. Many people come to the lake to 
     purchase second homes and spend their discretionary income.
       The area directly around the lake has not suffered with the 
     foreclosure problems like Florida and California and yet 
     Freddie and Fannie have decided to paint a broad stroke to 
     include our area in these newly imposed restrictions.
       The economic problems they are trying to dig out of in 
     those areas will be created here by these new changes. The 
     very tools they are using to stop the bleeding in other areas 
     will create problems right here in our area. Many of our 
     condominium projects are new and have not yet reached the 52 
     percent mark let alone the 70 percent mark and yet they are 
     selling and are successful.
       I am asking you to speak out for us here at the Lake. 
     Freddie and Fannie should create criteria based on the needs 
     of the area. Surely they have enough employees available to 
     prepare market reports on the main districts within each 
     state and create programs based on how well or how poorly we 
     have preformed in the past.
       Also, as you meet regarding the regulations of appraisals 
     for boat slips and dock values, please keep in mind that we 
     are, basically, a community of water. Our area was created 
     from the lake, therefore, for two-thirds of the year a place 
     to park our boat is the same as a place to park our cars.
       Thank you for reading this letter through. Please let me 
     know what I can do to make Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae more 
     aware of our plight here at Lake of the Ozarks.
           Regards,
                                                      Vicki Brown,
                                                     Broker/Owner.

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield back the balance of my time
  Mr. WEINER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. DeGette). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-98 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Hensarling of Texas.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. McHenry of North Carolina.

[[Page H5366]]

  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


         Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245, 
noes 176, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 238]

                               AYES--245

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     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
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     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
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     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
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     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
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--176

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     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
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Berry
     Blunt
     Capps
     Culberson
     Fortenberry
     Heller
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Johnson (GA)
     McIntyre
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Nadler (NY)
     Pierluisi
     Scalise
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Wamp


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Members are advised that there 
are 2 minutes left in this vote.

                              {time}  1445

  Ms. MARKEY of Colorado changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HELLER. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 238, the Frank Amendment No. 
2 to H.R. 1728, I was absent from the House at a family obligation. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


               amendment no. 5 offered by mr. hensarling

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 252, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 239]

                               AYES--171

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     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
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H5367]]



                               NOES--252

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     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
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     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
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Berry
     Blunt
     Capps
     DeFazio
     Edwards (TX)
     Fortenberry
     Heller
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Nadler (NY)
     Pierluisi
     Scalise
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Velazquez
     Wamp


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain on this vote.

                              {time}  1453

  Mrs. MALONEY changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. McMAHON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HELLER. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 239, the Hensarling 
Amendment No. 5 to H.R. 1728, I was absent from the House at a family 
obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


            amendment no. 7 offered by mr. price of georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 259, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 240]

                               AYES--167

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

                               NOES--259

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     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
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     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
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     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 (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

[[Page H5368]]



                             NOT VOTING--13

     Berry
     Blunt
     Capps
     Fortenberry
     Heller
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Nadler (NY)
     Pierluisi
     Scalise
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Wamp


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes are remaining.

                              {time}  1503

  Ms. WATSON changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HELLER. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 240, the Price (GA) 
Amendment No. 7 to H.R. 1728, I was absent from the House at a family 
obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Mc Henry

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 255, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 241]

                               AYES--171

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

                               NOES--255

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     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
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     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
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     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
     Matheson
     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 (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     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
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Berry
     Blunt
     Capps
     Fortenberry
     Heller
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Nadler (NY)
     Pierluisi
     Scalise
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Wamp


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes are remaining.

                              {time}  1511

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HELLER. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 241, the McHenry Amendment 
No. 9 to H.R. 1728, I was absent from the House at a family obligation. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Tauscher) having assumed the chair, Ms. DeGette, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1728) to 
amend the Truth in Lending Act to reform consumer mortgage practices 
and provide accountability for such practices, to provide certain 
minimum standards for consumer mortgage loans, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 406, she reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.

[[Page H5369]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Sessions moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1728, to the 
     Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       After section 407, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 408. ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY FOR GRANT 
                   RECIPIENTS.

       Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 
     1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x), as amended by the preceding 
     provisions of this title, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(i) Accountability for Recipients of Covered 
     Assistance.--
       ``(1) Tracking of funds.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) develop and maintain a system to ensure that any 
     organization or entity that receives any covered assistance 
     uses all amounts of covered assistance in accordance with 
     this section or section 216 of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-
     Predatory Lending Act, as applicable, the regulations issued 
     under this section or such section 216, as applicable, and 
     any requirements or conditions under which such amounts were 
     provided; and
       ``(B) require any organization or entity, as a condition of 
     receipt of any covered assistance, to agree to comply with 
     such requirements regarding covered assistance as the 
     Secretary shall establish, which shall include--
       ``(i) appropriate periodic financial and grant activity 
     reporting, record retention, and audit requirements for the 
     duration of the covered assistance to the organization or 
     entity to ensure compliance with the limitations and 
     requirements of this section or section 216 of the Mortgage 
     Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, as applicable, the 
     regulations under this section or such section 216, as 
     applicable, and any requirements or conditions under which 
     such amounts were provided; and
       ``(ii) any other requirements that the Secretary determines 
     are necessary to ensure appropriate administration and 
     compliance.
       ``(2) Misuse of funds.--If any organization or entity that 
     receives any covered assistance is determined by the 
     Secretary to have used any covered assistance in a manner 
     that is materially in violation of this section or section 
     216 of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, as 
     applicable, the regulations issued under this section or such 
     section 216, as applicable, or any requirements or conditions 
     under which such assistance was provided--
       ``(A) the Secretary shall require that, within 12 months 
     after the determination of such misuse, the organization or 
     entity shall reimburse the Secretary for such misused amounts 
     and return to the Secretary any such amounts that remain 
     unused or uncommitted for use; and
       ``(B) such organization or entity shall be ineligible, at 
     any time after such determination, to apply for or receive 
     any further covered assistance.

     The remedies under this paragraph are in addition to any 
     other remedies that may be available under law.
       ``(3) Covered assistance.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `covered assistance' means any grant or other 
     financial assistance provided under--
       ``(A) this section; or
       ``(B) section 216 of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory 
     Lending Act.''.

  Mr. SESSIONS (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading of the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee I 
offered two amendments to this legislation. My first amendment asked 
for the courts to limit fees for attorneys filing lawsuits created by 
this legislation to reasonable levels to ensure that real victims of 
predatory lending, not trial lawyers, are fairly compensated for 
wrongdoing.

                              {time}  1515

  Unsurprisingly, this amendment was rejected by the committee 
Democrats on a party-line vote of 9-4. In rejecting this amendment, my 
Democrat colleagues chose to put trial lawyer fees over victims' 
compensation in cases where homeowners have been defrauded.
  My second amendment would require that ACORN meet the same 
transparency and reporting requirements that Democrats demanded from 
any financial institutions receiving TARP funds. My amendment would 
have ensured accountability and transparency for any taxpayer funds 
distributed as a result of this legislation. I will repeat that: my 
amendment would have ensured accountability and transparency for any 
taxpayer funds distributed as a result of this legislation, just like 
TARP funding that we have already passed in this body. But, once again, 
my colleagues in the Rules Committee decided to vote against this and 
in favor of special interests, and the amendment failed.
  Madam Speaker, the main component of this amendment really was not 
received because it singled out ACORN as a group. And I note that it 
has a well-documented history of deceit and fraud, which, just again 
this week, ACORN has been accused in 26 counts of breaking the law in 
the State of Nevada, and today, seven more counts brought against them 
by a Democratic prosecutor in Pennsylvania.
  So to answer this criticism, I am offering this motion to recommit to 
extend transparency and good government provisions from my original 
amendment to any group that is receiving government grants for legal or 
housing counseling.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentleman accommodating 
my objection. I support the recommit, and I hope it is adopted.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman doing that, for him 
accepting this, in the spirit of what you have done. I appreciate that 
because it lives up to the gentleman's word of accepting. It is my hope 
that by what I am going to do now, it will ensure it will be in the 
final bill. Madam Speaker, I will ask for a recorded vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I believe it was premature 
to ask for a recorded vote because I had not yet been given my time and 
maybe cooler heads will prevail.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman seek time in opposition?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, in the absence of any other Member, 
I will seek the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We are going to support the amendment. I 
am puzzled as to what a rollcall would accomplish, except some missed 
planes.
  So I will now yield back the balance of my time and promise to vote 
``yes'' very loudly.
  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 motion to recommit was agreed to.
  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.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will record their vote by electronic 
device.
  This is a 15-minute vote.
  Without objection, the premature proceedings on passage are vacated 
and the Chair will entertain a forthwith report from the manager of the 
bill.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the 
instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, 
H.R. 1728, back to the House with an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
       After section 407, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 408. ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY FOR GRANT 
                   RECIPIENTS.

       Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 
     1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x), as amended by the preceding 
     provisions of this title, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(i) Accountability for Recipients of Covered 
     Assistance.--
       ``(1) Tracking of funds.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) develop and maintain a system to ensure that any 
     organization or entity that receives any covered assistance 
     uses all amounts of covered assistance in accordance

[[Page H5370]]

     with this section or section 216 of the Mortgage Reform and 
     Anti-Predatory Lending Act, as applicable, the regulations 
     issued under this section or such section 216, as applicable, 
     and any requirements or conditions under which such amounts 
     were provided; and
       ``(B) require any organization or entity, as a condition of 
     receipt of any covered assistance, to agree to comply with 
     such requirements regarding covered assistance as the 
     Secretary shall establish, which shall include--
       ``(i) appropriate periodic financial and grant activity 
     reporting, record retention, and audit requirements for the 
     duration of the covered assistance to the organization or 
     entity to ensure compliance with the limitations and 
     requirements of this section or section 216 of the Mortgage 
     Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, as applicable, the 
     regulations under this section or such section 216, as 
     applicable, and any requirements or conditions under which 
     such amounts were provided; and
       ``(ii) any other requirements that the Secretary determines 
     are necessary to ensure appropriate administration and 
     compliance.
       ``(2) Misuse of funds.--If any organization or entity that 
     receives any covered assistance is determined by the 
     Secretary to have used any covered assistance in a manner 
     that is materially in violation of this section or section 
     216 of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, as 
     applicable, the regulations issued under this section or such 
     section 216, as applicable, or any requirements or conditions 
     under which such assistance was provided--
       ``(A) the Secretary shall require that, within 12 months 
     after the determination of such misuse, the organization or 
     entity shall reimburse the Secretary for such misused amounts 
     and return to the Secretary any such amounts that remain 
     unused or uncommitted for use; and
       ``(B) such organization or entity shall be ineligible, at 
     any time after such determination, to apply for or receive 
     any further covered assistance.

     The remedies under this paragraph are in addition to any 
     other remedies that may be available under law.
       ``(3) Covered assistance.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `covered assistance' means any grant or other 
     financial assistance provided under--
       ``(A) this section; or
       ``(B) section 216 of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory 
     Lending Act.''.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
  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.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 300, 
nays 114, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 242]

                               YEAS--300

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--114

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Baca
     Berry
     Blunt
     Boyd
     Campbell
     Capps
     Fortenberry
     Green, Gene
     Heller
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Kind
     Linder
     Nadler (NY)
     Scalise
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Wamp

                              {time}  1543

  Messrs. BROUN of Georgia and REHBERG changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Messrs. PERLMUTTER and BURTON of Indiana changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 242, final passage of H.R. 
1728, I was absent from the House at a family obligation. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, due to personal reasons, I was unable to 
attend a vote. Had I been present, my vote would have been ``yea'' on 
rollcall 242 for final passage of H.R. 1728, Mortgage Reform and Anti-
Predatory Lending Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed 
rollcall vote 242. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on 
rollcall No. 242.

[[Page H5371]]



                          ____________________