[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 185 (Thursday, December 10, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H14480-H14487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 962 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.

[[Page H14481]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 962

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
     legislative day of December 10, 2009, providing for further 
     consideration or disposition of the bill (H.R. 4173) to 
     provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers 
     and investors, to enhance Federal understanding of insurance 
     issues, to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives markets, 
     and for other purposes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule 
is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. 
Speaker.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent 
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks on House Resolution 962.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 962 waives 
clause 6(a) of rule XIII which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a 
rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This 
waiver would apply to any rule reported through the legislative day of 
December 10, 2009, that provides for same-day consideration of H.R. 
4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.

                              {time}  1415

  I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support this rule so 
that we can move quickly to enact this critically important 
legislation.
  Over the past year, the financial crisis has shown that the 
deregulation or even the lack of regulation over financial firms is not 
an option anymore. For the first time ever, this legislation provides 
key provisions that will mandate oversight of certain parts of the 
United States financial system. It will ensure that mortgage lenders 
are subject to high national standards so they can no longer give an 
individual a loan that they cannot afford to pay back. Furthermore, it 
will provide for a new interagency oversight council that will allow 
Federal regulators to oversee the entire system and identify activities 
that pose a risk to our Nation's financial system. It will also require 
comprehensive regulation of the opaque over-the-counter derivatives 
marketplace.
  In my home State of Florida, we are undoubtedly facing an insurance 
crisis. Homeowners are burdened by continuously increasing property 
insurance premiums, or some are losing their coverage altogether while 
companies are going under or simply leaving the State. This poses a 
problem not only to property owners who cannot afford increasing costs 
in this difficult economy but also to the State, which has taken on the 
responsibility of covering those who cannot get insurance elsewhere, 
and to the Federal Government, which may be left to deal with the 
damage when disaster strikes.
  H.R. 4173 directs the Federal Insurance Office to conduct a study on 
the modernization and improvement of the insurance industry in the 
United States. I introduced an amendment to the underlying legislation 
asking that they also look at the geographic disparities in cost and 
access within this study.
  Hurricanes, floods, fires, windstorms are factors driving the cost of 
insurance higher in Florida than in some other areas of the country. 
Numerous private insurers have recently sought rate hikes, with 
regulators approving increases as much as 15 percent.
  Now, we certainly cannot change the fact that certain regions face 
higher risks than others. However, the amendment that I filed will help 
determine what changes to the industry and its regulation can help 
ensure that these necessary insurance protections are available, 
accessible, and reasonably affordable for all Americans.
  H.R. 4173 will also provide American consumers with long overdue 
safeguards and reflects the Congress's commitment to putting the needs 
of the American people before those of Wall Street. I am pleased that 
Chairman Frank has seen fit to include the amendment that I just spoke 
to in his manager's amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my 
friend, for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  ``Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule 
and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague 
this House. We have before us a martial law rule that allows the 
leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the 
precedents and traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a 
democracy, no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party 
affiliation.''
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly agree with these words, but I cannot, in good 
faith, take credit for them, because I did not write them. My staff did 
not write them nor did the Republican staff of the Rules Committee. In 
fact, so far as I know, not one Republican had any hand in the 
composition of this eloquent defense of democracy in this House of 
Representatives, because their author is actually the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and a senior member of the Democrat-run Rules Committee, 
Mr. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.
  He spoke these exact words on the floor over 2 years ago regarding 
what he eloquently and accurately called a ``martial law rule,'' which 
is what we're being asked to consider here today. We're being asked to 
consider this outrageous process on the House floor today, yet the 
Democratic Party knows it's not the right thing to do. It was not right 
then and it's not right now. My friends on the other side of the aisle 
know it's not right, and that's why they spoke up at the time, and I 
agree with them.
  Last month, the Democrat majority barreled a 2,037-page health care 
bill through Congress forcing government-run health care on every 
single American. Today, in similar form, they are considering a 1,300-
page Federal takeover of the financial services industry, 1,300 pages. 
This is simply another example of the government overstepping its 
boundary into the private market courtesy of the Democratic Party.
  This monstrous financial reform package includes provisions to extend 
TARP, make Federal bailout authority permanent, and allow bureaucrats 
to determine the types of financial products that will be made 
available to consumers and set the salaries of private sector 
employees.
  This bill does nothing to help create private sector jobs or to 
provide financial relief to Americans in these tough times, which 
should be Congress's number one priority. But not this majority.
  Over the past 3 years, America has witnessed a reckless multitrillion 
dollar spending binge by this Democrat-controlled Congress with more 
borrowing, more taxing, and more spending. The Treasury Department has 
reported the total deficit for fiscal year 2009 reached a record $1.4 
trillion. This is nine times the size of the deficit when the Democrats 
first took control of Congress.
  Despite the Obama administration and congressional Democrats' promise 
that their trillion dollar ``stimulus'' plan would create jobs and 
unemployment would not rise above 8 percent, the Department of Labor 
once again reported an unemployment level of 10 percent. Since the 
Democrats took control of Congress, the number of unemployed persons 
has doubled to 15.4 million people, and this is only what is being 
reported.
  It's time to stop the bailouts. It's time to get the government out 
of business industry takeovers, and it's time to stop killing jobs. 
Unfortunately, this bill we are considering today puts the American 
people on the hook once again for one of the greatest expansions of 
Federal Government in the history of United States while doing nothing 
to create jobs.
  The first major provision of this bill was best summarized by a 
Democratic Congressman, Brad Sherman from California, as ``TARP on 
steroids.'' It

[[Page H14482]]

creates a permanent bailout authority for the Federal Government by 
assessing $150 billion in new taxes on American businesses that will 
ultimately result in higher interest rates and higher fees for 
consumers.
  Most disastrous, however, is that this tax, according to the minority 
on the Financial Services Committee will shrink available credit by as 
much as $55 billion and result in the loss of as many as 450,000 more 
American jobs in the financial services area.
  Congress should be focusing on doing things to create jobs, not to 
tax investors, the financial services, and destroy jobs. This is the 
core difference between my Republican colleagues and our friends the 
Democrats in Congress.
  Republicans believe it's time to allow business to pay back TARP 
funds, knock down TARP authority, and pay down the debt with returning 
the money to the taxpayer. Our friends the Democrats want to create a 
perpetual TARP-like fund, a bottomless treasure chest to continue their 
happy spending ways.
  In an effort to thwart this trend and to protect American workers 
from job-killing provisions in this bill, I introduced an amendment in 
the Rules Committee last night which would eliminate this legislation 
if the Government Accounting Office finds that the provisions of this 
bill would kill 1 million or more jobs. If my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, my friends that are Democrats, were really serious 
about this, they would have made this amendment in order. Mr. Speaker, 
on a party-line basis, even when the facts of the case said if this 
bill is going to destroy a million or more jobs, every single Democrat 
said don't include that as a provision in this bill because politics 
are more important than policy in this House.
  I think we can all agree that protecting consumers is an essential 
role for Congress. Ensuring consumer safety is absolutely necessary for 
a successful, prosperous economy. Yet one of the most far-reaching 
provisions of this bill is the creation of the Consumer Financial 
Protection Agency. This CFPA is a classic example of the government's 
overstepping its authority into the free enterprise system simply to 
make government bigger and to further control the free enterprise 
system and free market.
  This massive new agency will be led by a credit czar, yet another 
czar, who will have unprecedented, unchecked authority to restrict 
product choices for consumers, impose fees on consumer products, and 
rule over financial transactions. The new bureaucracy would raise costs 
for consumers, reduce the number and type of products available to 
them, increase the micromanagement of financial services firms, greatly 
increase the confusion caused by conflicting consumer laws, and ensure 
the demise of American competitiveness around the world.
  In addition to the CFPA, this bill provides for the greatest Federal 
expansion of the Federal Reserve since the central bank's creation 
almost a hundred years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans pride themselves on the free enterprise 
system, the free market, and choices. Yet Congress once again today 
will pass legislation that increases government control and 
interference in the financial markets, rations resources, limits 
consumer choice, and dictates wages and projects as well as prices 
involved.

                              {time}  1430

  In a time of economic recession, with record unemployment and record 
deficits, I think--and the Republican Party thinks--Congress should be 
enacting legislation to grow our economy and to help with the creation 
of jobs, not to destroy jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, the motives are clear; our Democrat colleagues are using 
policy and regulation to force a government takeover of the free 
enterprise system once again.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, 
``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying legislation because 
Republicans K-N-O-W what our Democrat colleagues are trying to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield myself 
some time and then yield to the dean of the House. But I would like, 
previous to yielding to the dean, to address my colleague's immediate 
concerns regarding the procedure in this measure.
  He decries the procedure. I served in the minority with my colleague, 
who is now in the minority. This is not an unusual procedure, 
particularly given the importance of this legislation.
  I want to point out that in the 109th Congress, the Republican 
majority reported at least 21 rules that allowed same-day 
consideration. In fact, five of those rules waived this requirement 
against any rule reported from the committee; by contrast, this rule is 
only for this one specific bill and only for today.
  Additionally, I would like to address my colleague's concerns 
regarding where we are. I've been hearing repeatedly on this floor that 
the Democrats have not done anything. I won't give the litany of 
everything that we have done, but I do want to clear up, when we are 
referred to as persons that are happily spending like we are drunk 
sailors, I want to know what we started out with.
  My colleagues seem to forget that we inherited a financial mess, a 
system on the brink of collapse. I didn't hear the cry when Mr. Paulson 
came here and said that our financial system was on its knees. We 
reacted, both Democrat and Republican, and I might add even the TARP 
did better than most Democrats and Republicans expected.
  We inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, two wars 
that weren't paid for, a broken health care system, and a 1950s energy 
policy. That was the gift from the Bush administration and the 
Republican majority in Congress. So there has been a lot to fix this 
year, and we've been about that business.
  So here we are digging out from the Bush economy. It's time to get 
this done, but it's not going to happen overnight. It's time to fund 
our priorities and meet the needs of the American people.
  Simply, Mr. Speaker, this rule is a good basis for the bill we will 
consider today and deserves to be supported by every single Member in 
this body.
  I am very pleased and privileged to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the 
House of Representatives.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I begin by expressing great respect and 
affection to my dear friend from Texas. Unfortunately, he's wrong. 
Here, the Democrats came in and found that the Republicans had left 
them two wars, a depression, and $1.3 trillion deficit. And we found 
that when Mr. Bush came in, he converted a $2 trillion surplus in 
virtually no time to a $7 trillion deficit.
  Now, I was a young boy when my dad was here and we passed Glass-
Steagall. And I want to say that this legislation does not reinstitute 
Glass-Steagall. It does much that had to be done by the Democrats when 
they were dealing with the Hoover depression, which was very much like 
this one and was caused by the same good-hearted folks up in New York, 
gambling with depositors' money guaranteed by the Federal Government. 
And when they repealed the Glass-Steagall Act with the Graham-Leach-
Bliley Act, the result was that all of a sudden we had to rush in and 
bail out corporations too big to fail--insurance companies and God 
knows what else--in order to save the American economy.
  Yes, we are having to spend money, and we're having to spend money 
because of misgovernment, mismanagement, and because of outright 
rascality up in New York and conniving by a number of people to see to 
it that they had the powers that we took away from them to engage in 
that kind of rascality.
  We here have a chance to begin again to protect the American people 
from the rascality that goes on when a bunch of sharpshooting MBAs are 
interested only in grubbing money and not caring about the free 
financial system which we have here.
  The American economic system is too precious to trust unattended to 
New York and to the big banks and to the other wheelers and dealers up 
there. What we are doing today is seeing to it that that system is 
protected.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4173, the ``Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer

[[Page H14483]]

Protection Act of 2009.'' I applaud my friends, Chairman Barney Frank 
of the Committee on Financial Services and Chairman Henry Waxman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, for their fine work on this 
legislation, particularly related to augmenting the powers of the 
Federal Trade Commission and preserving the ability of the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission to regulate utilities.
  Nevertheless, I posit a decision by the Congress 10 years ago not to 
repeal the Glass-Steagall Act would have obviated the need for the 
legislation pending our consideration today. Glass-Steagall, enacted in 
1933 as an appropriate response to the findings of the Pecora 
Commission concerning the causes of the Great Depression, successfully 
governed the financial services industry for over 60 years. My father 
wisely voted in favor of that legislation, and I fought to defend it 
until this body mistakenly decided to overturn it in 1999. I gave full-
throated opposition to the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed 
Glass-Steagall, based in no small part on my belief that it would 
permit the creation of financial institutions that would be too big to 
fail and free to gamble with depositor's money guaranteed by the 
Federal Government. My opposition had the merit of being correct ten 
years ago and, at the very least, prophetic today. Indeed, Graham-
Leach-Bliley gave rise to the creation of financial juggernauts, whose 
underhanded actions, gone unregulated by design of that Act, have 
driven this great country over an economic precipice of proportions not 
last seen since the Great Depression, in which regulatory and statutory 
action of that time made those unfortunate events possible to happen.
  With this in mind, it is incumbent upon the Congress to re-impose a 
regulatory environment upon the financial services industry that will 
ensure that the abuses that gave rise to the present and aptly-named 
``Great Recession'' never again occur. I again insist H.R. 4173 would 
be strengthened immeasurably by including an amendment to re-instate 
the Glass-Steagall Act but, in its absence, can find some solace in the 
sage words of my dear friend, John Moss, who maintained the perfect 
good is the enemy of the good. In brief, I offer my support for H.R. 
4173 and urge my colleagues to recognize and support it as a laudable 
effort by which to counter the deregulation of the financial services 
industry and the chaos that ensued from it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I think it's very interesting that my 
Democrat colleagues are saying that Republicans handed them this big 
mess, which they couldn't wait to get, and they have made it worse. 
They're acting like they made it better. They have diminished the 
employment in this country, they have raised spending 85 percent in the 
last 2 years, and they are making this problem even worse. They begged 
for a chance to get their hands on this. They're doing it the way they 
wanted, and it's making matters worse for this country.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Topeka, Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it would be extremely shortsighted of us to disregard 
how the underlying bill will increase the debt, its impact on job 
creation, and how it greatly misses the mark of restoring financial 
stability.
  When Congress passed the TARP bank bailout last year, it was intended 
to be a 1-year emergency program, not permanent, but this 
administration has continued the bailouts. Even more troubling, this 
legislation codifies the bailout authority used by the Treasury 
Department and the Federal Reserve, leaving taxpayers on the hook.
  Who is looking out for the taxpayers? They didn't cause these 
problems. My constituents in Kansas and folks across the Nation have 
bailout fatigue. So at a time when folks are struggling to find work 
and make ends meet, this legislation restricts credit, increases the 
already record deficits, and kills jobs.
  Creating jobs and restoring fiscal responsibility should be the 
priority in Washington; yet, all Kansans see coming out of Washington 
are expensive plans to grow government. That's the wrong direction. 
Instead, this body should end bailouts, protect consumers without 
restricting credit with smarter, leaner regulations, enact meaningful 
reform to prevent future collapse, and ensure that any repaid or 
remaining TARP funds be used to reduce the deficit.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the 
distinguished gentleman from California, I would like to yield to my 
friend from Texas and ask him a question.
  It appears that my friend and I are like ships passing in the night. 
Both of us have been here during the period that Democrats have been in 
the majority, the minority, and the majority gain. When your party 
gained the majority, does my friend have a recollection of what the 
surplus was and the fact that there was a surplus?
  Mr. SESSIONS. How much time is the gentleman willing to give me, 1 
minute?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I will yield the gentleman such time as to 
answer that question, and then I would like to ask the gentleman 
another question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the opportunity.
  The gentleman knows that the surplus was literally trillions of 
dollars, and that is always a guesstimate in the future of where we 
exist. The gentleman knows that on 9/11 of 2001 there was a surplus in 
this country. On 9/11 of 2001, this country was struck by a group of 
terrorists who intended to harm our financial economy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Absolutely. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, this is what I was talking about. The gentleman 
said he would give me enough----
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I have yet another 
question.
  When you lost the majority, what was the deficit? And I understand 9/
11. I understand all of the things that took place. I also understand 
that had we never been in the Iraq war in the first place we wouldn't 
be here in this situation.
  So tell me, if you can, my friend, what the deficit was when you lost 
the majority, and what in fact did President Obama inherit when we 
gained the majority again?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will answer the gentleman if he will allow me a full 
answer.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Well, I will do it rhetorically and allow 
that you answer on your own time.
  The simple fact of the matter is when this administration took 
office, they had a $1.2 trillion deficit. And to continue along the 
lines of saying that nothing was done, I want you to know that you 
don't just create a situation that gives rise to eliminating that with 
a magic wand. The American public understands this dynamic and will be 
patient as we go forward to try and remedy this matter.
  The gentleman spoke earlier to my colleague, Mr. Sherman. But before 
turning to him I want to look at some of the numbers. Job growth under 
the current administration is reversing a long downward spiral that 
started under the last President. The stimulus plan is working as 
planned. We are making sound investments in helping Americans find good 
jobs and getting this economy moving again.
  The unemployment rate dropped last month. And the efforts of this 
Congress are helping people afford a home. And we need to do a lot more 
to un-seize the frozen dollars in these banks that are not helping 
small businesses, and that is what some of this financial regulatory 
reform is referencing.
  Even the TARP program is working better than expected, and confidence 
has been restored to Wall Street, evidenced by the market and 
everybody's 401(k)s, and more than $200 billion is going to be returned 
to the government.
  I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. The gentleman from Texas seems quite aware of the 
statement I made about the first draft of this bill that was submitted 
by the Treasury Department. I referred to that draft as ``TARP on 
steroids.'' Unfortunately, the gentleman from Texas seems blissfully 
unaware of all the changes that were made to the bill in many days of 
markup.
  On balance, today, this bill before this House reduces executive 
power to bail out Wall Street. Yes, the bill does include some 
additional authority to the executive branch under sections 1109 and 
1604. But pursuant to amendments that I offered, these additional 
powers are limited in amount and are sunsetted in the year 2013. So 
additional power is limited and sunsetted.

[[Page H14484]]

  What this bill does, however, is it deals with the existing enormous 
bailout powers that exist under present statute. It suspends 12 U.S.C. 
1823, of present statute, which allows, or has been interpreted to 
allow, the FDIC to make unlimited loan guarantees of more than $300 
billion. This bill reins in section 13-3 of the Federal Reserve Act, 
which allows the Fed to make loans of any amount to anybody they want 
to under virtually any circumstances. They have already used this to 
the tune of $3 trillion.

                              {time}  1445

  A vote against this bill is a vote for unchecked power in the Fed. It 
is a vote not only to preserve the provision that allows them to loan 
$3 trillion, but that same provision would allow them to loan $30 
trillion. Only by voting for this bill can we rein in the Fed and their 
powers under section 13-3. Only by voting for this bill can we audit 
the Fed pursuant to the amendment drafted by Congressmen Paul and 
Grayson.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Voting against this bill is voting against the unchecked 
power of the Federal Reserve.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the way, the gentleman will be able to 
vote for Mr. Bachus' amendment, which says exactly the right thing to 
address this issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that the gentleman from 
Texas has 17 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida has 15 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Chester Springs, Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Gerlach).
  Mr. GERLACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
Democrats' same-day rule on the underlying bill, H.R. 4173.
  There is no doubt that the American people are hurting. Our Nation's 
unemployment rate is at 10 percent and, in some States, even higher. 
Our citizens are struggling to make ends meet.
  The Democrats' permanent bailout bill, however, will not put 
Americans back to work. In fact, it will actually cost more Americans 
their jobs. This bill will make it harder for our families and for our 
small businesses to get credit in our local communities that they 
absolutely need to create more jobs. It is certainly going to expand 
the Federal Government even beyond its current size, and it will 
empower Washington bureaucrats through the creation of yet another 
Federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
  This is despite the fact that there has already been a multitude of 
efforts this year to expand Federal power into the auto industry, the 
housing industry, the energy industry, the health care industry, and 
now the financial services industry. The effort of seeking more and 
more power by the Federal Government over more and more aspects of our 
daily lives is simply breathtaking.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong approach to take, and the American 
people deserve better. Republicans have a better plan to end taxpayer-
funded bailouts. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to 
support our substitute amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I inquire from the gentleman 
from Texas if he has any remaining speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman for asking. In fact, I do 
have two further speakers who are expected. Neither are here at this 
time, but I intend to consume that time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am the last speaker for this side, so I am 
going to reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side 
and has yielded back his time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman for providing such 
information, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  On Monday, my colleagues and I sent a more recent letter to Treasury 
Secretary Geithner, which was a followup to a letter that had been sent 
by many, many Republican Members of Congress to adhere to the December 
31 TARP expiration date and to dedicate all returning funds to reducing 
the public debt. We had sent Secretary Geithner a letter on December 7, 
2009, which spoke about how the original concept of TARP--the Troubled 
Asset Relief Program, that which we know as TARP--should be implemented 
and used.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, December 7, 2009.
     Hon. Timothy Geithner,
     Secretary of the Treasury,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Geithner: As the December 31, 2009 deadline 
     for the end of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) 
     approaches, we urge you to adhere to this expiration date and 
     decline to use your authority to extend TARP into 2010. As 
     additional preferred shares are repurchased and dividends and 
     interest are collected, we also urge you to dedicate all 
     returned funds and other revenue to reducing the national 
     debt.
       During a recent Congressional hearing you stated that you 
     were working to ``put the TARP out of its misery.'' We 
     support your intention and believe putting the program ``out 
     of its misery'' entails nothing less than ending the 
     disbursement of any remaining TARP funds on December 31, 
     2009.
       The purpose of TARP was to provide immediate support and 
     emergency stabilization to the financial system. Regardless 
     of whether we voted for or against TARP, we believe the 
     financial system is now significantly stabilized compared 
     with the situation from a year ago. While there will continue 
     to be ups and downs as the economy recovers, the federal 
     government does not need a dedicated support fund for the 
     financial system. In order for the government to exit from 
     the unprecedented interventions of the past year and a half, 
     the government must first stop spending funds on more 
     interventions.
       When TARP was enacted, the public debt limit was increased 
     to $11.3 trillion. Since January, the national debt has 
     increased more than $1.4 trillion, and Congress is now set to 
     consider a debt limit increase of up to $13.2 trillion, the 
     fourth debt limit increase since July 2008. Not spending the 
     remaining TARP funds, $246 billion according to the last 
     SIGTARP quarterly report, will reduce the already staggering 
     amount our nation is borrowing.
       SIGTARP also reported repayments of $72.9 billion, $9.5 
     billion from dividends and interest and $2.9 billion in 
     proceeds from sale of warrants, and we understand $45 billion 
     more in repayment is pending. All of these TARP receipts and 
     future receipts must be devoted to debt reduction rather than 
     spent on further government interventions or other programs. 
     While estimates vary on the final cost to the taxpayers from 
     TARP, all estimates are that the taxpayers will lose billions 
     of dollars and that there will be no profit from TARP. 
     Ensuring every dime of income goes to debt reduction reduces 
     the taxpayers' ultimate loss.
       The first TARP program, the Capital Purchase Program, 
     offered taxpayers the greatest opportunity to recover their 
     investment. Additional programs added to TARP, such as 
     assistance to the automakers and AIG, carry much less 
     assurance for the taxpayers, and the mortgage modification 
     program will result in no recoupment for the taxpayers. The 
     longer the remaining unspent TARP funds and revenue remain on 
     the table, the more money that will be spent and not 
     recovered. The emergency has ended, and TARP must end as 
     well.
       The taxpayers understand the difference between ending TARP 
     on December 31 and setting aside a portion of unspent funds 
     as some type of reserve. They know the difference between 
     devoting all repaid funds, dividends and other income to debt 
     reduction and using just some of these funds for debt 
     reduction and spending the rest. In the interest of our 
     nation's fiscal health and the certainty for the financial 
     system that comes with knowing the government is done with 
     this intervention, we urge your consideration of our request 
     and await your response.
           Sincerely,
         Randy Neugebauer, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Spencer 
           Bachus, Mike Pence, Adam Putnam, J. Gresham Barrett, 
           John P. Carter, Tom Price, Kenny Marchant, Pete 
           Sessions, Wally Herger, Ron Paul, Joe Wilson.

  The bottom line is that the money which was debated on this floor, 
passed on this floor, passed by the United States Senate, and signed by 
the former President had a very clear understanding about the money 
that would be spent and about the money that would be returned. I 
believe that Secretary Geithner should respond to this letter to let 
this body know and to let these signers of this letter know how he 
intends to approach this TARP money that is being returned.
  There was a report earlier in the week that virtually 90 percent of 
this money had been repaid. Yet what we see in this bill is some $200 
billion more in a permanent fund which would be established. You and I 
both recognize that $200 billion more going in behalf of and spent 
would simply extend our deficit. Our deficit in 2007 was $161 billion. 
The deficit in 2009 is $1.4 trillion. This is a nine-times growth since 
our friends, the Democrats, have taken control of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this country was not attacked like we were on 9/11. We 
have

[[Page H14485]]

not had another Katrina. We have not had the things which have been 
natural disasters, which were dealt with by the Republicans in the 
majority. This is pure and simple spending that has taken place and 
that has been raised 85 percent in the last 2 years. To say that 
someone has laid that at the doorstep and has raised the deficit 
spending from $161 billion in 2007 to $1.4 trillion in 2009, and yet 
has blamed that on anyone else other than the people who voted for it, 
which is the Democrat majority, would be a misnomer. That is 
mismanagement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Fullerton, California, Congressman Royce.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to this 
legislation because, for the first time in history, Washington will be 
at the center of our financial system. This is not the way our Founders 
intended this system to work. They didn't intend for the decisions and 
the political pull to come out of Washington. For the first time in 
history, we will institutionalize the ``too big to fail'' doctrine that 
has plagued our economy for too long. For the first time in history, 
Congress is authorizing perpetual bailout authority by those in 
Washington.
  I have opposed these bailouts, and I have opposed the bailouts put 
forward over the last 14 months because of the concern I had with the 
precedent that would be set by using tax dollars to bail out failed 
institutions. Now we are going to do it far into the future. 
Unfortunately, it appears that that precedent that was set last fall 
could become official U.S. policy should this legislation become law.
  Our Democratic colleagues have controlled the Congress for the last 3 
years. I think, while some will try to portray this resolution fund as 
something other than taxpayers paying for the mistakes of failed 
financial firms, I would direct my colleagues to the very language in 
this bill, to page 406, line 22, Borrowing from Treasury: ``The 
Corporation may borrow from the Treasury, and the Secretary of the 
Treasury is authorized to lend to the Corporation on such terms as may 
be fixed by the Corporation and the Secretary, such funds as in the 
judgment of the Board of Directors of the Corporation are required.''
  This is saying the resolution fund in every institution that falls 
under its purview has the support of--who?--the U.S. taxpayer, and that 
you are going to be on the hook for these loans.
  My colleague from California (Mr. Sherman) referred to this authority 
as ``TARP on steroids.'' Well, considering that the bill fails to even 
put a cap on potential taxpayer exposure, I think Mr. Sherman is spot 
on. It is, indeed, TARP on steroids. While some have compared this 
model to the FDIC insurance fund, folks, that's like comparing apples 
to oranges. The FDIC fund is backed by the full faith and credit of the 
Federal Government to protect insured deposits inside the fund. That's 
what the FDIC fund does.
  While there is a level of moral hazard that comes with this support, 
insured deposits are only a small portion of our financial system. Here 
it extends far beyond that. This bill gives that type of government 
support to the vast majority of our capital markets. It is a 
fundamentally flawed approach. It is what economists call ``moral 
hazard'' for a reason. It is a hazard. We need to scale back that 
government safety net under our financial system, not expand it to 
every possible institution, and we need to signal to markets that the 
Federal Government is out of the business of bailing out failed firms. 
That is the only way to officially put an end to the ``too big to 
fail'' problem. This legislation fails to take that critical step.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose the underlying 
legislation for a second reason as well, which is my concern with the 
Consumer Protection Agency, also known as the ``credit czar.'' It 
weakens our regulatory model.
  Every one of our banking regulators has come in to testify before the 
Financial Services Committee on this issue of separating ``safety and 
soundness'' regulation from consumer protection regulation. Many have 
raised the comparison between this model and the regulatory model over 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which 
failed and lost $1 trillion, you had the regulator focused on safety 
and soundness who was saying one thing, but you had HUD enforcing the 
affordable housing goals that Congress had given HUD. Those housing 
goals were to have one half of the portfolio in subprime lending, in 
Alt-A loans, and in zero downpayment loans. This was what Congress was 
muscling through HUD.
  These things made the regulators very, very nervous. We had the 
Federal Reserve regulators come up and tell us that what is happening 
here is a systemic risk to the entire financial system. Now the over-
leveraging through this arbitrage is over 100 to 1. You had to allow 
the regulators to deleverage this, but Congress would not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 4 minutes.
  Mr. ROYCE. So, to meet these affordable housing mandates, Fannie and 
Freddie strayed into the junk mortgage market. They piled up over $1 
trillion worth of subprime and Alt-A loans. The affordable housing 
goals were at odds with the long-term viability of these firms, and 
they led to 85 percent of their losses.
  As this past example has shown us, separating these two 
responsibilities can lead to unintended consequences--like systemic 
financial failure down the road. If the ultimate objective of our 
regulatory reform effort is to ensure a more resilient and stable 
financial system, creating another agency with broad, unchecked 
authority is not the right approach.
  I brought an amendment to the Rules Committee which would have solved 
this problem by ensuring that safety and soundness regulators have a 
say on the rule-writing process at the CFPA. Guess what? It's 
unfortunate. My amendment was not made in order. It won't even be heard 
on this floor.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to those regulators, every one of whom 
urges us to adopt that type of approach--the approach that was in my 
amendment which was not allowed to go forward on this floor today.
  The safety and soundness of our financial institutions is critical. 
Instead, we have undercut that, and we are walking down that same path 
that Congress took, against the advice of the regulators, with respect 
to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The result of that, as you all know, was 
the collapse of our housing market as a consequence of the collapse of 
those institutions.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
California, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee, coming 
down to provide us an update on the reality of this bill.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, we have been here arguing about deficits and who is 
responsible for what, and who is guilty of acting like a drunk sailor 
and who is spending money. The bottom line is that it is true, George 
Bush and Republicans during 8 years had some deficits. The largest was 
in 2008, some $415 billion. The first year of the Democrats' spending 
spree, over a $1.4 trillion deficit. Republicans seem to create jobs. 
Some 5.3 million jobs were created within this deficit that occurred.
  Our friends, the Democrats, massive unemployment, massive spending, 
massive deficits. Those are the facts of the case. This shows where we 
are headed, the American people know it, and that's why there is an 
outcry all across this country to stop what is happening, even today, 
with a bill that will lose 400,000 more jobs.
  Look, I get it. I know that the Speaker's political agenda, the three 
biggest items, health care, cap-and-trade and card check will not lose 
10 million more American jobs. I get that, but so do the American 
people. The Republican Party is saying, let's not lose 400,000 more 
jobs with the passage of this massive takeover of the financial 
services industry. We don't have the votes to stop it, but there are a 
lot of skid marks in the concrete today to say we shouldn't be doing 
this. We don't have the votes to stop it, but we are saying let's be 
careful because we know, k-n-o-w, where you are headed.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think while it's important to provide 
consumer

[[Page H14486]]

safety and security in the marketplace, our constituents are more 
concerned with the economy and the jobs. They see this as a massive 
government takeover, and the industry knows exactly what it is also.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle are simply looking for more 
problems so they can put their government takeover solutions in place. 
Week after week, we come to the House floor to debate bills, bills that 
kill our economy, diminish jobs and put us further into debt, whether 
it's cap-and-trade or health care. Now today the government takeover of 
the financial sector with the Barney Frank bill, we are talking about 
hundreds of thousands and soon to be millions of jobs at a time of 
record unemployment.
  We ask the Democrat majority to please just put a caveat in here that 
if this bill were going to lose more than 1 million jobs, let's not do 
it. The Democrats on a party-line basis have said, Look, pal, our 
agenda is more important than any facts of the case about losing jobs.
  The Republican Party is on the floor here today asking that we defeat 
this rule, defeat this bill, defeat the things which are going on which 
will encourage more borrowing, more taxing, more spending, record 
deficits, record unemployment, and, of course, making sure that the 
government wins every tie. We disagree with the Democrat majority. We 
disagree with the politics, the policies, and we disagree with the 
results.
  The Republican Party will be voting ``no'' today, Mr. Speaker.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the 
opportunity to speak on this measure, and I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Would you tell me how much time I have, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I shall not use all of that time, Mr. 
Speaker, but I am very much tempted, because my good friend--and he is 
my good friend--seems to fail to understand some of the things that we 
do and have done.
  One of the things that I think would help some context and 
perspective is the subject of jobs, which should be and I believe is 
the concern of the 435 voting Members of the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the six Delegates and Representatives from the 
Territories.
  Let's not continue down the path of myth. When my mom was alive, she, 
like many of our mothers, became interested more in what we do in 
Congress by looking at it on television. At some point, I don't 
remember the day when I came home and she said, Y'all always talk about 
what happened before. She said, you know, Ford said Nixon did it, and 
Carter said Ford did it, and Reagan said Carter did it, and then Bush 
said Reagan did it. She said if you do that, then George Washington 
must have done it if you just keep going back all the time.
  So let's start with some real numbers, not something that is created, 
and get one thing straight: When we talk about spending, whether it's 
Republicans or Democrats that spend on behalf of the American people, 
we rarely do anything other than talk about cost. We don't talk about 
benefits.
  Toward that end, I would only use two, and I have a considerable list 
of areas that I could address that the Democrats have spent money on. I 
would ask any of our colleagues, do they feel that we should not have 
spent $31 billion in science, technology, innovation, math education, 
cutting-edge research and advanced manufacturing technologies and 
workforce training? That was passed by the House of Representatives.
  I would ask my friend, is there anything about national security 
troops and veterans that they would not have spent? The fiscal year 
supplemental for the rest of 2009 provides our troops with everything 
they need to wind down the war that we shouldn't have been in in the 
first place, Iraq, and change the strategy in Afghanistan, requiring a 
progress report and making retroactive payment to 185,000 plus 
servicemembers whose enlistments were involuntarily extended since 9/
11. That was signed into law. Would they not have spent that money?
  Would they not have spent the money expanding the new GI Bill 
benefits to cover the full cost of college education for all children 
of fallen United States servicemembers? That was signed into law.
  Would they not have spent the money on the 3.4 percent raise for our 
troops, strengthening military readiness, expanding support for 
military families such as health care and housing, focusing on our 
strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and redeployment from Iraq and 
military procurement reform? That was signed into law.
  Would they not have spent the money on one of our top priorities of 
veterans groups, authorizing Congress to approve VA medical care 
appropriations 1 year in advance to ensure reliable and timely funding 
and prevent politics from ever delaying VA health care funding? That 
was signed into law.
  Would they not have spent the money on strengthening quality health 
care for more than 5 million veterans by investing 15 percent more than 
2009 for medical care, benefits claims processors and facility 
improvements? That was passed by the House.
  I could go on the entire 15 minutes on that, but let me go to where I 
digressed from. Richard Nixon created during his administration and 
received credit for--and that's what these Presidents do--the creation 
of 9.4 million jobs. Under President Ford, under strenuous 
circumstances, his administration was credited with creating 1.8 
million jobs.
  Under President Reagan coming in with a near identical in many 
respects, absent 9/11. And a footnote right there. When my colleague 
mentioned Katrina, I am sure he knows that we haven't finished what's 
needed to be done with reference to the people on the gulf coast and 
specifically in the City of New Orleans. But to President Reagan's 
credit and during his administration and whatever tax decreases or 
however else it was achieved, I can assure you of the exact number of 
16 million jobs. Under President George H.W. Bush, 2.5 million jobs. 
Under Bill Clinton, 23.1 million jobs. Under President Bush, and my 
friend from Texas' majority Congress, that at one point had the House, 
the Senate and the Presidency, under his administration, taking into 
consideration everything that he has talked about, 3 million jobs, the 
worst track record on record.
  Now, what's needed here, Mr. Speaker, is some fair and 
straightforward accounting and not the off-budget stuff that I have 
heard here during the period of time that I am here and that I heard 
from my colleague.
  What this bill will do and what this rule permits us to discuss is 
not off-budget kind of accounting. Is it sort of like the same kind of 
off-budget accounting that Wall Street does that my friends on the 
other side seem to think that we should do? No, fair and 
straightforward accounting.
  My good friend from California that I served with on the Africa 
Subcommittee, when he was in the majority, we traveled together, an 
outstanding person and Congressperson. But when he came in here, he 
described that accountants say this is a moral hazard. I will tell you 
what a moral hazard is. A moral hazard is putting wars off-budget and 
not being prepared to pay for them and not asking the American people 
to make the necessary sacrifices in order that all of us, rich and 
poor, black and white, conservative and liberal, will pay our fair 
share to protect this great country of ours. Enough of all of this doom 
talking and finger-pointing. What is needed is a great consensus for 
all of us to be able to go forward to straighten out our Nation, and we 
can do this. I believe that we will.
  One of the primary culprits of this current recession was a 
regulatory system that looked out for the wealth of Wall Street firms 
rather than the security of average American consumers. This 
legislation, however, recognizes that the strength of our financial 
system is not measured simply by the value of the Dow Jones, it's 
measured by the prosperity of the American people.
  One of my friends, Phil Hare, who is here, says, it ain't the GDP, 
it's the j-o-b. I believe, Mr. Sessions k-n-o-w-s what I am talking 
about. Our constituents deserve to know that they are not going to be 
taken advantage of by the institutions to which they have entrusted 
their financial security. They deserve to know that our financial 
regulations will stop those institutions who engage in irresponsible 
practices

[[Page H14487]]

without placing an unnecessary burden on those who are acting in the 
best interests of their consumers.
  They deserve to know that this Congress, Republican and Democrat, 
should not, and I believe the Democrats will not stand idly by, 
allowing monstrous financial institutions to put our entire economy at 
risk, rake in billions and shell out egregious bonuses while everyday 
Americans lose their life savings and struggle from paycheck to 
paycheck.
  As to the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, we should 
give Barney Frank and the Financial Services Committee, Republican and 
Democrat, every credit for extraordinary work in these extremely 
difficult times for our country. This act makes reasonable and 
responsible changes to our financial regulatory system and enacts long-
needed consumer protections. After months of debate, countless hearings 
and votes on this very floor, this rule will finally allow for its 
complete and timely consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on 
the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. 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 239, 
nays 183, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 951]

                               YEAS--239

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     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
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--183

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     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
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Buyer
     Deal (GA)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hoyer
     McHenry
     Mica
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Radanovich
     Shea-Porter

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. BILBRAY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________