[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 9, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H4277-H4287]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1315
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5072, FHA REFORM ACT OF 2010

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1424 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1424

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5072) to improve the financial safety and 
     soundness of the FHA mortgage insurance program. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now 
     printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Financial Services or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of June 11, 2010, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The 
     Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority 
     Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for 
     consideration pursuant to this section.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. For purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded 
during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1424.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The rule provides for consideration of House bill 5072, the FHA 
Reform Act of 2010. It is a structured rule which makes in order 13 
amendments. The rule waives all points of order against the bill except 
those arising under clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. It further considers 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute from the Financial Services 
Committee be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides authority 
to the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Thursday 
and Friday of this week.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 5072, the Federal Housing Administration Reform 
Act of 2010, provides FHA with the necessary tools to strengthen its 
mortgage insurance program and overall financial position. The collapse 
of the private sector in the wake of the financial crisis left a large 
void in the housing market. Banks didn't have the capital to lend, so 
potential home buyers were left out in the cold. FHA played a critical 
role in filling this void, providing a much-needed catalyst to the real 
estate industry, which was left reeling from the subprime debacle. This 
preserved hundreds of thousands of jobs in the real estate industry.
  As a result of taking on a more prominent role, FHA's market share 
increased from about 4 percent to now more than 30 percent of total 
purchases, 88 percent of which are first-time home buyers.

[[Page H4278]]

  This bill makes several necessary reforms which will make it more 
efficient and accountable. First, it provides FHA with the authority to 
raise the annual mortgage premium for new borrowers. It also provides 
FHA with enhanced authority when FHA finds evidence of fraud or 
noncompliance by a mortgagee. If a lender or underwriter is found to be 
violating FHA regulations when underwriting loans by making risky loans 
or cutting corners, the FHA can terminate that underwriter or lender's 
ability to lend under the program. The bill also improves FHA's risk 
management, and under the bill, the FHA will provide additional data 
which will give a clearer overview of FHA's fiscal position.
  The bill we are considering here today is bipartisan and incorporates 
many changes sought by the Housing and Urban Development Department, 
industry stakeholders, and Members of Congress. It passed the Financial 
Services Committee by a voice vote with little opposition. Most 
important, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the bill and 
estimates it will save $2.5 billion over the next 5 years.
  FHA plays a critical role in the marketplace, and this bill 
strengthens the program so that it can continue its role in a sound 
manner. FHA was created during the Great Depression to stimulate the 
economy, particularly with regard to real estate. This purpose is 
equally important today, so it is crucial that we make reforms to the 
program that will allow it to keep up with the industry. This bill will 
promote responsible lending and reduce the deficit by $2.5 billion. I 
look forward to the debate on this bill, which will restore greater 
confidence in the housing industry.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from 
Colorado, for giving me such time as the Republicans may have, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this will be the 31st time that I have handled a rule 
on this House floor in this Congress, and this is the 31st time that I 
have yet to handle an open rule. In fact, out of the over 120 rules of 
this Congress, we have not debated one open rule. Not one open rule 
this Congress.
  I don't believe that closing debate, limiting amendments, and 
shutting Democrats and Republicans out of thoughtful ideas is a good 
way to run this House. And I know and you know, and I say this often, 
that our Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, promised when she told the American 
people that she would run the most open, honest, and ethical Congress, 
I don't think she had this in mind, and I know we didn't as 
Republicans; and I don't think the American people did, not to have one 
open rule this Congress.
  I know we are getting ready to finish this Congress in a couple 
months. But one would think that when the Speaker spoke those words, 
she had something in mind other than closed rules or some modified 
rules. Open, honest, ethical. Not one open rule this Congress.
  One thing that I do have the opportunity to say today, however, Madam 
Speaker, is that the call for a vote on the previous question to allow 
for this week's YouCut winner will be good. YouCut is the new 
Republican online voting tool for Americans to pick what wasteful 
government spending they would like to see cut every week and which 
should be an agenda on this floor every week.
  I admire the majority for finally having a bill that saves the 
taxpayer money. Don't know how many times that's happened in this 
Congress or under this Speaker. But what I can tell you is hundreds of 
thousands of Americans this week have been on the YouCut site, and they 
came up with lots of answers. So I applaud the Democrat majority for 
coming up with, finally, a bill which will save taxpayers money.
  Additionally, today we are here to discuss an important step in 
providing the Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known 
as HUD, with the tools it needs to supervise and monitor the single-
family mortgage insurance program run through the Federal Housing 
Administration, known as FHA. That's what we are here for, and I am 
glad that this bill is here. Saving money and running the government 
more efficiently, and providing the tools, is what Congress should be 
for.
  It is necessary to understand why these changes are important. And in 
my opinion, my colleagues, who really work across party lines, need to 
do more of this kind of work of helping rather than providing more 
rules and regulations. The continued importance of protecting the 
taxpayer is primary and important to people who are paying the taxes. 
They want to know that there should be more work like this being done 
in Washington.
  As the housing market collapsed over the last 2 years, private 
lenders have scaled back their activities, with the FHA significantly 
increasing its share of the single-family mortgage market from less 
than 5 percent to now more than 30 percent. With higher mortgage share 
comes increased taxpayer exposure. The elevated levels of delinquencies 
and foreclosures across this Nation have had a detrimental effect on 
the financial health of the FHA, which is why reforms in this 
legislation are an essential piece of fixing and addressing this 
problem today.
  I applaud the gentleman, Mr. Frank, and I applaud the gentlewoman, 
Mrs. Capito, for working together, for essentially bringing a huge part 
of Mrs. Capito's bill to the floor today. The taxpayers have already 
paid their fair share for bailouts and failed stimulus programs, 
resulting in record debts and record deficits. It's important to bring 
some stability and to recognize problems before they happen.
  H.R. 5072 incorporates a majority of the provisions from my friend, 
Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito's, legislation, H.R. 4811, the FHA 
Safety and Soundness and Taxpayer Protection Act. This legislation from 
Representative Capito provides additional enforcement, the financial 
and risk assessment tools necessary to adequately administer the 
program, to detect fraud and abuse, and to strengthen underwriting 
standards and, perhaps best of all, to protect the taxpayer.
  While the legislation is a step in the right direction, it is 
important to note that the benefits of using government subsidies to 
promote homeownership to be more balanced against the potential risk of 
insuring less creditworthiness with borrowers, and exposing the 
taxpayer to additional risk, is perhaps the best part of this bill. It 
is extremely important to have proper underwriting, and to ensure that 
potential home buyers have the appropriate amount of personal funds 
invested in the transaction to make sure that the housing market does 
not collapse again.
  Madam Speaker, while this legislation is an important step, Congress 
should do more to protect the taxpayer from having to suffer the 
consequences of bailouts in another government housing program.
  Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey, also on the Financial 
Services Committee, offered several amendments which were not made in 
order by the Rules Committee, and so they will not be voted on today on 
the floor.

                              {time}  1330

  These amendments, however, are worthy of speaking about it. They 
would have protected taxpayers from yet another government bailout as 
we were setting the rules for the future to say the Federal Government 
should not be in the bailout business.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle once again continued to 
shut out not just Scott Garrett but taxpayers and people who had ideas, 
that are called Members of Congress, and not allow a debate on 
commonsense solutions that save the taxpayer money.
  Once again, I applaud the gentleman, Mr. Frank, for bringing this 
bill to the floor, but we need more and more discussion about how we 
limit taxpayer exposure.
  I believe that Congress and the administration must be extremely 
cautious and always vigilant in their oversight of this program and 
others to make certain that the program is adequately capitalized and 
is run in a safe and sound manner that protects the taxpayer from the 
need not only for another bailout but wasteful government spending.
  Additionally, as the housing market begins to stabilize, we must 
begin to look for ways to decrease reliance on the Federal Government 
guarantees and encourage the reentry of private capital and investment 
in the mortgage market.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) to discuss his ideas on this bill.

[[Page H4279]]

  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, recently, we found out that the national debt has 
surpassed $13 trillion. That means that each American owes 
approximately $42,000. I align myself with the remarks of the gentleman 
from Texas in applauding the gentleman from Colorado and Massachusetts 
in bringing this bill to the floor that actually does save taxpayer 
dollars for the American people. I also want to recognize the 
leadership of Ms. Capito from West Virginia, whose bill this originally 
was.
  Here's an idea, Madam Speaker. Rather than simply talking about how 
shocking our dangerous level of national debt is, why don't we actually 
do something about it today. America is at a crossroads, and the 
choices we make today will determine the kind of country we will be.
  The Republican Economic Recovery Working Group launched the YouCut 
program to change the culture in Washington, and it's clear from news 
reports, Madam Speaker, that it's starting to do so. We saw the White 
House just last week ask each government agency to cut 5 percent from 
their budgets. While we applaud their intentions, House Republicans are 
offering a way to cut spending--not tomorrow, not next week, but right 
now--with YouCut.
  There is no doubt that our debt situation is reaching a crisis point 
that demands a united, bipartisan effort to solve it. I'll be the first 
to raise my hand to say that Republicans have played our part in 
contributing to the problems in the past. But for those Americans out 
there struggling to pay their mortgages, does it really matter to them 
whose fault it was?
  I come to the floor today, Madam Speaker, to urge my Democratic 
colleagues to join us in supporting this week's winning YouCut proposal 
to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which received 45 percent of the 
vote on YouCut. Scott Garrett and Jeb Hensarling's proposal would save 
$30 billion in taxpayer money over the next decade.
  The two government-sponsored enterprises have racked up a taxpayer-
funded tab of $145 billion and counting. According to the Congressional 
Budget Office, if we don't reform Fannie and Freddie, that price tag 
will only rise. There's no doubt that reforming Fannie and Freddie will 
be a challenging task, but taking on this kind of challenge is why our 
constituents gave us the privilege of serving in this House in the 
first place.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's support 
of the underlying bill and the savings of $2.5 billion and that they'd 
like to proceed and make some cuts to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over 
the course of the next year, and that is something that ultimately we 
have to address.
  Under Mr. Frank and under this Democratic Congress, we've already 
worked on reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, unlike my friends on 
the Republican side of the aisle. And I just remind them what their 
chairman of the House Financial Services said about the efforts to 
reform and revamp Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back when the Republicans 
were in charge of both the White House and this Congress.
  There was an effort to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between Mr. 
Oxley and Mr. Frank, but instead of getting any assistance, he fumed 
particularly about the White House. This was from an article in the 
Financial Times. It was by Mr. Oxley. This is an article written and 
quoted from Mr. Oxley in the Financial Times last September, September 
9, 2008, where he fumes against criticism that the House didn't try to 
reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back a few years ago. He says, ``All 
the hand-wringing and bed-wetting is going on without remembering how 
the House stepped up on this,'' to try to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac. He said, ``What did we get from the White House?'' A White House 
that was controlled by the Republicans. ``We got a one-finger salute'' 
in trying to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  Well, unlike under Republican leadership, we've been working on 
reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and we have been looking for ways 
to cut costs and expenses of the United States. And one of those places 
we're already doing something about, which makes their suggestion looks 
like peanuts, and that's in Iraq.
  The Republicans, under the leadership of George Bush and the 
Republican Congress, cut the taxes for the wealthiest 1 percent, 
prosecuted two wars without paying for them, left Wall Street in 
disarray by failing to police Wall Street. And what did we get? We got 
a financial meltdown and a giant debt, $1.3 trillion, when Barack Obama 
took office. And now they're complaining about the costs that they left 
in place based on their way of running the country.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, a couple times ago when I was on the 
floor and we were doing the rule, we got into this debate about blaming 
George Bush for everything, and I would simply remind my colleague, as 
I did that day, I'd pin the tail on the donkey. We know who controls 
the spending and taxing around here.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the favorite son 
from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the American people understand that this Nation is 
facing a debt crisis. Congress, under control of our friends on the 
other side of the aisle, the Democrats, has seen the deficit increase 
almost tenfold since they took control of Congress. We know that 
President Obama has now submitted a budget which will double the 
national debt in 5 years and triple it in 10 from 2008.
  Madam Speaker, I serve on the President's Fiscal Responsibility 
Commission, and we have recently heard testimony that when a nation's 
gross debt equals 90 percent of its economy--in this case, GDP--that 
the needle has hit the red zone, that you can lose economic growth. 
And, on average, history tells us you can lose 1 percentage point, a 
full third. The Congressional Budget Office is predicting 3 percent 
economic growth. It could be 2 percent.
  Madam Speaker, the United States' gross debt is now at 89 percent of 
GDP, and the American people now know it's either you cut or your 
children may one day face bankruptcy.
  Spending is out of control. Our children are facing a future with 
fewer jobs, shrinking paychecks, smaller homes, an American Dream that 
is constricted and diminished. We are on the verge of being the first 
generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a 
lower standard of living.
  And just this morning on the Budget Committee, Chairman Bernanke said 
that it is important that the Congress act today on the government-
sponsored enterprises; it is important that the Congress act today on 
enacting a budget; it's important that the government act today to 
reduce the national debt that has an impact on economic growth and jobs 
today.
  But we have no plan, at least listening to the gentleman from 
Colorado. If we had a plan to deal with the GSEs, it has not ended in a 
success that the American people recognize. We're now looking at $147 
billion of taxpayer bailout. Between the government-sponsored 
enterprises and the FHA, they now control approximately 95 percent of 
the market. More government control.
  And that's why the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett, and I have 
introduced H.R. 4889, the GSE Bailout Elimination and Taxpayer 
Protection Act, to end this. And, instead, what we have from our other 
friends from the other side of the aisle is they actually exempt the 
government-sponsored enterprises who are at the epicenter of the 
financial crisis from the new legislation.
  Again, it is time that we put Fannie and Freddie on a road to market 
competition to end the perpetual bailouts, to save taxpayers money, 
because it's either you cut or your children pay for it.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my friend 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, I want to acknowledge the praise 
given to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), and, I would 
add, I was thanked, but the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) 
worked closely with Mrs. Capito to bring this bill forward.

[[Page H4280]]

  Secondly, on the deficit, this Friday morning I will be at a meeting. 
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and I are beginning an enterprise 
to pull back the excessive overreach of America militarily. We are 
spending more money now defending Western Europe from an enemy unknown 
to anybody--including those in Western Europe--than we're spending on 
virtually any domestic program. So, yes, I welcome that, and I'll look 
to see where we are on that.
  I support President Obama's efforts to save money in the space 
program. Frankly, when people tell me that we have got a serious debt 
crisis but they're willing to commit hundreds of billions of dollars to 
send a human being to Mars so he or she can be brought back--and the 
President is not, I think, correct on this--then I am also skeptical.
  Some of my friends in the Agricultural Committee and in the South who 
support sending $147 million of American tax dollars to the Brazilian 
cotton farmers to offset the subsidy given to American cotton farmers, 
I doubt their true depth of their commitment to cutting the budget.
  But let me talk about revisionist history.
  The Republican Party controlled the Congress from 1995 to 2006. No 
legislation changing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went through. President 
Bush controlled the executive branch for 2000 to 2008. What he did--he 
said he wanted some reform. You've heard the former chairman, the 
former Republican chairman Mr. Oxley, denigrate Mr. Bush's cooperation 
there. But in 2004, the Bush administration ordered Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac to increase the number of mortgages they bought for people 
below the median income. And at the time I said I thought that was a 
mistake; wrong for the people who were being pushed into this, wrong 
for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and, in fact, it led me to change my 
opinion.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 9, 2010 on Page H4280 the following appeared: bought for 
people below the million in-
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: bought for 
people below the median in-


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  In 2003, I didn't think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed change, but 
George Bush converted me. He converted me when he sent them much too 
deeply, by his decision, into more subprime mortgages. I thought it was 
better to use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for affordable rental housing. 
Once that happened, I joined Mr. Oxley in 2005 in an effort to pass a 
bill, and I supported a bill that passed in the House.
  Now, we're going to hear from some Republican Members today who say 
nothing was done. You know what their problem was, Madam Speaker? They 
couldn't get the support of their own Republicans. The Republican 
leadership of the Financial Services Committee today, the Republican 
leadership of the House today joined Mr. Oxley to be repudiated and yet 
it had some amendments.
  But let's be very clear. The bill that passed the House in 2005, 
which I, by the way, ultimately voted against not because of anything 
to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because of restrictions that 
were added by the Rules Committee in the self-executing rule to housing 
programs through affordable rental housing that would have, for 
example, kept the Catholic church from participating in that.
  But on the substance of the bill you will hear that, well, there were 
amendments and many of us opposed those amendments. That's true. I 
opposed some of those amendments. The chairman of the committee, Mr. 
Oxley, opposed those amendments. The Republican leader today, Mr. 
Boehner, opposed those amendments. The majority of Republicans on the 
Financial Services Committee today opposed those amendments. No 
amendment offered in either the committee or on the floor of the House 
by the handful of Republicans who will be here today blaming the 
Democrats, when the Republicans controlled the White House and the 
Republicans controlled the House and the Republicans controlled the 
Senate, the House passed the bill, and a handful of Republicans opposed 
it. And no amendment they offered on the floor or in committee got a 
majority of Republican votes. If no Democrat had voted on that bill, 
the outcome would have been exactly the same.
  In 2007, when the Democrats took the majority, I became the chairman, 
and for the first time, the Congress did, in that Congress, pass a bill 
to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was held up in the Senate, 
unfortunately. We did it in 2007. But under that bill, Secretary of the 
Treasury Paulson, acting on behalf of President Bush, put Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac into conservatorship.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 9, 2010 on Page H4280 the following appeared: for the first 
time, the Congresses did,
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: for the first 
time, the Congress did,


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  So when people say nothing's been done, in fact, the most drastic 
reform to date in the financial area came when Secretary Paulson, under 
authority given to him by the Democratic Congress in 2008, put Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. The debts that are owed are 
the debts that were incurred during the period when George Bush was 
President and when the Republicans were unable to enact legislation to 
reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

                              {time}  1345

  Now, there was some here who were on the other side. I was 
unconvinced of the need to do that in 2003. In 2004, when the Bush 
administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more deeply into 
buying sub-prime mortgages, I opposed that, as I will put in the 
Record, and then joined Mr. Oxley in trying to reform it.
  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are today in conservatorship. They got up 
and testified before our committee, unchallenged by any of the 
Republicans who were tougher in his absence----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. As Secretary Donovan testified, 
unchallenged by any of the Republicans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are 
not now costing the taxpayers any money. The money that is owed is from 
the prior activity before Secretary Paulson put them into 
conservatorship with authority that he did not get from a Republican 
Congress but from a Democratic Congress, and Secretary Paulson said it 
wasn't a perfect bill but it was a bill that he could work with.
  Since then, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been in conservatorship. 
They have already been drastically changed, and they are not costing 
the taxpayer moneys. Clearly, we have to take a next step, but we have 
consulted with the Realtors, with the home builders, with advocates for 
low-income housing, with virtually everyone concerned with housing, and 
their recommendation is, yes, keep them in conservatorship and replace 
them.
  The Republican plan that you have heard, the plan of the minority of 
Republicans from 2005, abolishes them with no replacement, and so 
housing finance is left in a turmoil. We have Ginnie Mae, we have the 
FHA, we have the Federal home loan banks, we have Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac. Yes, we believe there should be a sorting out of these 
things, but let's again just summarize.
  I have been told that it was my fault that during the Republican 
years in Congress we didn't pass a bill on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 
Well, Mr. DeLay of recent memory was in charge of the House agenda 
then, and I have to disclaim the notion that I was secretly advising 
Mr. DeLay, and I'll prove that to you, Madam Speaker. If I were giving 
Mr. DeLay advice, I would have told him not to go on the dance show. It 
wouldn't have just been Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would have 
benefited; a lot would have benefited.
  But we were frustrated by him. He was in charge of the housing 
agenda. A few Republicans wanted to change it. They were outvoted by 
the Republican majority. When the Democrats took office--and you can 
read this in Secretary Paulson's book--we cooperated with the Paulson 
administration. We gave them the authority to put it into 
conservatorship. They are now both in conservatorship, and we await the 
next step.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman was forthright 
that he tried to kill the bill that passed the House, went to the 
Senate and died, the GSE reform bill. The gentleman did say he voted 
against it, and he did.
  I would also remind the gentleman, today is today, and where's the 
budget? Where's the budget for the House to vote on? Where's the 
budget? Deafening silence. We should be doing the budget, the budget 
where the people of the United States find out what the glide path and 
direction should be for this country for all this spending. Deafening 
silence, Madam Speaker. Where's

[[Page H4281]]

the leadership there? We were talking about a small FHA bill. How about 
for the United States, all the spending that's going to happen? So, 
once again, pin the tail on the donkey.
  Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Before I begin, I just have to respond to 
the chairman's remarks. You know, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask you to listen 
to what the gentleman from Virginia said before. We're not about at 
this point in time looking back. We're about looking forward. We're not 
about looking at pointing blame. I know you have been on the floor for 
Special Orders speaking for over an hour saying that you're not at 
fault and you come here again to say that you're not the responsible 
party, that nothing to do with it as far as the problems with the GSEs, 
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac can be laid at your footsteps and it's all 
the Republicans' fault.
  We're not here about trying to point blame to actions that were taken 
in the committee. We are not here to point blame when you said let's 
roll the dice and see what happens. We're not here to point blame at 
you to say that when you said repeatedly in the past that there's not a 
systemic risk with the GSEs, we're not here to bounce that. We are 
where the American public is, to look forward to see what we can do now 
with the crisis that we're in.
  I rise today with a message from the American people and that they 
are simply tired of this pointing blame and they are tired of the 
hollow promises of reform from Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat 
majority. They are tired of hearing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are 
projected to cost the taxpayers upwards of $389 billion. So they're 
probably a little bit shocked when they hear you say that it's not 
going to cost the American public anything. We know that it will cost 
upwards, for the past actions, $389 billion, and going forward who 
knows exactly what it will cost the American taxpayers.
  Since taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-
sponsored mortgage-backing companies, American taxpayers have spent so 
far $145 billion for these two companies, and here's the important 
point. This is what we're trying to make here is that Congress still 
has not considered any proposals whatsoever to reform these companies 
and recoup those taxpayer dollars. We're about to go into conference, 
and there is nothing in the Senate or the House bills that deal with 
that situation.
  We, on the other hand, in this YouCut proposal that's on the floor 
right now, would suggest that we can save the American taxpayers how 
much money? Up to $30 billion. Look, I know that originally Congress 
put a cap of $200 billion on it, and then the administration lifted 
that cap and raised it up to $400 billion that it could cost the 
taxpayers, and then in the dead of night on Christmas Eve 2009, they 
lifted that cap and went even further and said it's unlimited over the 
next 3 years what it will cost the American taxpayers to bail out 
Fannie and Freddie. I know that the administration did all that. I also 
know that it's nowhere projected or listed really honestly in the 
budget that we're still waiting to hear, as the gentleman from Texas 
just pointed out.
  We know also that, as we say, there is no plan from the majority or 
from this administration to try to rein that in to save these $30 
billion, and that is why we come to the floor to do just that because 
the American taxpayers, American voters have said, through YouCut, that 
that is exactly what we need to do.
  Professor Hal Scott from Harvard Law School noted how incomplete the 
financial services regulatory reform legislation is. He said this: ``It 
doesn't address GSE reform,'' Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ``which 
arguably is the most costly part of the entire bailout process. If you 
look at the money we've actually spent on the bailout, the GSEs are 
costing us billions.'' There is no solution from the White House.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks in debate to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would just remind the body that 
we're here on the FHA bill, the reformation of FHA which my friends 
have applauded, and that's really what we're here to talk about, a 
savings of $2.5 billion, more accountability from FHA, which has had to 
fill a vacuum in the housing market because of the loss of so many 
lenders who got so involved with sub-prime loans.
  So I'd also say to my friend Mr. Garrett, Madam Speaker, that I think 
that sometimes if you take a look at the past actions that we saw under 
the Republican Party and their failure to rein in Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac, rein in a Wall Street that was out of control, cut taxes 
and not pay for wars, that gives you an idea of what they may be doing 
in the future. And that's what the people of this country want to have 
an idea of what to expect, and looking back at the past actions, I 
would say, gives you a good indication.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas, Ms. Jackson 
Lee.
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. My good friend is absolutely right. We're 
here today to talk about the reform of FHA and to really give relief to 
the borrowers who will have the ability to see the current cap on 
mortgage insurance premiums increase and generally give opportunity for 
Americans to make whole and make good on the home buyers market to get 
back into the market.
  The sub-prime debacle, the whole foreclosure devastation, tragedy 
happened on the last administration's clock, the Republican 
administration's clock. So I wonder now when we stand here to try to 
help new home buyers get into the market, work with the real estate 
industry, and make people whole, there seems to be an opposition.
  The whole GSE reform was something that could have been done under 
the last administration's clock, but they wanted to take a sledge 
hammer and axe and destroy the opportunity for individuals to be able 
to access the kind of moneys and resources so you could get into a 
home.
  I support this legislation, H.R. 5072, the FHA Reform Act, because 
what it will do is to give Americans back their wealth again, allow 
them to buy homes, give them the insurance premiums that they need, and 
to get us back on track. This is the right direction. Let's keep going 
forward to help America stay strong.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5072--``FHA Reform Act 
of 2010''. The Chair of the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, 
Chairwoman Maxine Waters of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
Opportunity, and the co-sponsors of this bill must be applauded for 
moving this important legislation to the floor. This legislation amends 
the National Housing Act to authorize the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development, HUD, to increase the maximum annual premium payments 
for mortgage insurance, and makes the charging of the premiums 
discretionary instead of mandatory.
  The Federal Housing Administration, FHA, has its origins in the post-
depression era. However, in the last several years, FHA has been a 
major force in breathing life into the depressed housing market. With 
51 percent of African Americans homebuyers and 45 percent of Hispanic 
families who purchased homes in 2008, using FHA financing, FHA is far 
and away the leader in helping minorities purchase and maintain their 
homes.
  Subprime mortgage loans, which were at the heart of the housing 
crisis, were disproportionately made to blacks and other minorities. 
For example, Wells Fargo loan officers described the high interest rate 
mortgages targeted at Black homeowners as ``ghetto loans,'' an 
unacceptable and terribly offensive reference. As a result, a 
disproportionate number of blacks and minorities have been forced into 
foreclosure. In predominantly Black neighborhoods, 1 in every 8 loans 
dispersed by the large lender, Wells Fargo, resulted in foreclosure, 
while in predominantly White neighborhoods, only 1 of every 59 Wells 
Fargo loans resulted in foreclosure.
  With the increase in foreclosures, foreclosure rescue and loan 
modification scams have been on the rise. The Internet has been flooded 
with schemes by fraudulent organizations and individuals who are 
charging fees for counseling services, a service that HUD provides free 
of charge. Some of these scams go as far as to require homeowners to 
sign over or transfer the deeds to their homes, and many are simply 
absconding with the mortgage payments that homeowners are struggling to 
make.

[[Page H4282]]

  Something must be done to protect these hard working Americans, who 
are already facing financial distress and the potential loss of their 
home, from these predatory schemes. The Home Affordable Modification 
Program (HAMP) was implemented just over a year ago to aide homeowners 
in modifying their loans as opposed to turning to these fraudulent 
schemes. Unfortunately, the program has been unable to keep pace with 
the quickening pace of foreclosures.
  In 2010, over 40 years since the Federal Housing Administration was 
established, FHA is playing an increasingly important role in 
stabilizing economically disadvantaged communities, while providing 
assistance to families across a wide-range of incomes. As John Taylor 
testified before the Financial Services Subcommittee Housing and 
Community Opportunity, ``research by Dan Immergluck shows that FHA 
lending is more likely in communities experiencing high unemployment, 
smaller metropolitan areas, metropolitan areas experiencing large home 
price declines, and Zip codes with lower median home values. In other 
words, FHA lending has increased while conventional lending has 
decreased in communities hardest hit by the current severe recession.''
  Despite this, more must be done to protect home owners and enable 
prospective homebuyers. This reform bill is a vital step toward that 
end. Section 4 of this legislation authorizes the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development to terminate approval of a mortgagee to originate 
or underwrite single family mortgages if the mortgagee's rate of early 
defaults and claims is excessive. This will help to reverse the damage 
caused by predatory lending, and help families keep their homes. This 
will have a ripple effect throughout countless cities because entire 
neighborhoods are currently at risk of being abandoned due to 
foreclosures. Saving these neighborhoods will keep communities intact, 
and will preserve neighborhoods for revitalization that is vital to the 
nation's economic recovery efforts.
  Section 14 of this legislation authorizes the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development to reimburse servicers of HUD-insured residential 
mortgages for the costs of obtaining the services of specified 
independent third parties, including a HUD-approved housing counseling 
agency, to make in-person contact, at no charge, with mortgagors whose 
payments are 60 or more days past due, solely to provide information 
regarding: (1) HUD-approved housing counseling agencies; and (2) 
mortgage loan modification, refinance, and assistance programs. During 
these trying economic times, this HUD-approved counseling must be a 
vital tool for families at risk of defaulting on their mortgagees, as 
they decide on the best financial course of action at no cost to them.
  It is my hope that this legislation will help to enable these 
disadvantaged groups, as well as struggling homeowners to retain their 
homes if they own one, or to buy homes for the first time if they do 
not. As Graciela Aponte of the National Council of La Raza testified 
before the Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
Opportunity, ``communities of color, low-income families, and first 
time homebuyers--FHA's target market--have been disproportionally 
impacted by the toxic subprime mortgages on the housing market.''
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting the FHA Reform Act of 2010, H.R. 5072. 
Legislation this important to the American homeowner and to our economy 
must be passed immediately.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I rise today on behalf of thousands of Americans who, 
through YouCut, have overwhelmingly asked that Congress address one of 
the most egregious examples of Washington's fiscal irresponsibility, 
the ongoing bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  These two failed mortgage giants directly fueled the financial 
turmoil that has cost millions of Americans their jobs, their savings, 
and their homes. Already, bailouts of Fannie and Freddie have cost 
taxpayers $145 billion, with a final tab estimated to reach over $380 
billion, more than the entire TARP bailout.
  Despite these alarming facts, the Democrat overhaul proposals 
designed to address the financial crisis completely ignore the two most 
visible and costly contributors to the crisis. Madam Speaker, there are 
two 800-pound gorillas named Freddie and Fannie in this room. They are 
responsible for over $5 trillion for outstanding liabilities, and they 
are now owned by the taxpayers. The American people cannot afford the 
risk, and they are tired of watching Congress fail to act.
  Today, with the support of thousands of YouCut participants, we have 
an opportunity to save taxpayers $30 billion or more by taking 
immediate action to reform the failed mortgage giant. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the bailouts and show the American people 
that Congress is listening.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would ask the Speaker how much time I have left and 
how much time Mr. Sessions has left, and I would ask my friend how many 
speakers he has left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 15 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If I could answer the gentleman's question, Madam 
Speaker, of how many more speakers, I've got three or four more 
speakers.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Charleston, West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Sessions from 
Texas and I would like to thank Mr. Frank, the chairman of our 
committee, for the work that we've done on the underlying bill, the FHA 
reform bill. It is an important bill, and we will be debating that and 
talking about that quite a bit for the next 2 days.
  What I've heard over the last week when I was home for the district 
work period is that people are really concerned about the spending and 
overspending that's going on here in Washington. Folks in West Virginia 
are tightening their belts and making difficult decisions, but they 
don't see that happening here in Washington.
  Right today, we have before us in the previous question vote, we're 
going to have an opportunity to make a cut in government that makes a 
lot of sense. Over 315,000 Americans have voted to perform this cut on 
government spending by voting to reform Fannie and Freddie. We estimate 
that we could save approximately $30 billion over 10 years--that's 
significant--by ending some of the government conservatorship, 
shrinking their portfolios of Fannie and Freddie, establishing minimum 
capital standards, and bringing transparency to taxpayer exposure.
  Since going into conservatorship--and many folks have been quoting 
this figure--the U.S. taxpayer has supported the GSEs to the tune of 
over $145 billion.

                              {time}  1400

  As we heard from Mr. Garrett from New Jersey, that is limitless, how 
far that can go.
  One of the things I don't think taxpayers realize when they made this 
vote on YouCut was that recently the Treasury Department and the 
Federal Housing Finance Agency approved compensation packages for the 
chief executive officers of Fannie and Freddie of $6 million each, 
including $2 million incentive payments for each executive.
  These compensation levels are 30 times that of a Cabinet Secretary, 
and they were approved for entities that are owned basically by the 
taxpayers and entities that have borrowed large sums from the 
taxpayers.
  And I think by this YouCut vote what Americans are saying is, 
``Enough is enough.'' We have heard a lot about the past and whose 
fault it is, quite frankly, over the last week. I didn't hear anybody 
wanting to cast blame; they want people to solve problems. That's what 
they have sent us here to Washington to do. We need to look forward to 
solve these problems.
  So, as we all know, both Republicans and Democrats, lots of times the 
American people are a lot farther ahead of us in their thinking and in 
their commonsense solutions. And one of these is this YouCut proposal 
before us today, which will give us an opportunity to put their voices 
before us and for us to give them a sign of approval that, yes, $30 
billion from Fannie and Freddie to save government money, to also end 
the conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie.
  That's another thing I hear in town hall meetings across the 
district: People don't know who Fannie or Freddie are. They are costing 
each American taxpayer dollars every day to the tune of over $145 
billion in total.
  So, with that, I would ask that we vote ``yes'' on this YouCut 
proposal. It makes good, common sense.

[[Page H4283]]

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would remind my friend from West Virginia--and I do 
appreciate that $30 billion over 10 years--take a look at their 
proposition. It is for another bill for another day. We are dealing 
with FHA, which saves $2.5 billion today.
  Also, I would remind her, Madam Speaker, that, over the course of 
this year and last year, we started drawing down in Iraq, which was 
costing this country upwards of $100 billion a year, not $30 billion 
over 10 years, $100 billion a year, not paid for by the Bush 
administration. So, as we draw down from 160,000 troops to some 50,000 
or 40,000 troops this summer, we are going to save far more money than 
the Republicans and this Fannie Mae proposal project.
  I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) to 
respond to some of the things my friend from West Virginia said.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, to underline it, under authority 
that the Bush administration asked for and didn't get until the 
Democrats took over Congress, Fannie and Freddie were put into 
conservatorship. That's a very drastic reform of where they were.
  The $145 billion that, regrettably, is being lost was lost before the 
conservatorship. We put an end to those losses. And that's the current 
testimony of Secretary Donovan.
  And then as to compensation, I welcome my friend from West Virginia, 
belatedly, to the cause of limiting the compensation. Because the 
Committee on Financial Services put a bill out to specifically limit 
the compensation of the GSEs. We had general compensation limitations 
for TARP recipients, but we had one that would have limited GSE 
recipients, as well. And the gentlewoman from West Virginia voted 
against it, as did most of the Republicans.
  So we had a general compensation restriction, and we had one for--I 
take it back. It was any recipients of government aid, including the 
GSEs and the TARP recipients. And the Republican Party voted ``no.'' So 
they are now opposed to raises which they refused to vote to block. 
That's the pattern.
  And I stress again, Fannie and Freddie have already been drastically 
reformed. They are in conservatorship. That is a very significant form 
of limitation. They are not being run remotely the way they were in the 
past when the Bush administration and others pushed them into buying 
too many loans from low-income people. And we do believe they need to 
be replaced, but in a way that does not further destabilize housing 
finance.
  That's why the realtors and the home builders and a number of groups 
concerned about the deficit oppose this Republican plan simply to 
abolish them without replacing housing finance mechanisms. But they are 
currently being run in conservatorship.
  And, again, I repeat, as Secretary Donovan said, unchallenged by the 
Republicans when he was testifying, they are not now losing the money. 
The losses predated the conservatorship, and the responsible thing to 
do was to replace them responsibly.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), former mayor of Charlotte, North 
Carolina, now a Member of Congress.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people get it. They understand Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac need to be reformed.
  The Federal Government has spent, as you have heard over and over, 
$145 billion in taxpayer dollars to prop up these two government 
entities. And through YouCut, the American people have voted to have 
shrink the portfolios of Fannie and Freddie. And, most importantly, 
they have demanded transparency, something that has been missing for a 
long time in the Federal Government relative to spending.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these changes will 
save up to 30 billion taxpayer dollars. And it's no secret, we can't 
keep spending money that we don't have.
  The American people know this, and they have gone to YouCut to have 
cast hundreds of thousands of votes over the last 3 weeks to demand we 
cut reckless spending out of our budget.
  We need to do what we were sent to D.C. to do, and that is to vote 
for the wishes of the people that we represent back home. And a vote to 
reform Fannie and Freddie is a vote to save the American people, 
taxpayers, $30 billion.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wheaton, Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, I came here to the floor a couple of minutes 
ago, and I thought, ``Surely, I am not going to hear and see the tired, 
old, symbolic show pony of George W. Bush and his administration being 
trotted out in this Chamber once again,'' but I wasn't disappointed.
  It just amazes me, Mr. Speaker, at the lack of creativity and 
forward-thinking and problem-solving that we see animated on the other 
side of the aisle, that all they can do is look in this rear-view 
mirror and wring their hands and moan and grown and say, ``Well, it's 
George W. Bush's fault.'' I think the American public is just tired of 
that. I think the American public isn't persuaded by it.
  I offered an amendment very straightforwardly last night--it was 
offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas in the Rules Committee--that would 
have said a very simple thing. It would have said, if you are running 
Fannie and Freddie, if you are an employee of Fannie and Freddie, new 
rules. And the new rule is you are not going to make any more than we 
pay the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  Not particularly controversial, not particularly groundbreaking, but 
it makes a lot of sense. I mean, if the majority has now found this 
robust desire to truncate compensation, why in the world wouldn't we 
focus in on this area that we tend to agree with?
  And, frankly, the argument that these entities are no longer losing 
money, I think, is not persuading the citizens of the Sixth District.
  I see the chairman wants to be recognized, and I would be happy to 
yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. I only have 3 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But the fact is that it's not losing 
money--whether it's persuasive or not, the fact is uncontested that 
it's not losing money. The CBO talks about past debt.
  Mr. ROSKAM. You made that argument earlier, and I am going to reclaim 
my time. I have gone to the Mr. Frank School of Floor Management and 
learned well.
  Mr. Speaker, here was the opportunity for the majority to say, ``We 
are going to focus in on this. We are not going to put up with any more 
nonsense of spending $145 billion.'' And the price tag, let's be 
honest, is up to $400 billion and rising.
  We know what we need to do here, Mr. Speaker. We know when to do it. 
And I urge us to be like-minded in stopping this approach that the 
majority has and a complete failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie in 
a responsible way, in my view, and not support the motion.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, sometimes you have to remind people from 
time to time about what happened in the past, because it's important. 
History is important.
  I would remind my friend from Illinois, you know, that there was an 
effort to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when it was purchasing a 
lot of lousy loans that have resulted in these losses. But, instead, 
what did the reformation, the reforming of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
get back when you could have stopped these losses? We got the one-
finger salute from the White House, a Republican White House that, for 
some reason or other, did not want to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac.
  And I have to tell you, Mr. Oxley, by giving that statement, we got a 
one-finger salute. When he made his statement on September 9, 2008, he 
described perfectly what the White House wanted to do with Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac. The White House, at that point, under the Bush 
administration, just, ``Let's buy all these lousy loans. Let's just 
keep it going.''
  Well, that bubble burst. And the American people and the Democratic 
Congress and the Democratic administration are having to pick up the 
pieces now from that imprudent, improper approach to housing finance.
  We want people to have homes that they can afford in this country. If 
they

[[Page H4284]]

can't afford them, then, okay, they don't get them. The FHA bill that 
is before the House today provides, in a proper and prudent way, 
insurance for those home purchases to people who can afford and can 
show their ability to make these payments.
  That is the purpose of the bill today. My friends on the other side 
want to talk about some other thing that they didn't do 3 or 4 years 
ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to talk about the past that 
the gentleman from Illinois is so desperate to cover up.
  The House voted on a bill that would have limited compensation to 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives a year ago. It was not on other 
corporations; it was on TARP recipients, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  It came out of committee, it came to the floor of the House, and the 
gentleman voted against it. If he had helped us a year ago--it passed 
the House but it died in the Senate--if we had been able to get that 
bill through, we would have limited these.
  So the gentleman over a year ago--and I know that's history and he 
doesn't like to talk about history, particularly when it doesn't 
reflect well on his argument--but he voted against that limitation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The reason we talk about the history is 
very simple: Every dollar that is lost and is about to be lost was lost 
because there was a delay in reform.
  The losses are not resulting from current operations. Secretary 
Donovan said that before the committee, and no Republican challenged 
him. We are stuck with losses that happened before we were able to put 
it into conservatorship by our votes and stop the bleeding.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would ask the Speaker how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 9\1/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I appreciate the revised view of history itself. For some time, my 
Republican colleagues have been trying to blame those of us who try to 
expand housing, decent housing for lower-income people, for the crisis, 
including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  I think the record is very clear. Twelve years of Republican rule, no 
bill became law to change Fannie and Freddie Mac's operation. George 
Bush in 2004--not ancient history--expands, by his mandate, the number 
of low-income loans that they have to purchase, loans from low-income 
people.
  That is why we have the debt. That is why this is relevant. The 
Democrats take power in 2007 and, working with Secretary Paulson, as he 
documents in his book--and he notes, by the way, that some Republicans 
were mad at him for working with us. But the result was a good bill 
that allowed him to put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship. And, 
post-conservatorship, we have not had the problems.

                              {time}  1415

  If you abolish Fannie and Freddie tomorrow, you wouldn't save a penny 
because we would still have the debts that accrued when it was run 
previously, an unreformed Fannie and Freddie--unreformed because the 
Republicans wouldn't touch it, unreformed probably because President 
Bush pushed them into more loans. To talk about what you do in the 
future you have to understand the source of the problem; that's what we 
get in history.
  So Fannie and Freddie have been drastically changed and they are in 
conservatorship. The question is, what do you do next? They have played 
an important role in housing finance. They are playing a constructive 
role now as opposed to the destructive role they played before. And I 
was slow in recognizing that; it wasn't until 2004 that I did. But in 
2005, I joined many Republicans in trying to support a bill until it 
was hijacked from any housing purposes. By the way, the fact that I 
voted against the bill finally had no impact. The bill passed the 
House. It died in the Senate because Senate Republicans didn't like it. 
Senate Democrats offered the House Republican bill; that caused the end 
of the war.
  But let's talk about going forward. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are 
now run by a conservator. Unfortunately, their salaries aren't capped 
because the Republicans helped sabotage a bill which we supported to 
cap their salaries. But it is now being run in a way that helps promote 
financial--and does not have the mistakes of the past. There are not 
these problems. The money owed is money that results from past 
decisions that are no longer being taken because of the 
conservatorship.
  The question is, what do you do going forward? The National 
Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, 
everybody involved in housing finance argues--very correctly, I think--
that simply having Fannie and Freddie disappear--again, not the old 
Fannie and Freddie, they have disappeared, the agencies that caused us 
the problems no longer exist. My colleague from Illinois, with a fresh 
figure of speech, said they were 800-pound gorillas. Well, if they are 
gorillas, they are deeply chained, they are in cages, and they are 
being fed and are quite docile. Yes, they need to be replaced, but you 
need to take all of the various aspects of housing finance and figure 
out how to do it going forward. The Republican bill doesn't do that; 
that's too hard.
  Railing against the mistakes of the past--and they say they don't 
like history? But their bill is a firm statement against the operation 
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before it was put into conservatorship 
and deals, unfortunately, with debts that we are stuck with. Going 
forward, how do you untangle the private shareholder corporation and a 
public mandate to try and subsidize housing to some extent? What agency 
should you have? What's the role of the Federal Housing Administration 
and Ginnie Mae and the private sector and the secondary market 
entities? We need to think about that. They haven't done that. Their 
bill includes nothing to replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So passing 
their bill tomorrow--or last week--wouldn't save us anything because 
their current operations aren't losing money, and it wouldn't discharge 
us from the debts that occurred when it was being run on their watch 
under their rules.
  We do stop the bleeding by putting them into a tough conservatorship. 
You can read Hank Paulson's book, and he tells you how they were going 
to resist that. He insisted and fired the board of directors and 
shareholders were substantially diminished or wiped out. And new rules, 
new loans are going forward that aren't the kind of bad loans that were 
made, and now our job is, responsibly, to try and replace it. And what 
you get from the Republicans is confession. They are very angry at the 
fact that when they were running the place in the White House and here, 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to run up all those debts and they 
never were able to do anything to stop it. I didn't see that early on. 
I saw it--and in fact acted on it--quicker than many of them. We have 
now stopped the bad stuff and we are not incurring losses, and the 
question is, what do you do going forward? And that is a harder 
question than my Republican colleagues are prepared to grapple with.
  I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I gather that the gentleman from Colorado 
is now, by shaking his head, through with other speakers, and I will go 
ahead and offer my close. And I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it's interesting that we blame George Bush, and 
yet he never got a bill to sign. It's a pretty interesting concept when 
we blame the President for something that never came to his desk.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to offer commonsense solutions to 
rein in the current spending spree by our Democratic colleagues. We, 
like the American people, would like to see some transparency and 
accountability from our elected leaders.

[[Page H4285]]

  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and 
extraneous material immediately prior to vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The legislation before us today brings some stability 
to the currently wavering housing market; but Americans are still 
concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the Democratic agenda, the Democratic 
agenda of taxing and spending, the Democratic agenda that the three 
largest political items by this Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and President 
Barack Obama will lose 10 million American jobs, ten million American 
jobs that still hang in the balance based upon the whims of this 
majority party.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that increasing deficits, increasing spending, 
more taxes on business, shrinking job numbers, it's a sad day if we 
want to look back and blame everything on George Bush, and yet we know 
why this is happening. For that reason, I encourage a ``no'' vote on 
the previous question to bring some fiscal sanity and restraint to this 
body and a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the initial comments by 
Mr. Sessions and a number of the other Republicans about the bill that 
is before us--or hopefully will be before us, the FHA Reform Act of 
2010, which is a bill that provides more accountability to FHA, saves 
money, $2.5 billion over 5 years with FHA, and FHA has had to fill a 
vacuum left by a lot of the subprime lenders that made lousy loans and 
are now out of business. So it is a substantial agency that helps move 
housing in America, it is done in a prudent fashion, and the reforms in 
the bill make it even more prudent.
  Now, my friends on the other side want to turn it into a Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac bill, but that's not what is before us. Apparently, 
they want to do it because they have a lot of guilt that they didn't do 
it 5 years ago when we could have saved this country $100 billion or 
more, but it wasn't done. Even the chairman, the Republican chairman of 
the House Financial Services at that time, wanted to see some reforms, 
but the Republican Senate and the Republican administration under Mr. 
Bush didn't want to. And you can't be more descriptive than Mr. Oxley 
was when he spoke of the reception that the reforms got from the White 
House when he said we got a one-finger salute. I mean, that's about as 
descriptive as it gets. They didn't want to reform it. Now they want to 
reform it, and they want to forget about history.
  We're here, though, on the FHA bill. We're here to help turn this 
economy around. You want to talk about cuts? Well, let's look at Iraq. 
Let's look at some other things that--there may be savings in Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac over a period of time, there are bigger savings 
elsewhere, and we should be looking at those things. But we've got to 
get this country back to work, and that's what Democrats are doing.
  Under the Bush administration to January 2009, we lost 780,000 jobs 
in that month alone. In April of this year, we gained 290,000 jobs, a 
swing of well over 1 million jobs per month. We've got to get people 
back to work. We've got to watch spending. But we've got to get the 
revenue side, and we've got to get people back to work. We've got to 
help them with their homes. This FHA insurance bill provides a 
reasonable and prudent insurer to assist with the purchase and sale of 
homes.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

      Amendment to H. Res. 1424--Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 4889) to establish a term certain for the 
     conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to provide 
     conditions for continued operation of such enterprises, and 
     to provide for the wind down of such operations and the 
     dissolution of such enterprises. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) of 
     rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 4889.
       Sec. 5. Immediately upon the final disposition of H.R. 
     4889, the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4653) to provide on-budget status to the 
     Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home 
     Loan Mortgage Corporation. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall 
     be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and 
     the Minority Leader or their respective designees. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. During consideration of the 
     bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to 
     be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
     designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, 
     then on the next legislative day the house shall, 
     immediately after the third daily order of business under 
     clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) 
     of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 
     4653.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from

[[Page H4286]]

     Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional 
     Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control 
     of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually 
     the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of 
     debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending 
     business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House 
Resolution 1424 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House 
Resolution 1424, if ordered; the motion to suspend the rules on House 
Resolution 989; and the motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 
1178.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 180, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 339]

                               YEAS--230

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     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
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NAYS--180

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     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
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     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)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Barrett (SC)
     Berkley
     Boyd
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Ellsworth
     Harman
     Hoekstra
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Johnson (GA)
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     McHenry
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Pomeroy
     Richardson
     Scott (GA)
     Watson
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  1454

  Messrs. DJOU, McKEON, BILBRAY, SHUSTER, BONNER, BISHOP of Utah, 
WHITFIELD, and BILIRAKIS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 172, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 340]

                               AYES--239

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil

[[Page H4287]]


     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     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)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     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
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--172

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hunter
     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
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     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)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Boyd
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Ellsworth
     Giffords
     Harman
     Hoekstra
     Inglis
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Lewis (GA)
     McHenry
     Miller, Gary
     Richardson
     Watson
     Yarmuth


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1502

  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.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 340 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________