[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.''
____________________